"The choice between Peace and War in the context of the present international situation is also the choice between Good and Evil which calls all Christians......to reject Satan's temptations'

JOHN PAUL11 Vatican City 16 March 2002

'The future of Humanity will never be secured through terrorism or the logic of war; Never! Never! Never!'

JOHN PAUL11 Vatican City 5 March 2003

'The War is Murder on a very large scale.....lets denounce its uselessness and intrinsic stupidity' . JOHN PAUL11 L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO 2 March 2003

'He who choses war will be held responsible in front of God'.

Dr Joaquin Navarro-Valls. Vatican City 19 March 2003

'I must declare to you my people, for the sake of your salvation and mine, that any direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil; a matter of mortal sin'.

Bishop John Botean (Head of Byzantine catholic Chuch... North America

-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), December 11, 2003

Answers

"'I must declare to you my people, for the sake of your salvation and mine, that any direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil; a matter of mortal sin'." Pope John Paul II

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.

We owe the Pope our allegiance.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 11, 2003.

Ooops. I'm going to pay for this forever... ha!

I got the quotes mismatched with the people.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 11, 2003.

Jmj

Forget it, Padraig. It's a "done deal." Not only that, but your efforts cannot be respected, since you took quotations out of context to put together a mosaic that depicts something non-factual. The pope did NOT condemn the War on Terrorism (nor its recent Battle of Iraq) in the terms used by Bishop John Botean. The pope did NOT warn Catholics not to participate under pain of sin. (And Bishop Botean is NOT the "Head of Byzantine catholic Chuch... North America".)

Bp. Botean overstepped his bounds (in his message to the Romanian Byzantine Catholics of his Canton, Ohio, diocese), because the Catechism clearly leaves it to civil leaders to determine whether or not they are participating in a just war. This fact is reflected in words written by more learned and eminent Catholic bishops. One was the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Wilton Gregory. I'll mention another by quoting from an article I found on the Internet.

"Botean's three-page letter ... was countered by Catholic Archbishop Edwin O'Brien of the U.S. Archdiocese for Military Services. ... O'Brien declared that soldiers should serve this war in good conscience, 'presuming the integrity of our leadership and its judgments.'"

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 12, 2003.

Based on the facts that are known to us, we continue to find it difficult to justify going to war with Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an immenent attack of a grave nature. With THE HOLY SEE AND BISHOPS FROM THE MIDDLE EAST AND AROUND THE WORLD, we fear that resort to war, under present circumstances and in light of current public information,WOULD NOT MEET THE STRICT CONDITIONS IN CATHOLIC TEACHINGFOR OVERRIDING THE STRONG PRESUMPTION AGAINST THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE. US Conference of Catholic Bishops....Washington D.C Nov 13 2002

-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), December 12, 2003.

Would Jesus have dropped Napalm? Would Our Lady have fires cluster bombs? Are you seriously suggesting after all the Pope has said that he did not condemn the Second Oil War?

-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), December 12, 2003.

Should we have not faught WWII and let Hitler and Japan concor the world and erraticate the Jewish race?

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 12, 2003.

"Based on the facts that are known to us, we continue to find it difficult to justify going to war with Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an immenent attack of a grave nature. "

Yes, based on the facts known to them. But they don't know all the facts. All the facts have yet to come out. The facts we now know about Saddam's killings and torturing are pretty sobering but the FACT is we don't know the whole picture and that is why the Church puts the awsome responsibility on our elected leaders to choose this commitment.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 12, 2003.

First of all while condemning any proposed attack on Iraq the Pontiff in the clearest possible terms also condemned the Iraq Dictator Sadam Hussein.

Question 1. Do you have any difficulty accepting the fact that the Holy Father condemned Saddm Hussein and the Iraq Regime?

Question 2. At the same time and in the very same statements were he condemned Saddam Hussein he condemned any war/invasion aganst it. Do you acccept that the Pope took this strong moral position?

Question 3. Are you familiar with the Psychological term Denial?

-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), December 13, 2003.

Your logic is pathetic Bill. Can you justify a war on facts you don't have yet? But you can condemn a war on facts you have - and that's what happened.

-- Brian Winds (Briwin@hotmail.com), December 13, 2003.

I am an ordinary old-fashioned Catholic. I am very happy to accept the Moral Authority of the Pope and the inerrancy of Scipture, nothing complicated; nothing difficult...if the Pope says its right its right...if the Pope says its wrong...its wrong. People used to call it being a good Catholic. From reading the threads here I thought most of the contributers to these threads thought along the same lines. But; Nope! The subject of the Iraq war came up and bang! The Pope didn't really mean this, the Pope didn't really say this, this is a special circumstance, this needs a certain emphasis, you have to be realistic, this is the real world....well I've heard it all before. I believe the best way to approach what the Pope says is like a little child...don't get complicated and don't get clever..take the Man at His word! Also as far as what Christ said in Scripture, well same thing! Now when Christ said to love your enemies and do good to those who hate you...well you know I really think He meant exactly what He said! Love your enemies means don't drop cluster bombs on them! Do good to those who hate you means don't go out and shoot them! If a man strikes you on one cheek turn to him the other means don't go after their hide's with a bunch of tanks! When the Man said what good is it to only love your friends and continue to hate your enemies was a bunch of crap...He was talking about people like the Iraqui's! Talking about Saint Thomas's Theory of a Just War is all well and good.

But here again the Word's of Christ come to mind....'Because you were so unteachable'. he was then talking about a whole different ball game...where we Europeans were just a bunch of savages with our asses hanging out of our tights. Follow the Papal teachings on from Pope Benedict during the First World War to the present day and I think you'll find a whole new ball game!

Let me finish off by telling you a story. I live in Belfast in the North of Ireland. Three years ago I bought a house near the Peace Line. Christmas two years ago I was driven from my home after a years of Hell at the hands of Loyalist/Protestant mobs....Again and again they attacked my home and the homes of other Catholics in my area. They spat at me in the streets, they tried to kill me...they broke every window in my house....finally at Christmas they forced me and many other Catholic families in the area to flee for our lives....leaving us all homeless and destitute at Christmas. But I never hated them. I never wanted or asked for soldiers to shoot them. I forgive them with all my heart and pray for them...Sound foolish? Why do I do such a mad thing? Well firstly because when the Holy Father visited Ireland that's just what He asked from us...I am very glad to carry out His wishes. And when I pick up my Bible at night to read the Words of the Lord; what do I find there? Words that are all about love and all about forgiveness. But from you what do I hear? Send in the Bombers!!! Get ready the troops!!! Mobilise the Aircraft Carriers!!! Every since I wqas a child here in Ireland we have been treated as second class citizens. Disciminated against. refused jobs, derided, refused the vote. They murder us, they torture us they indulge in the worst kind of abuse against us that we are dirty, oversexed, violent, criminal, untrustworthy.. some of us answered them with the gun believeing it to be a 'Just War'...others of us listened to Christ and the Pope and loved and forgave and trusted in the Lord. An eye for an eye will only leave us all blind. If our faith does not count for times when things are bad....in times of war and hate and death...then it means nothing either when the going is smooth. Words like 'Surgical Strike', 'Just War', 'Legitimate defence' are all very grand sounding terms for one simple thing hating and getting your own back! But we are brothers of Christ...if we are not able to rise above our hatreds we are not able to rise to the great Vocation that Christ calls us to...to compassion...to love...to forgiveness.

-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), December 13, 2003.

Brian & Padraig,

You cannot condemn a war when you know you do not have all the facts. And if we never have sufficient information we can never make such a condemnation.

It is not up to individual Catholics or the Pope to decide if a war just or not.

According to the Catechism: "The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. " That would be, for the United States, the President and the Congress.

Our government has access to information gathered by intelligence services and other means that we in the general public do not have. Because we do not possess this information, we are not in as advantaged a position to determine whether the conditions for a just war are met. As a result, the public must in significant measure be prepared to trust its leaders to make the right decision. That is also true for the Pope.

Reference: Catholic Catechism paragraph 2309.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 13, 2003.

>That is also true for the Pope.

correction: I meant the Pope had an absence of knowledge in the matter of Iraq not that he would be subservient to the Congress.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 13, 2003.

Bill,

I would like to address some of the points you made in your post.

'You cannot condemn a war when you do not have all the facts'.

Well firstly, Bill I agree with you totally I do not have all the facts, I suspect I never will. Not only as regards this war but in so much of life we have to make judgements with the information we have to hand....if we had to wait as you suggest for the time that we 'have all the fact' we might have a very long wait to make a value judgement on anything at all in this life. And when may I ask Bill will I know that I have 'All the facts' in ten years, twenty...a century? Historians are still revising their opinions as to the causes of say the American Civil War; its rights and wrongs. No, Bill, I am afraid in this life we must make do with the poor knowledge we often have. We have a duty it is true to have an informed concience, but we are not advised that are consciences should be perfectly informed; we will have to wait untill the Glorious day that we are Angels till we have that joyful priveledge. Let me touch however on some of the poor facts that we have to hand. We were told at the outset of the war that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction...no such weapons have ever been found....our Government's now tell us that they probably never will. We were told at the outset of the war that a major objective was to capture or kill Saddam Hussein; he is now nowhere to be found...for all we know he is sunning himself in a holiday resort in Florida or taking a novelty ride in Disneyland. We were told that the fall of Iraq would be a blow against Terrorism...there is and are more terrorists and terrorism in Iraq than in that sad country's entire history. We were told at the outset of the war that Iraq presented a very, credible military threat to surrounding nations...now we are told that the regime fell like a house of cards because the country and its military apparatus was on the point of collapse anyway. We were told at the outset of the war that its objectives had nothing to do with obtaining Iraq oil...yet one of the very first military objectives,...while murder and chaos reigned in the hapless cities was to grab and secure the Iraq oilfields with massive military force. So forgive me Bill if I do not want to abandon either my concience or judgements to Governments who do not, it seems to me, to be a bit slow in lying through their teeth in the most blatant and shameful ways imaginable. God gave me a concience Bill to keep and follow not to leave in a filling cabinet in the Pentagon!

You went on to say, Bill, 'It is not up to individual Catholics or the Pope to decide if a war is just or not'. Really! How remarkable! How foolish of God to have given Catholics and Popes conciences if He does not want us to use them. Forgive me Bill if I trust my concience before I trust Prime Minister Blair's concience, or President Bush's concience or a pack of star- shouldered Generals in the Pentagon. When I die, Bill and face the judgement seat of God He will not condemn me for anything George Bush has done but for things I have done...and if I have the bare-faced cheek to say to God, 'But I left it in the hands of George Bush to take care off!!' What on Earth Bill do you think God would say to be. Our conciences are given us, Bill TO BE USED...NOT GIVEN INTO THE CARE OF OTHERS. Frankly Bill I find the whole tenor of your post extrodinary. I do not know how you were taught your catechism or moral theology but again and again and again it was impressed on us the absolute primacy of an informed concience. If the history of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia can teach us anything it is the grave danger of individual suborning their conciences to the actions of Government. It is precisely your extroadinary type of thinking Bill that permitted six million Jews to go up in smoke without a murmer from the German people. Alright Bill! Put your concience in George Bushs pocket if you want...I am sure he will be very happy to have it. But as for me I am keeping it firmnly were it should be very much alive and active and looking with very critical eyes on the mass-murdering world around me!

-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), December 13, 2003.

Padraig, It simply is not your call if you live in the United States you have delegated that call to the Congress and the President. You have a few choices here: you can move to some other country or you can vote in other people. Read the Catechism in what it says about a just war and who determines if it is just or not. (I gave a reference in my previous post). Also note that it is THEIR eternal soul at stake, not yours. Lastly, if you want to have direct control on the saving of life, then work actively to deter your neighbors from getting abortions. That is something you can have more direct influence on.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 13, 2003.

Yes Bill I most certainly agree with you we must strive to stop that great evil of our times; abortion, no matter what Congress or Governments say or do we must be pro-life. But when thosands of young American soldiers and Iraquis are dying must we not be pro-life and do what we can to stop that there too?

-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), December 13, 2003.

I would like if I could to paraphrase the great speech of Docotr Martin Luther King on the Vietnam War and paraphrase it in the context of Iraq...

......'A time comes for us when silence is betrayal'. That time has come for us in relation to Iraq. The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their Governments policy, especially in time of War. .....And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in the rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Iraq continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly drawn to see the War as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such. It sends the sons and daughters of the poor to die

-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), December 13, 2003.

I would like if I could to paraphrase the great speech of Doctor Martin Luther King on the Vietnam War and paraphrase it in the context of Iraq...

......'A time comes for us when silence is betrayal'. That time has come for us in relation to Iraq. The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their Governments policy, especially in time of War. .....And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in the rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Iraq continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly drawn to see the War as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

It sends the sons and daughters of the poor to die in extroadinarily high numbers compared to the rest of society.

If we consider it wrong to address the inequalities and injustices in our own society by means of violence how then we we use violence to solve the problems of Iraq?

If Americas soul becomes completely poisoned part of the autopsy must read 'Iraq'.

We can no longer afford to worship the God of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever rising tides of hate.

-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), December 13, 2003.

 

>But when thosands of young American soldiers and Iraquis are dying must we not be pro-life and do what we can to stop that there too?

 

War, at certain times, is necessary to stop evil from continuing down a path that will hurt even more people.  People die in war is a given.  As pro-life Catholics, that presents us with a quandary.  How can something that takes life be just? 

 

Here is the teaching from the Catechism:

 

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

-          the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

-          all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

-          there must be serious prospects of success;

-          the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

Our government is telling us that Iraq is such a war and fulfills the requirements for a just war.  For now, we must believe them for we don't have enough information of the contrary.  We do not know if they are dying for a just cause or not at this point... and it isn't our call anyway.  All we know is that they are avoiding war crimes and preventing other crimes against humanity.  We will know more later.  Again, it isn't our call.  However what we and our neighbors do *is* our call.  Abortion is something we have the direct responsibility to tackle in our daily lives, now.

 

As for what our government does, we are responsible for making sure they are a just government.  We do that by speaking out and electing appropriate people into the government who will be given the secret information they need to make their judgments and then trusting them to make sound judgments.  We simply don't know at this time if the judgments the Congress and the President are making now are just or not.  One thing we do know is that the United States government is one of the most benign government in history and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are two of the most humane wars this world has ever seen.

The just war theory also has a long history. St. Augustine initiates the discussion in The City of God, Book XIX.   Whilst parts of the Bible hint at ethical behavior in war and concepts of just cause, the most systematic exposition is given by Saint Thomas Aquinas. In the Summa Theologicae Aquinas presents the general outline of what becomes the just war theory. See: "On War".    He discusses not only the justification of war, but also the kinds of activity that are permissible in war. Aquinas's thoughts become the model for later Scholastics and Jurists to expand. The most important of these are: Francisco de Vitoria (1548-1617), Francisco Suarez (1548-1617), Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), Samuel Pufendorf (1632-1704), Christian Wolff (1679- 1754), and Emerich de Vattel (1714-1767). In the twentieth century it has undergone a revival mainly in response to the invention of nuclear weaponry and American involvement in the Vietnam war. The most important contemporary texts include Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars (1977), Barrie Paskins and Michael Dockrill The Ethics of War (1979), Richard Norman Ethics, Killing, and War (1995), as well as seminal articles by Thomas Nagel "War and Massacre", Elizabeth Anscombe "War and Murder", and a host of others, commonly found in the journals Ethics or The Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs.  (from: Alex Moseley, Ph.D., Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 13, 2003.

Earlier this year Michael Novak entered into a discussion of the Iraq war and concerning if it was a just war or not.  It is worth the read.  The series was first published in the Italian daily Il Sole 24 Ore. The first can be read here, the second here, the third here, the fourth here, the fifth here and the sixth here. 

 

From the series:

I believe that the world, which has so long averted its eyes from the suffering of this noble Arab people, is going to learn shocking lessons about how negligent the reporting of the press has been for months and even years.

We should have known. We should have known.

Saddam should have been exposed for what he is.

The interests and investments and contracts of the French, Russians, and Chinese should also have been exposed, so that their threats of vetoes might have been better understood.

Let us pray for the speedy arrival in suffering Iraq of what Franklin D. Roosevelt once spoke of as "the Four Freedoms." Freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom of speech, freedom of religion.

—    Michael Novak is the winner of the 1994 Templeton Prize for progress in religion and the George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy, and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute.

 

 

 

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 13, 2003.

Bill,

I love the way you guys can do those HTML inserts; I will have to bone up on that it would surely save me a load of time.

I am sitting here watching 'The Deer-hunter' one of that great rash of post-Vietnam films...none of them ever seemed to think that war served any useful purpose...I wonder if someday that Hollywood will be saying the very same things about Iraq.

Anyway to your last post. It seems to me that some of our dialogue is becoming sterile and circuitous of the I'm right..no I'm right kind...I don't want to go down that kind of cul-de-sac; but where to me we seem to be moving the argument along somewhat lets go down that particular thread.

I have always taken it as a given in Moral Theology that the ends to not justify the means. If it is evil and wrong to kill a fellow human being then that surely is evil and it is always evil to kill him no matter what good we think we may acheive from it. I guess that will seem an absolutist postion to you Bill and maybe it is. You know in all these apparently complicated moral conundrums I am inclined to ask myself one simple question; What would Jesus do? Now try it and see.... Lets see, "Would Jesus pull the trigger and blow that man's brains out? "No?', then neither will I. Lets see. 'Would Jesus drop that cluster bomb and blow those soldiers to hundreds of bright red, dripping little pieces of meat?' 'No?', then neither will I. And so on you get the idea, simple Isn't it...much more simple than that bulky old Medieval Just War Theory isn't it?

I am somewhat familiar with this Theory from the Irish conflict. Many people here were inclined to use it when they went out to blow up British Soldiers. But I am inclined to do with it what Pope John x111 did with it in his Encylical Pacem in Terris; that is throw it out the window.

Perhaps we could leave these intellectual abstractions for a few minutes Bill whilst I pose you a question; were you ever caught up in a war Bill? I have, Bill, here in Belfast for thirty years. I have seen a man in front of me with his brains blown out like a grey egg yoke dripping from the ceiling. I have seen bits of human beings scattered like red dung over a street, the firemen collecting them in spades and shovelling them into plastic bags, I have seen whole streets of houses on fire with women and children running screaming in the night, I have seen great riots and gun-battles with bloodied thousands screaming hate, I have stood on the mountains overlooking my city and watched the black smoke rising from the bombs and fires below, I have heard the screams of tortured men in prison cells, followed the wooden boxes of tortured dead. So to me at least this argument is not simply an intellectual absraction; I have stared into the very face of War, Bill and you know what? It doesn't work! It doesn't work! Believe me Bill it just doesn't work! There was to be a better way, otherwise the Prince of Peace was just wasting His time being born in a stable. No Bill I don't want to hear any more arguments for killing people from Christian men and women; no matter how sophisticated no matter how well meant......If war is the answer....well maybe its because we have not asked the correct questions.

-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), December 13, 2003.

Padraig, I was of draft age in 1969, during the height of the Vietnam war. I was amongst the thousands of college students protesting the war at that time. I also was on the paid staff for Eugene McGovern (someone running for President at the time). There really wasn't any good reason for the war in Vietnam. There was a concept at the time that if Vietnam became communistic, all of Asia would (something that may or may not have been a good thing since most of SE Asia at the time was run by dictators). Vietnam was a civil war where the people may have been better off with the North winning (which eventually happened and was proven true). The real reason (and we all knew it) for the US continuation in the war was that we did not want to loose face. Since I was in college I was not drafted into the army.

I have also seen people die in front of me, but not from war, from drunken fights, jealousy and drunken driving. I worked in an Emergency Room for a number of years. I know people can be very cruel.

Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. With Iraq we have a country that had an oppressive dictator who killed 10s of thousands of his own people in horrendous ways. He and his sons also promulgated extremely horrendous tortures amongst his subjects. He also showed the world he intended on becoming king of Arabia and if given the opportunity would invade his neighbors... he tried to take over Iran, after 10 years and hundreds of thousands of casualties, he decided to try to invade Kuwait. We kicked him out of that country right before he invaded Saudi Arabia. Part of his plan was to destabilize the Mid- East. To that end he gave millions of dollars to the Hamas and other terrorists in the Mid-East. We are finding suicide vest factories in Iraq with orders from Palestine. It is now coming out that he also helped out the Al Queta. Sadam hated the US for kicking him out of Kuwait and promised to kill Americans. We know he had means to kill a lot of us. He tried to kill a retired president of the US (something we don’t take kindly to). We also knew it was only a matter of time before he used them.

The question with Iraq is how and when should we neutralize Sadam. The sanctions did not work (primarily because Germany and France helped Sadam skim off 10-20% of the oil for food money for his personal use while both countries were making millions on the deal).

So far the war has been relatively humanitarian (again as compared with wars in the past). There will be an end, and it really looks like the Iraqi people will win, probably with almost total peace and some kind of constitution within 2 years. Not bad...

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 13, 2003.

correction: make that George McGovern not Eugene McGovern...

bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 13, 2003.

I see they caught Saddam this morning! I reckon they did that deliberatly to put my nose out of joint in these arguments! LOL

-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), December 14, 2003.

Well Bill,I am delighted you had the ver good sense not to get involved or support the debacle that was the Vietnam War, though rather less impressed with your postion vis a vis the Iraq mess. Your contention that the Iraq conflict is divery different from that of Vietnam seems to me to be very problematical. Firstly you correctly state that the Saddam regime was a brutal dictatorship is of course perfectly correct. But the Hanoi regime was and still is a Marxist/Leninist dictatorship brutally suppressing dissent as well;in fact from a Catholic perspective the Hanoi regime is even more despotic in that the Catholic Church in Iraq has known relative freedom whereas Hanoi has done nothing but brutally persecute the Church from its very inception. Additionally if attacking a country simply because it is a brutal dictatorship, commits widespread Human Rights abuses and ignores U.N resolutions then some of the United States key allies should be invaded as well. I could instance Saudi Arabia were the Wahabi Royal family which is one of the most despotic regimes in the world. Again Israel which appears to take Human Rights abuses as a way of life, hasm possesion of inumaerable weapons of mass destruction and has consistantly defied U.N resolutions. But somehow I do not see F15 bombers over Tel Aviv unless they happen to be flown by Israeli pilots. In Israel too a key victim group are the mostly Catholic Palestinian population in Bethlehem. The Vatican has again and again condemned Israeli abuses and again and again been ignored. Again in the war in Iraq (as in Viet Nam) it is the poorest people in society who actually go out to fight and die in Vietnam. The children of the rich avoid it as indeed President Bush himself did by joining the National Guard. Again as in Vietnam huge amounts of money are being spent in prosecuting this war which could be much, much better spent in combating poverty and inequality at home. Again as with Vietnam wotrld opinion is squarely opposed to miltary acion and once again great harm is being done to U.S interests both at home and abroad. Once again as with Vietnam the American people are bitterly divided and hurt by a war which very many of them see as totally wrong. As you correctly state one of the main reasons that motivated the Vietnam War was fear...rear of Communism of a 'Domino' effect that would lead to the collapse of other countries in S.E Asia to Marxist control. But, Bill what motivates the Iraq war but fear...fear of 'International terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism and its spread. My belief is that the American Industrial/Political complex NEEDS AN ENEMY TO ASSURE ITS EXISTENCE with the collapse of Communism it appeared to loose its Raison de Etre the fuuny men with sheets on their heads suddenly and happily fitted the bill. As to the use of sanctions...well Bill surely you know that one of the main reasons for the collapse of Iraq was the very efficacy of sanctions? But I do not want to give the impression that i disagree totally with what you are saying. If a young man (or woman) believes that a war is just and that he is fighting with God on his side; let him go ahead and God Bless him. As for a Catholic soldier well if he knows that the Pope has so consistently condemned the whole buisness well I must admit I would be troubled as to how he could ignore his Spiritual Father. Lastly Vietnam and Iraq are most nota Similiar in that they are and were both getting bogged down in a useless and unwinable Guerilla war which can only end in disater and defeat...it is certainly no accident theat President Bush wants to get out of their as quickly as possible. The President sees the similiarities with Vietnam, Bill even if you can't!!! Anyway Bill a very happy and joyful, Christmas

-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), December 14, 2003.

Padraig, The so called Amerian military/industrial complex has absolutely nothing do to with Iraq. This is completely absurd. This 'complex' as you call it is setup to build tanks and bombers, not the special forces needed to fight the war on terror. The end of the cold war and the subsequent war on terror that started in 9/11 will cause mass demilitarization of these entities. The Iraq war was never exptected to last long enough to have any kind of impact to that industry. There is *no* expert in the business that does not know this. Other than socialists, I doubt you can find anyone who would say otherwise. (and they would say that no matter what we were doing) The Iraq war was a direct consequence of the problems with Saddam, the Mid-East wars, Irsael / Palistinian continued uprising, the Al Queda wanting all Westerners out of Arabia and 9/11.

By the way, Peggy Nunan has a wonderful article today.. here is what she said in part:

"This is a great day in modern history. A terrible man whose existence had been for decades actively harmful of humanity was forcibly removed from power, run to ground, and has been captured living in a hole. As I write, the television is showing videotape of his hair being checked for lice and his mouth being inspected with a pencil light for signs of disease. The white plastic pinpoint light illuminates his throat and gums. It looks like the mouth of hell. He has been utterly defeated and quelled. He can't kill anybody now. He cannot gas women and children with chemicals that kill them; he cannot personally torture dissidents, or imprison them. He cannot tell his soldiers to throw opponents off the tops of buildings. He can't impose his sickness and sadism on the world. The children of Baghdad dance in the streets. A nightmare is over.

America did this. American troops did this. The American people, by supporting those troops and this effort, did it. And a particular group of soldiers led by a particular U.S. army officer did it."

Read it all at: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110004429

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 14, 2003.

And Bill goes on with his wonderfully naive logic. We have to believe in Bush, he knows facts we don't. Like the arms of mass destruction about which he lied to the UN? Where did they find them, you naive believer? Where - I didn't hear you...

-- Ossobuco (Ossob93@aol.com), December 14, 2003.

"America did this. American troops did this. The American people, by supporting those troops and this effort, did it. And a particular group of soldiers led by a particular U.S. army officer did it."

Can America now inherit eternal life because of this? America acted in the name of America and in the name of judicial, the executive, and the legislative Amen. America is a pagan nation; it was founded by anti-Catholics and it's principles are in opposition to, and have been condemned by, the Church.

"As I write, the television is showing videotape of his hair being checked for lice and his mouth being inspected with a pencil light for signs of disease."

That's the outside of their cup that got cleaned; somehow we are eventually going to have the inside of our own cup cleaned out, and it won't look any prettier.

Pagans are always accusing each other and cleaning each other's clocks, administering justice upon one another... after all, that's what happens in Hell. When America stop murdering its own infants, pursuing its lusts and thumbing their nose at everything that's holy, we won't any different in the eyes of God than the rest of the world; except for being materially wealthy and therefore able to better hide our own failings.

Ultimately, all we as a nation really have to offer the rest of the world is a sedative against the defects of fallen human nature We don't carry with us the One True Faith, as much as anyone would like to delude themselves into thinking so. We aren't a Catholic nation, and if we aren't, then all we have to offer the rest of the world is the best-of version of humanism. That's paganism, basically.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 14, 2003.

Bill I am very disappointed in your last post. Insted of responding to the long list of points you, like a wolf go for what you consider the 'jugular' my comments on the military/indusrtrial complex...utter a few jigoisms wave Old Glory and...well that's about it. An empty vacuous post which I believe is unworthy either of your, your great country or the argument you attempt to set forth. All around me in my home city of Belfast and in the little towns villages and country round about young men and women fellow country men of mine are fighting in iraq in the largest Regiment in the British Army the Royal Irish Regiment. Some have already paid the supreme sacrifice and laid down their lives.....I love my country too Bill....I love Ireland as indeed I love America...but I do not believe Irishmen should be going thousands of miles to someone elses country to kill them. Let them stay were they are and do what Christ bid them, pray for those who persecute you, love your enemies do not kill them. Vengeance is mine says the Lord I will repay.

-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), December 14, 2003.

Padraig,

 

I am not going to anyone's jugular.  I am simply pointing out that Iraq is not Vietnam and we should not try to revive the arguments against Vietnam towards Iraq.  Remember, I was against Vietnam but I don't have enough information to be against Iraq.  As my initial posts said, we, that is YOU and I, don't have all the facts on Iraq... these facts may come out and with the luxury of history we might be able to figure out if this is a just war or not (it is starting to look like it is).  But it is not our call.  As Catholics, the call is of the elected leaders.  In the US that is the President and Congress.  They have the facts and it is their immortal souls at stake.  Padraig, it is not your call or my call.

 

By the way, I just read that Saddam may have killed 60,000 of his citizens in Baghdad alone, that's BAGDAD, in the Sunni Triangle.  It was published by an Irish paper: see the article here.

 

"Saddam Hussein's government may have executed 61,000 Baghdad residents, a number significantly higher than previously believed, according to a survey.

 

The bloodiest massacres of Saddam's 23-year presidency occurred in Iraq's Kurdish north and Shiite Muslim south, but the Gallup Baghdad Survey data indicates the brutality extended strongly into the capital as well."

 

In Christ,

Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 14, 2003.

A must read:

“New Iraqi Leaders Confront Their Former Dictator”

 

-bill

 

 

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 14, 2003.

I sure am glad, Bill, that you were here to straighten out Padraig. I could not have stomached the ordeal of responding to his amazingly illegitimate stream of comments. You have mucho patience to practice the spiritual work of mercy: "instruct the ignorant."
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 14, 2003.

From: Michael Novak 12/14/03

Ending torture and tyranny in Iraq was not a mistake. Supporting democracy in Iraq is not a mistake.

Helping the long-suffering Muslims of Iraq who now seek to live democratically is not a mistake. In the long, long history of the Middle East, this breakthrough may one day be ranked as a dramatic turning point in regional history.

While we may disagree about the strategy and tactics of the war, it would be a grave mistake for Americans to show disunity regarding our central purpose. Inflamed by hope of our disunity, and believing that we are weak of will, murderous assassins design to kill as many American soldiers as they can, confident that they will break our resolve.

Our enemies believe that Americans are deeply divided, easily discouraged by the sight of American blood, and unable to be resolute.

In "Saving Private Ryan," the climactic scene places us face to face with a fallen hero who has just saved our lives and liberties, and who with his final breath says to us, "Earn it."

Liberty never comes free. (This first appeared on the new website http://www.michaelnovak.net/

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 15, 2003.

I didn't here you - where did Bush find the arms of mass destruction - the fact he knew and you believed (naively and blindly) and whit which he sent his fellows to die like rats each and every day? Your religion could be called _ I believe in Bush, the creator of the new world... How pathetic!

-- Ossobuco (ossob93@aol.com), December 15, 2003.

J.F.G I am very happy to see that you noticed Bill's adult behaviour in these posts. I suggest that you return and review our correspondance. You will see that neither of us indulge in name- calling, neither of us indulge in nsatiness and spite and neither of us indulge in adolescent emotional tantrums. That is because J.F.G we are both fully mature functional adults. If we were to do as you do and indulge in infantile abuse at each other our dialogue would simply cease, doors that are open would close and the shutters would close forever on dialogue and mutual learning. Because you know J.F.G and this may seem really incredible to you....both Bill and myself are adult enough to know that neither of us have all the answers and humble enough to understand that each of us may be wrong. On Bill's side of the fence, for instance, I know that there are people far, far, wiser, far more closer to God, far more cultured and with far more understanding than myself who support the Iraq War! Also I suspect that Bill has similiar feelings of due humility to- wards my side of the fence. You see J.F.G, age often teaches us humility. It also often teaches us not to be rude, abusive and ignorant to others; especially those who are adult and emotionally stable enough to carry on a coherant dialogue without being interupted by puerile outpourings of abuse. For your feelings of nausea may I recommend you see your Doctor....as for the rest perhaps a visit to the school councellor might be in order. In either case may I wish you and your other little friends a Very Happy Christmas and I hope Santa brings you something really wonderful this year!

-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), December 15, 2003.

Bill

You certainly do not have to convince me that Saddam is a complete sociopath, mass murderer, brutal dictator, ect, ect ect, that much is obvious. But, Bill, the world is full of dictatorships all of them brutal many, perhaps all of them, indulging in murder to some degree or other; not a few of them allies of the powers that attacked Iraq. My question and one which you do not seem to grasp is why attack Saddam in particular? Why this little tin-pot dictator sitting on a pile of camel dung in the desert? The answer, I would suggest, is that under that pile of camel dung is one of the greatest seas of oil the world has ever known. It is no coincidence that Bush and his cronies are closely allied to oil interests.

Not wishing to spoil the general jubilation over Saddams capture I forsee a very large fly in the judicial ointment. Saddam knows far, far to much to ever be allowed to testify in an open court. He know for instance the details of the meeting he had with Donald Runsfeld in the 1980's. He knows the details of the military assistance he received, including chemical, biological and nuclears know-how he got from countries such as Germany, Russia, France, Britain and the United States. He knows the details of Anthrax and nerve gas shipments he received. If he talked he might, no he certainly would, name his accomplices. It would be sad to see George Bush senior executed by a firing squad of Marines on the White House lawn for human rights abuses!!

For that reason Saddam will never live to see a fair an open trial.

As one of your Senators from New York Charles....I forget his second name, the Bushes created a Frankenstein now that it has run out of control they seek to destroy it. But if the monster must die what about the evil political scientists who created the monster...must they not die too? Here too we see yet another similialrity to Vietnam it was the USA who trained and equipped Ho Chi Min but it was that particular Frankenstein that ended up running the castle.

-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), December 15, 2003.

You're fooling no one, Eugene.

-- (Watching@Like.Hawk), December 15, 2003.

Padraig, you can try to play the part of the snooty elder statesman, and you can try to arrogate the moral authority to insult others (such as me) ... but your act collapses when intelligent people read the worthless content of your liberal, historically inaccurate, anti-American messages, revealing your cowardice in the face of challenges overseas. Real Catholics are still waiting for you to provide something of value to the forum.

Paddy, I have posted over 7,000 messages here since January of 2000. I am over 50 years old. I don't need an untalented "new kid on the block" -- you -- to come here and give me a "report card," pretending that I am immature. Betake yourself to the forum's archives and read a thousand of my messages before you have the nerve to evaluate me, buddy boy. Stop jumping to rash conclusions about me from reading a few recent messages, in which I have been expressing righteous anger at being abused by the moderator and at seeing my beloved forum destroyed by ex-Catholic evil-doers.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 15, 2003.

Like I said nasty and vicious...sure signs of the need for emotional growth

-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003.

Padraig,

We in the US already know what we gave (and did not give) Iraq during the war with Iran. And what Donald Rumsfeld (who was Sec. of Defense at the time) did. It isn’t a shock to us. Saddam has no leverage here. We did not ship military weapons to Iraq, such as nerve gas shipments. The Anthrax he received was suppose to be for university research and was not of military grade. Iran was an enemy of the US at the time; they were holding American hostages remember.

OK, I’ll give you my theory of why we went into Iraq. There are a group of people in some high places in Washington (many were there under Clinton) who believe that the Mid-East is in turmoil and that turmoil will continue to boil over and hurt people in the West until things in the Mid-East are pacified. We saw the boiling over when Western cities and interests are bombed by the al Qaeda, Hammas and other Arab terrorist groups.

The theory goes on that the reason for the instability in the Mid- East is because there are dictators and potentates in the Islamic world who are using anti-Western propaganda to channel the hatred and frustration people have away from their internal governments. This is nothing new, the communist use to do it all the time, that is why they had to continue a ‘revolution’ long after there was any need for a revolt.

After 9/11 it became obvious of just how much hurt and damage they could inflict upon the West. There is no doubt that 9/11 was the turning point that convinced George W. Bush we had to do something about the terrorism coming out of the Middle-East. 9/11, as you know as not only about a few important buildings being destroyed and 3,000 US citizens dying. It was also about the devastation of a Western economy at the whim of terrorists. A devastation which all indications are will occur at regular intervals if not stopped. Not exactly a position any Western democracy wants to be in and not a position any US President can tolerate.

There are a couple of solutions these people propose (they are called neo-conservatives by the way):

1) The West needs to pull out of Arabia and all Islamic regions throughout the world. Completely and totally. That would mean Western firms, armies, etc. It also means the Jews would need to leave Israel to the Arabs. Oil enters into the equation here, but is not the prime consideration. No matter who was in control of the Mid-East we would have oil, that was pretty much a given and if the price gets to great, we have alternate sources. This alternative is unlikely to occur and is not really a possibility.

2. The second alternative is that the West should ‘democratize’ the 'Islamic world'. Democracies don’t declare war on each other; instead they trade with each other. To do this a Western nation needs to influence a country in the Mid-East to become free. This will hopefully cause democracy to cascade throughout the region. That can be done, as in the case of Jordan, slowly.

The second choice was US policy prior to 9/11. Note at no time did the US want to take over a Mid-East country’s oil. We are somewhat dependent on oil from the Mid-East, but we have alternative suppliers and our interest in Mid-East oil is as a trading partner

When 9/11 occurred it became obvious that if alternative 2 was to be done, the US had to replace a government in the Mid-East and ‘seed’ democracy in the region. Iraq became the obvious choice since Saddam was also directly supplying Hammas and other terrorist groups and we knew wanted to harm neighboring countries and had intentions of being King of Arabia (see my previous notes on him). So the neo- conservatives pushed for an invasion and democratization of Iraq. The intent from the very beginning was to establish a free and independent Iraq. They knew it would not be easy. But they felt it had to be done if we ever expected peace to occur in the region. The fact that Saddam was a despot only made the prospect better

In the two opening campaigns of America's war on terrorism, it has been, first, to depose the Taliban, depriving the al Qaeda network of its sanctuary in Afghanistan; second, in Iraq, it has been to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein, thus preempting his efforts to acquire and employ weapons of mass destruction--especially nuclear weapons--or the possibility that he might make such weapons available to international terror groups such as al Qaeda. But this is not thinking strategically. Strategically, our mission is to “bring a decent political order to the "Islamic world," that swath of the planet that extends from East Africa to East Asia. The rejectionists of the Islamic world, particularly those arising from the Arab heartland, have become an increasingly violent and dangerous element in twenty-first century international politics, toxic to the liberal world order, the growth of liberty, and general peace that so much of the world has enjoyed--and continues to cherish--since the collapse of the Soviet empire. They are a threat to us now and a threat to the future we hope to build.”

Our mission, however, is not to micromanage solutions to the "root causes" of Islamic unrest; these arise from a variety of political problems internal to the Islamic world and are for Muslims themselves to solve. Rather, what we must do is create the conditions under which Muslim societies can govern themselves in a decent manner, allowing their citizens to pursue life, liberty, and material happiness in a legal framework that also protects the fundamental human rights of women and minorities. The failure of Islamic governments to meet these tests of political legitimacy has proven to be a problem that plagues us all. Only this larger understanding of our mission gives any strategic coherence to the military victories won in the Afghan and Iraq campaigns.” (Fighting Terror - Lessons and Implications from the Iraqi Theater By Thomas Donnelly)

This is not simply nation building. This is establishing a more durable international order in the Mid-East and elsewhere. This is a global war on terrorism.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003.

Those opposed to the US led invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein vary largely in their motives and actual understanding of reality...and that's where the morality of this thing hinges: what you know about what you're making a moral judgement on.

The less you know about the actors: US Military and Iraqi regime, and the less you know about their INTENTIONS, as well as the likely CIRCUMSTANCES and consequences of any action, the LESS YOU CAN REASONABLY JUDGE.

Now John and Bill and I have posted long posts here for about year. We've quoted the Pope, the cardinals, the Catechism, St Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, recent and ancient encyclicals... we've analysed the ACTUAL text of the President's major speeches and policy statements... we have engaged our minds not just our hearts and "gut reaction".

So we're here for a real argument, a real debate, a real back-and- forth of REASONS for or against the morality of the US war.

But what you Padraig and others seem to invariably do is simply say "you're wrong because I say so" or quote some Cardinal who says the very same thing: "this war is unjust...because I say so" neither of you having actually proven your case!

Cardinal Martino just complained that the photo of the US military doctor taking CARE of Saddam made it look (subjectively, for him) as though we were treating the former dictator of Iraq like a cow! Um, Cardinal, that's your subjective spin wholly at odds with reality!

Cardinal Martino also was the main voice opposed to the US...but never, ever, suggested WHY. He NEVER used Catholic moral theology or the Just war theory created by Catholics over 1300 years to spell out why exactly the US should not invade but "Had" to work through the UN Security council as though they are the arbiter of all things moral!

Seach as much as you like, nowhere prior to 2001 will you see any Catholic prelate invoke divine authority on the UN Security council's decisions. I suggest you look at NATO's bombing of Serbia and Kosovo...both actions were not authorized by the UN security council... but did Cardinal Martino say it was "unjust"?

So I'm just looking for well thought-out and backed up reasons to believe that the UN solution of endless inspections and endless embargo (which everyone agrees killed 100,000 children a year), was the moral thing to do, whereas a lightning quick war of 30 days that resulted in only 200 US deaths and 4,000 Iraqis was absolutely immoral... especially as none..zero, nada, of the dire consequences all the prelates predicted as ASSURED came to pass...

It seems to me that they were almost using consequentialist moral theory...a theory rejected by Catholic moral teaching by the way...

So I ask you... show me, prove to me, give me REASONS, connect the dots of past Catholic papal pronouncements...show me how I too can conclude that this apparently successful campaign that results in the liberation of millions of people and the stamping out of tyranny is "really" bad.

Cause otherwise I'm tempted to think this is all just politics and that if the President was a democrat we wouldn't be so upset.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 16, 2003.

Cardinal Martino has spoken out on the Church's teaching on a 'just war'. To the Roman news agency I Media he said, "modern society has enough means [of resolving conflicts] so that we need not have recourse to [war]."

George Weigel said that the archbishop’s statements are without authority and at odds with Catholic thought in general. The statements seem to tie into a whole complex of thinking involved in enterprises like the UN and EU that’s at odds with the human need for religion as a constituent of a tolerable way of life. They suggest an extreme view of the autonomy of human social life, as something that doesn’t require agreement on goods transcending the actual purposes of those involved. Cardinal Martino was the Vatican's envoy to the UN. Maybe he bought into their version of secular humanism.

He is now criticizing how the US is treating Saddam. ... interesting...

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003.

Bill,
Cardinal Martino certainly had plenty of opportunity to "b[uy] into their version of secular humanism." He headed the Holy See's mission to the United Nations for 16.5 years (!), beginning in 1986. It's sad that the name of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, which he began to head in 2002, now has to be tarnished by his unseemly remarks. While he is entitled to his misguided opinions, he really needs to see the list of tremendous improvements that the U.S. and its coalition have made in Iraq. (I just received such a list by e-mail today. It would shut the mouth of even the most hardened anti-American. I don't know if I should post it here.)

While Cardinal Martino may never have fallen for secular humanism, he could easily have become addicted to anti-Americanism, either (1) as a diplomat in several foreign lands (including some Moslem ones in Asia) from 1980 to 1986, or (2) as one who constantly had to talk to anti-Americans at the U.N. for sixteen years, or (3) as one who may have had bad experiences with Americans while living in New York City.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003.

There is a type of secular humanism the UN has. It is a theory of a world government that is just and fair. The UN is the center of this government and it is a benevolent society made up of men and man's law. This government is devoid of any tie in with God or religious morality.

In Christ, Bill Nelson

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003.

Two or three of you have matters to contribute to the subject in hand...it would take a book of answers to reply to you all....may I therefore reply to you one point at a time....?

First of all, Bill, over the weapons supplied to Iraq by George Bush (elder) and his coherts (including Donald Runsfeldt). No-one denys that many of the weapons that did and are killing young American soldiers in Iraq were supplied to them by the Father of the present United States President George Bush (sen). Is that good or is that bad? Now suddenly Saddam Huseein who was given these weapons by the Father of the present President is a thouroughly terrible person. But still the soldiers of the United States must die because of the weapons given to them by the Father of the President of the United States.....Does this not make you the least wee bit cynical about the whole Thing?

-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), December 17, 2003.

Paddy, you wrote: "No-one denys that many of the weapons that did and are killing young American soldiers in Iraq were supplied to them by the Father of the present United States President George Bush (sen)."

I deny it.
And you have no way of proving your contention. You are not out there inspecting weapons and determining the source of weapons that inflicted casualties on Americans. (Most these days, it is said, are homemade anyway -- or maybe Froggy.)

Moreover, even if it were true that the U.S. provided some weapons to Iraq between 1980 and 1991, that would be totally irrelevant, since those weapons would have been provided, not because Presidents Reagan and Bush liked S. Hussein, but only to help the Iraqi people not be overrun by the even more despicable regime to the East: Iran. Basically, Paddy, you don't know what you are talking about -- so deep is your anti-American hatred.

May God forgive you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 19, 2003.

so deep is your anti-American hatred.

I am pretty sure it is deep anti-Bush hatred. I am not sure he even knows why he hates him.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 19, 2003.

Iraq War is starting to pay dividens:

Libya's leader Colonel Gaddafi has said his country sought to develop weapons of mass destruction capabilities but has declared his intention to dismantle this programme completely, Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 19, 2003.

Iraq War is starting to pay dividens:

correction: the Battle of Iraq...

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 19, 2003.

I am opposed to the continued occupation in Iraq as I was to the Iraq invasion itself. There are Spanish soldiers, Italian, Polish, Danish, British and American. I am not anti-Polish, or anti-Italian, or anti-Spanish, or anti-Danish, or anti-British or anti-American. To oppose a freign policy does not make me anti-American. There are I know many loyal American Senators and Congressmen who are opposed or at least have grave reservations about what is going on...Does that make them anti-American??? I don't think so. A slight touch of paranoia here perhaps! I have American nephews and neices, my sister in law is American and my brother is an American citizen. As a matter of fact I love America and am fond of Americans whom I think have many great qualities. Certainly as an Irishman I cannot help but be aware of the very great debt we owe to our cousins in the States. However you are perfectly right about my attitude to the Bushes. Not that I hate them they are my brothers just as Saddam Hussein is; it is just that they are war-mongering criminals.

-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), December 19, 2003.

Now, that's a knee-slapper, Paddy!
The Bushes are neither "criminals" nor "warmongers."

1. They can argue persuasively that they have deliberately broken no divine law nor any law passed by a legislature to which they must answer. I have seen no evidence that they are "criminals."

2. A warmonger is a person who "urges or attempts to stir up war." Now turn your memory back to September 10, 2001 (the day before all hell broke loose). In no way, shape, or form was GWB "urging or attempting to stir up war." It was only after the terrorists killed thousands the next day that the president acted. He has been defending his nation against aggressors. It is the terrorists who are the "warmongers" and "criminals," not GWB. (How easily the minds of anti-Americans are disctracted from this key fact!)

3. And the same thing could be said about GHB, his father. He was not "urging" any wars the day before S. Hussein invaded one ally (Kuwait) and threatened another (Saudi Arabia). In that case, the dictator Hussein was the "warmonger" and "criminal." (How easily the minds of anti-Americans are disctracted from this key fact!)

Paddy, when I see you stop attacking the American president unjustly and start attacking the terrorists and dictators, then I will stop considering you "anti-American."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 20, 2003.

For what ever good it will do I indeed to report you to the moderator of this board for contiually misreporting the teachings of our Holy Father Pope John 11. Our Holy Father has reatededly condemned the War against Iraq I demand that your false teachings against the Holy Father be erased!!

-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), December 20, 2003.

I am very angry with you both....I have checked my facts...the Holy Father has and is as a matter of Historical record condemned the attack on Iraq!! I have reported your lies to the Moderator of this board!!! May God forgive you for your lies!!!!! I demand that you be put off any Catholic Forunm for misinterpreting the Holy Father!!!!

-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), December 20, 2003.

If this is an official in anyway Catholic website I demand an explanation as to why Thee Holy Fathers statements are misinterpreted in this way!!

-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), December 20, 2003.

Jmj

Paddy, you are hilarious! Your comments about the pope's position are incorrect (a misinterpretation of his words), and your "reporting" of Bill and me to the moderator and the Vatican are very amusing indeed.

As is stated above the "form" that you filled out when you started this very thread, we are not at an official Catholic site. This is a very unofficial, informal discussion forum. The word "Catholic" is used only to describe the subject matter of the threads -- the true Catholic faith and closely related matters.

Paddy, I don't think that this is a good place for you to hang around. You don't seem to be "prepared" for what goes on here legitimately.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 21, 2003.

I am very angry with you both....I have checked my facts...the Holy Father has and is as a matter of Historical record condemned the attack on Iraq!!

Please provide a cite where he has CONDEMNED the attack on Iraq.

thanks, bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 22, 2003.

So do I, And just what is your solution? Or are you simply one of those who are into snide remarks over the toils of thousands to try to prevent some nit-wit from carrying a bomb into a McDonalds? Or your neighborhood?

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 23, 2003.

Are you really looking for a different solution? Look then at other nations, those who celebrate Christmas without the national guard, more intelligent, less macho. But hey, did you say a solution? What was solved? The terrorism? Hm, a strange solution with all the guard around...

Don't be fooled by the fact they are not now being immediately threatened. We were there on 9/10. They are on the list for attacks, that they are not defending themselves could only mean that the attacks are not eminent. The terrorists want to make a show, actually have to make a show, in the US or UK after the losses they have gotten lately. After that, they will go back to bombing synagogues in France and Germany.

Some other points to keep in mind if you want us to ‘pull out’ Let’s see why we are not liked by the terrorists:

They don’t like our coulter. Should we change? Maybe make homosexuality a crime punishable by harsh penalties?

They don’t like our religion. Should we change? Maybe convert to Islam?

Remember, we are defending Israel, are they? I guess not, so we should back off and let Israel fall? Right?

We are defending Kuwait, are they? I guess not, so we should have back off and let Kuwait fall stay in the hands of Iraq, right?

We are defending Yemen, are they? I guess not, so we should let it fall into the hands of whoever wants it, right?

We stopped the genocide in Bosnia, did they? I guess not, so we should not have done that right?

Should I go on?

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 23, 2003.