Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican’s Justice and Peace Department has stated that he feels compassion for Saddam Hussein "In his tragedy. Saddam Hussein has no compassion whatever and has not ever expressed remorse for the atrocities he has committed over many years. How much compassion has Cardinal Renato Martino for the poor people who were annihilated in the Kurdish atrocities? There seems to me to be a need for the Cardinal to assess what compassion means and for whom it is appropriate to express it. I remember that the Church could have done much more to speak out against the second world war, would Cardinal Martino have had compassion for Hitler 'In his tragedy' if he had been captured alive? I hope every Catholic is asking themselves this question.

-- Eric Charles Smalley (ThePikeman@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003

Answers

I beleive we are called to hae compassion, further Saddam's tragedy is notmerely his capture, but his life lead away form God, and in that we are to Pity him, and pray that he comes to repentance.

-- zarove (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 16, 2003.

Zarove, That makes sense to me.

bill

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

I agree with you Eric. Again the Catholic Church continues to push it's people away. Passing judgment on the USA, but finding compassion for a devil that killed 3 million people. If the Church defines compassion as "paying off" (child victims of Priests) victims and hiding the perpetrator, but denies any knowledge or responsibility I think the church should cough up the dough for the murdered victims families and offer Hussein sanctuary. It's the compassionate thing to do.

-- James Bugman (james,bugman@dcma.mil), December 16, 2003.

I have compassion for the evil man. He is a man who must face his Creator soon. I think of all sinners; with great pity. Jesus Christ had mercy and compassion on everybody. I feel even a monster like Saddam is still a human being. He has an immortal soul! He should get the death penalty, IMHO. But I feel sorry for him, nevertheless.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 16, 2003.

Now that I think of it; I feel pity for James Bugman, too.

He is like many others who can judge, but is not aware of his own sins. My heart breaks for the good Catholic who hates another man; forgetting that ''But for the grace of God, there am I''.

He will pray, ''Lead all souls to heaven --especially those who are in most NEED of Thy mercy,'' --and not mean it. Then he'll belittle a Catholic bishop on public forums, as if he were judge, not God Almighty.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 16, 2003.

As a Catholic I agree that priestly hearts must be open to all men, especially sinners and feel genuine fatherly concern for their conversion and return to the fold.... however nowhere is it written or taught that this means priests or bishops are to be naive and ignore facts.

In his statement to the press Cardinal admits (as does virtually everyone except the looney Left) that Saddam was a "bad guy" and that his arrest or capture is a "good thing". And the Church agrees that Iraq is better off now than it was under tyranny... but they can't articulate why this is so... they can't admit that the current state of affairs is the DIRECT result of the United States of America leading a coalition of (mostly Catholic) nations into war.

Since no one has argued that prudential decisions leading to war are a matter of principle (but are the application of principle based on relevant facts) making a mistake of judgement about someone else's moral judgement can hardly be an admission of dogmatic fallibility. This is routinely taught by these same prelates to us lay Catholics about not trying to second-guess the Pope or themselves when they make prudential decisions on say the use of altar girls or changes of this or that custom.

They apply the principle based on a prudential decision and while the CONSEQUENCES may be for the better or less good...consequences alone don't prove anything about the morality of a decision. Thus in the aftermath of Vatican II there were wide-spread negative repercussions - but we were urged not to assume that consequences alone meant the council was "a mistake" or "wrong".

But with respect to Iraq/US relations, the Pope and cardinals have for no publicly stated reason made an exception to this rule. Now the consequences they fear (based on their boyhood experiences of World War II urban warfare) trump every other factor and they won't cede the point that their moral judgement is being made divorced from the actual facts of the matter...

Since Iraq was a dictatorship, all the wars it fought were caused by a single man: Saddam Hussein - who also was the sole cause for the Gulf War of 1990 and the Iran-Iraq war of 1979... so one would suppose that capturing this man would be universally praised as THE primary solution to a festering situation of institutionalised sin in that region of the world.

Yet, paradoxically in 1990 and now again in 2002-2003, the Holy See thundered repeatedly that war in that region was "verbotten", that it wouldn't REALLY solve anything (hmmmm that's strange, last I checked wars solve lots of things. How about Carthage, or the Greeks at Thermapolae, or Europe at Tours, Italy at Lepanto and Poland at Vienna! Didn't the Polish-Russia war of 1920 "solve" something? It gave Poland 19 years of independence! If war isn't "a" solution, then explain to me again how the Aztec Empire fell, or how the Axis powers were finally defeated?).

While utterly silent about why exactly war was always wrong, the Holy See has gone on record pointing to feared consequences. And when the dire predictions failed to materialize... we were treated to silence.

Cardinal Martino has never explained his REASONS for concluding that the US led invasion was unjust or the REASONS why he concluded that further negotiations or different courses of action (which also weren't offered) could have effected a better outcome than the current state of affairs! You can hope for the best all you want as private citizen...but is the Cardinal suggesting that we all just use "hope" or wishful thinking from here on? Did wishful thinking stop the machete armed mobs in Rwuanda? Did "tools of international diplomacy" stop the Yugoslav army from genocide in the Balkans?

The day after 9/11/01, was the US to "hope" Al Qaeda cease and desist, and that Saddam, Iran, and North Korea drop their decade old weapons programs "just because"? If you were Saddam or a Mullah, or the dictator-for-life in Korea, would YOU stop your arms program just to "be nice"?

If you are going to claim that a US-led invasion is immoral you had better have REASONS for why this is so and REASONS pointing to concrete alternative courses of action and not platitudes about how wonderful it would be if everyone had operative consciences informed by Catholic morals! Yeah, it would be grand and then we could settle disputes by discussion and mutual agreement. But unfortunately, CARDINAL, in the world of today there are dictators steeped in personal sin and who have created structures of sin that cloud reason and hamper fair and honest dialogue.

In virtually every other field of moral judgement the Church has brought 2000 years of thinking and moral reasoning to bear on why this or that act or course of action is good or bad, wise or foolish. Never has the mere assertion that something is immoral or moral been considered sufficient!

Why has he not taken the gorgeous "teaching moment" to explain all this to us in Catholic terms?

This is the back-story that makes Cardinal Martino's latest remarks sound so tone-deaf. Here the US is giving Saddam FREE MEDICAL CARE, not torturing him, not physically abusing him, showing the world that we're examining his dental hygene...and the Cardinal thinks we're trying to rob him of human dignity???? What planet is he on? Was Saddam striped naked? Did we show him on all fours? No. Close crop of a doctor examining his mouth - so the world would know that it was him... and the Cardinal sniffs about the US being insensitive?

It's almost like the recent sex-abuse scandals in which bishops appear to be more concerned about how convicted priest pedophiles (proven in a court of law, not merely accused) are being treated while being utterly silent about their victims.

I get the distinct impression that he thinks the USA is damned if we do and damned if we don't. Does he think we should apologize for our mere existence?

If his moral calculus is based on OUTCOME or CONSEQUENCES he'd have to conclude that the US invading most countries would actually be a good thing! What nation occupied by the US military has been worse off? Germany? Japan? Italy? South Korea? They're all free enough and re-built enough to even oppose us at the UN! We still have 100,000 troops in Germany...we're still "occupying" those lands, yet they're freer now than they've been in their entire history.

I'll tell you what's insensitive: a Cardinal who never bothers to explain why he thinks the way he does, who can't bring himself to praise all the good the US coalition has done for the Iraqi people, free of charge, out of humanitarian goodness..., straining over the gnat of a supposed insult to a man whose crimes against humanity would lead almost any other army to have executed him on the spot.

He has a right to his opinion. Maybe the journalist took him out of context or mistranslated him, maybe this was said off record... but if he said what he said, in an official capacity, then my humble opinion is: he doesn't know a thing about Iraq, the United States, Saddam or Bush. He's been living in a bubble out of touch with reality - when it comes to geo-politics he'd best let other, more informed people do the talking otherwise he's making all Catholics look not just foolish but cruel.

All I can imagine is that he's privy to distorted information coming from local bishops on the ground who have reasons to fear for their lives and whose intelligence gathering capabilities aren't very good....He couldn't have been paying attention to any serious info coming from the United States for the past 30 years.

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

Eugene, you wrote,

"He is like many others who can judge, but is not aware of his own sins. My heart breaks for the good Catholic who hates another man; forgetting that ''But for the grace of God, there am I''. "

If that is the case, are you saying that some of us are destined to be evil, in other words, deliberately created to be so?

I don't feel sorry for Saddam--he had numerous chances to go live elsewhere, and in comfort, too. He had plenty of chances to avoid this war. He looks awful because he's been in hiding and obviously felt no need to pretty up for anyone. Even if he's eating only bread and water in prison (which is doubtful) he is still far better off than those starving in Africa and in his own country as well.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), December 16, 2003.

Why are you putting words into my mouth? I feel pity. But I also want justice done, so there's nothing unholy about it.Our ONLY just Judge is God, and we all stand convicted of sin. John Donne wrote, No man is an island;''

Saddam's evil diminishes us all. His penalty is a penalty on every sinner, we share his humanity. When true justice is done, all we can really hope for is God's mercy. Not just for my own sins. For the sins of every human being.

Jesus Christ taught us to forgive our enemies, do good to them who hate us. From the holy cross He prayed, ''Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.''

Now it's fair to hate Saddam? I don't think so. We pity him. He has lost his immortal soul.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 16, 2003.

Again the Catholic Church continues to push it's people away.

It was only the Cardinal's personal opinion. In the Catholic Church it is OK to hold such opinions. It was not official church teaching on faith or morals. We all hold opinions. The Cardinal spent 16 years in the UN in New York, after that length of time, one would expect him to have opinions that reflect the UN's opinions.

The fact that the broadcast pictures were necessary to secure peace and security of Iraq and to let the people know it really was him makes it allowable under international law and, I would speculate, Catholic theology on war as well.

In Christ, Bill

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

this is one account of Martino that i have read. he shows compassion, as a good Catholic should do, but certainly seems happy that Saddam has been apprehended. in addition, he restates the Vatican's moral opposition to the war in the first place.

Cardinals are just too diplomatic to ask where the WMD's have gotten to; and just too clever to believe that fisticuffs is the only way of doing things.

anyways, as i read recently, never judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes -- Saddam's or the Cardinal's.

"VATICAN CITY (AP) - A top Vatican cardinal said Tuesday Saddam Hussein should face trial for his crimes, but stressed the Vatican's opposition to the death penalty and criticized the U.S. military for portraying him ``like a cow'' having his teeth checked.

Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, said he felt compassion for Saddam and that the world should have been spared the images of his medical examination after his capture.

``I feel pity at seeing this destroyed man, treated like a cow having his teeth checked,'' Martino said. ``I have seen this man in his tragedy ... and I had a sense of compassion.''

The cardinal said he was pleased with the capture and he hoped it would bring peace and democracy to Iraq, but stressed it wasn't the answer to the problems of Iraq or the Middle East.

And in a further indication of the Vatican's opposition to the U.S.- led war, he said: ``It seems illusory to hope that it will repair the drama and damage of the defeat against humanity which war always is.''

Martino said the Vatican hoped Saddam would face trial in an ``appropriate'' venue, but didn't elaborate on whether that should be an Iraqi court or an international tribunal. When asked about reports that Saddam could face the death penalty, Martino stressed the Vatican's long-standing opposition to capital punishment, as well as the fact that no U.N.-backed court has the death penalty.

U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See, Jim Nicholson, said in a statement that Saddam ``will now be prosecuted with dignity and justice - two basic human rights he never afforded to anyone else.''

He also cited praise from Iraqi Chaldean Catholics for Saddam's arrest. ``A dictator, who has killed or ordered to be killed millions of people, now is no longer free to do so. As the Chaldean Catholic bishops of Iraq have said, 'Fear has ended.'''

Martino spoke at a news conference to launch Pope John Paul II's annual message for the World Day of Peace, which the church celebrates Jan. 1.

In the message, the pope addressed both world leaders and terrorists, urging a renewed respect for international law, which he said was the only way to assure world peace and guard against the arbitrary use of force.

John Paul did not mention the United States by name or cite its war against terrorism. But his message appeared aimed at the U.S. anti- terrorism campaign - and in particular at the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which was launched without U.N. authorization.

``Peace and international law are closely linked to each other: law favors peace,'' the pope said.

John Paul was a vocal critic of the Iraq war, dispatching envoys to Washington and Baghdad to try to prevent hostilities and exhorting world leaders that war wasn't inevitable and was ``always a defeat for humanity.''

In the 15-page document, he outlined the history of international law, culminating with the creation of the United Nations and its charter, which states military force can only legitimately be used against countries in self defense or when the U.N. Security Council approves it.

The pope acknowledged that international law concerns relations between countries, and is thus unable to deal with today's threats of terrorism and violence spawned by rebel groups.

He called for reform of the United Nations and new legal treaties to confront terrorism ``with effective means for the prevention, monitoring and suppression of crime.''

But he stressed that until that time, ``democratic governments know well that the use of force against terrorists cannot justify a renunciation of the principles of the rule of law.''

The fight against terrorism, he said, cannot be limited to solely ``repressive and punitive operations'' against terrorists, but by addressing the reasons why they strike in the first place.

``On the one hand, by eliminating the underlying causes of situations of injustice which frequently drive people to more desperate and violent acts; and on the other hand, by insisting on an education inspired by respect for human life in every situation,'' he wrote.

Papal spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls was asked at the briefing how the 83-year-old pope, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, is able to write speeches and other documents. Navarro-Valls said the pope these days ``dictates more and writes a bit less, because dictating he can do more in less time.''""

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 16, 2003.

An interesting analysis of the Cardinals remarks can be found here: http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2003/12/cardinal_m artin.html

In Christ, Bill

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

Oops, bad link. Try this one:

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2003/12/cardinal_martin.html

-bill

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

When has the US EVER suggested that war ALONE was the ideal or only solution to the problem of terrorism???

Did we just spontaneously start dropping bombs or shooting off cruise missiles? No. We broadcast our intentions 10 months ahead of time, jumped through all the hoops the UN presented when it believed that words alone would suffice... What was UN resolution 1441? It gave Iraq one final chance to come clean... and Iraq fumbled the ball.

What possible "serious consequences" could the UN have refered to short of war? Iraq already was embargoed! Supposedly in a "box" even though French, German, Russian and Chinese companies and nationals aparently had free run of the place!

So again, facing all the facts, the chronology of events, the reality on the ground and not the utopian vision of humanity in the Cardinal's head...how in the world could the US have responsibly done anything other than invade?

How exactly do you change the unjust situation in Iraq when the whole country is controlled by a dictator? How do you NEGOTIATE with a dictator?

Not invading would have sent the message - and PROVEN to the world's 45 dictators that they can ignore the UN Security council so long as they had lucrative contracts with the French, Russians and Chinese - as indeed most of them in fact do have!

Yet the Cardinal creates the rhetorical fallacy of an either/or dilemna: either war or peaceful negotiation. Either war and the rule of the strong but unjust or peaceful negotiation among loving friends who only seek the common good...

Any kid in debate class knows he engaged in a logical either/or fallacy which the US has not ever claimed was the case: The US has worked and is working with Muslim regimes along police lines, with economic and political measures, helping spark economic reform to drain the swamps of poverty... promoting democracy to drain the swamps of tyranny...

People get in a huff about "no blood for oil"... but economic questions are extremely germane to the whole debate: most of the poverty of the 3rd world is not caused by evil US companies but by their own evil domestic dictatorships, polical and religious repression of minorities, and the arbitrary rule of the gun rather than by belief in inalienable human rights.

Only within the umbrella of a superpower who guarantees such rights can domestic tranquility thrive. You might not like this, but this has been a fact since oh, about 2500 BC. People were freer in the Roman Republic than in the 600's AD. People in Europe today are free because the US maintained 300,000 troops there for 50 years, guaranteeing their stability and freedom...

International law means NOTHING if nations can sponsor terrorism with impunity.

The US has not at all resorted to war as the "only" solution, and we have all along been talking about post-bellum plans to root out terrorism while respecting human rights and religious freedom. Yet the Cardinal seems to imply that we think war alone, isolated from all the other initiatives and active programs underway is what the Bush administration or the US' foreign policy hinges on.

This is the kind of lunancy that makes me hopping mad. The man has access to plenty of information available on open public internet sites and he has access to Catholic military experts... but he chooses to ignore all the facts and create a myth of American foreign policy being waged with a single tool, the blunt tool of war.

I agree that the Pope can't come out in favor of war... because it's not a Catholic vs. Muslim conflict. He has to be neutral. But the Cardinal isn't neutral. He's paradoxically happy with the current state of affairs while complaining with the only conceivable means available to get us where we are: US armed might.

You can be neutral and that's fine. But being stupidly anti-US while giving the impression that Iraq was innocent until proven guilty is quite another. UN resolution stated unequivocally that Iraq was PRESUMED GUILTY until it proved itself innocent and it spelled out exactly how Iraq was to comply, which Saddam Hussein choose to ignore.

In the real world, the law and rule of law HAS TO HAVE TEETH. Otherwise, "international law" is just a word. Did "international law" stop the genocide in Rwanda? NO. Has it stopped the bloodshed in Congo? No. Did concern for "International Law" keep Saddam or the Soviet Union in check until now? NO. Did the League of Nations (which outlawed war altogether) succeed in keeping Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Tojo from starting World War II? NO.

There are only a handful of top-dog nations in the world and only one of them has the means to routinely project power around the globe for the cause of freedom and human rights, and it isn't the UN. So, given the Vatican's past pronouncements the inner logic would seem to lead towards endorsing US-led coalitions rather than UN coalitions made of anti-Catholic and anti-human regimes like China, France, or Syria.

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

Joe

there is another side to all this.

Zimbabwe. what is the President doing about that? i could list others.

in reality, my belief -- and i confess upfront that this is a personal view, but, hey, aren't they all -- is that most of these conflicts can be resolved without the need for bloodshed and further innocent victims.

indeed, i believe that that is the thrust of the just war theory -- in lay man's terms.

getting to the point, the real culprits in the Far East are the Saudis. their human rights record stinks. they bred most of the Al Q murderers, or at least most of their leaders.

sanctions. these hurt the domestic situation -- rising oil prices etc. no politician wants to lose office so he desists.

however. these peaceful types of conflict resolution are there. all we need is a collective will to implement.

i cannot disagree that the world is better off for the capture of such a heinous individual. i do not agree,however, that the end justify the means.

a Catholic world needs to follow the Catholic faith. just wars are rare. few and far between.

two wrongs don't make a right.

all that stuff.

brave coalition troops in body bags, wives and children in tears. innocent Iraqi babies mutilated or dead.

its a sordid affair.

i think the Pope is so much wiser than world leaders would ever care to admit.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 16, 2003.

It sounds as if Cardinal Martino could use some prayers to open up his closed mind.

What a assine statement coming from his mouth! Is he any relation to Cardnal Law?

-- - (David@excite.com), December 16, 2003.

Ian:
World leaders? A well-known world leader was once warned, ''What will the Pope say?''

He answered with a smile, ''How many divisions does the Pope have?''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 16, 2003.

Zimbabwe. what is the President doing about that? i could list others.

Zimbabwe and Mugabe didn't attack us. Islamic Terrorists did. As far as I know Mugabe doesn't have a grudge against the West strong enough to cause us harm. Part of the 'just war' theology is that we have to be at risk from the country we are going to war with.

The theory is that we eliminate a few states that harbor and foster Islamic terrorism or those who have it in for us (like N. Korea) and others will see what we did and kick the terrorists out or bargan for peace. Those that don't we simply utter the words 'your next', and they will. Iraq may be the last state we need to use an an example, we will see. There may be need for one more. The list looks like this:

Syria, Iran, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, North Korea, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority. There may be more, these are the names I keep hearing bantered about the neocon press.

Again, the goal is to greatly defuse the problem of international Islamic terrorism before they hit us again.

In Christ, Bill

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

Without the United States and its money propping up everything, the UN is a bunch of United Nothing. It always has been, and probably always will be.

Eugene, I usually reserve "there but for....etc." for people who suffer from circumstances completely beyond their control--accidents, illness, etc. Saddam Hussein's problems do not fall under that category, not by a long shot. All he had to do was leave peacefully, and this war could have been avoided.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), December 16, 2003.

probably the most important thing, and yet the most difficult thing, is to asimilate patriotic, nationalistic feelings (bad) with the teachings of the Church (good).

one says, nuke 'em, for some reason or another.

the other says practice Christian compassion.

what would Our Lord have done in theswe circumstances.

woulod have have understood an invasion in Iraq? woud he wonder why Zimbabwe is so on the back-burner?

would he be happy that the Chinese are abusing civil rights as they do?

would he be happy with the seklective aggression of the world's leading power?

i don't know.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 16, 2003.

Let me reassure you, GT;
I'm an enemy of the Saddam regime. I want it destroyed.

I'm not ''forgiving'' or defending Saddam. I said I felt PITY. Compassion means a share in his suffering; an ability to feel for the man. It doesn't mean he's NOT GUILTY, or shouldn't pay. How did you manage to make the leap from what I said to an ''excuse'' for this evil man?

You say he can't come under the "there but for....etc." category. I ask you what the grace of God IS? Is God asleep when men like Saddam are born into the world? NO.

But many men are born; fall from God's grace, and one day they repent; by God's grace. They don't lose their souls because God's grace comes down to them. I'm one who might have become a Saddam, in some strange circumstance. But by God's mercy and grace, that hasn't happened. It isn't because I was a better man, necessarily. It's because of God I haven't been allowed to do the things he has. I have to give God the thanks for it. Not my superior character, or soul.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 16, 2003.

Eugene, I'm sorry for not being more clear. In no way did I mean to imply your approval of him.

What I read into your earlier statement, which you may or may not have meant, was the "predestination vs.free will" debate. As in, it was predicted that one of the twelve would betray Jesus, so did he (Judas) ever have a chance not to? Same with Peter later on--he couldn't stop himself.

That was what I was responding to.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), December 16, 2003.

No-- I am only aware of the public life of Saddam. This life is what I base my thinking on: There, but for the grace of God-- Because he was a public sinner without equal.

He could have been a good man after his own Muslim conscience. By itself that would never absolve him of sin; but at least we could feel concern for his soul. Not only wasn't he a God-fearing man. He damned himself. Not out of destiny or fate. By his own works.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 16, 2003.

It is starting to look like Saddam rivaled Hitler and Stalin in his inhumanity to man.

In Christ, Bill Nelson

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 17, 2003.

Gene,

In your FIRST post in this thread, you said," I have compassion for the evil man.."

Well we have to try.

But later in the same post you said," He should get the death penalty, IMHO"

Agreed. But, are you in favor of"lethal injection", etc...? What method of execution...? Or it doesn't matter?

-- - (David@excite.com), December 17, 2003.

I don't care. A quick execution without barbarism, if such a thing is ever possible in a muslim country.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 17, 2003.

Ian, your argument makes no sense whatsoever...unless you think that the United States is de jure the world's policeman. If so, then any local problem becomes our problem and moral responsibility.

But that's where you and the Cardinal are so wrong: the US has never desired to be "world policeman" responsible for righting every wrong. And we have never used the military card as first solution or only solution...

To do so would require us to literally rule the world - as an empire.

But the US foreign strategy since 1944 has been to create not an empire (one monster state) but rather zones of influence... We don't rule Europe, but we do have major influence there. (normally called NATO, 300,000 troops and the 6th fleet).

We don't rule Oceania or Japan or Korea...but we have influence there - in the form of troops, fleets, and military bases but also economically and culturally...the US being home to sizable minorities of ethnic groups with ties to their homelands.

We don't rule the Middle East or Asia...but again, with Central Command in Qatar etc. we have lots of influence - we buy much of their oil (thus helping provide jobs to their people and income for their governments). We also have many treaties with them and are involved in humanitarian operations all the time...

But we don't rule them. Influence is one thing, rule quite another.

So when some tin-pan tyrant in Africa abuses his own people or neighbors, we try to work with all the other powers and sources of influence to affect change.

According to international law, the UN, and other treaties, if Congo attacked a neighbor who had a mutual defense treaty with us... and they asked for help, the USA would be legally bound to respond.

But Congo and many other nations in Africa are waging CIVIL WARS. Iraq and Afganistan weren't involved in civil wars...they were gearing up for WORLD WARS. BIG, BIG DIFFERENCE.

Our morals and strategy don't change, but the application of principle must change according to circumstance and history. This is why the US is cooperating with 5 other powers to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the Korean problem...just as we cooperated with 30 nations in invading Iraq.

We're not concerned about Korea because we want to rule them. We're concerned because North Korea is sponsoring international terrorists who have stated plainly their desire to destroy the USA!

What are we supposed to do? Not believe them when they say they hope we burn in hell, but then believe them when they claim they don't have WMD (as our troops mass on their border)?

We've never fought any major war without allies. Not one.

So if 4 countries didn't go with us (France, Germany, Russia and China) but Japan, UK, Spain, Italy, and Poland did... why is it claimed that de facto "we went alone", unilaterally????

Since when has the Vatican or anyone claimed that "the international community" was composed exclusively of 4 nations?

Has the Bush Administration retreated from the UN? No. From NATO or any other treaty? NO. We've continued to work with other powers and other nations... on multiple levels of cooperation and dialogue.

African nations have systems of injustice of their own making which we didn't directly cause and which we're not directly responsible for ending... other nations exist in the world who have the power to stop such violence (France is most involved in Africa).

But you claim that since we're not invading EVERYONE that an invasion in Iraq is inconsistent or immoral? What kind of logic is that?

Go read the US defense policy sometime on whitehouse.gov it's right there and spelled out for the world to see.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 17, 2003.

I can have pity on someone who was living in a hole in fear, even if they had 750k next to them.

I ALSO have pity for all the people he killed, and their families who have to continually live with their loss. I have more pity for them, their loss was greater, and not of their own making.

The other thing is that having pity on him doesn't mean you approve of his regime or his actions. He should definitely be held accountable, and (probably) be convicted for what he did. A nice sympathetic jury of Kurds should do. He should also have his criminal actions made public to all, to hopefully decrease the chance of their being repeated.

To look at it another way, I'd bet Christ would mourn the loss of his soul, (if that is his fate), and not be jumping up and down high- fiving people about it. Shouldn't we aspire to the same? Do what we must, but not gloat in another's failure?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 17, 2003.

Well, thank goodness someone got to the bottom of this!

Here's a link to National Review in which Michael Novak fills in for us the background drama playing out over the Cardinal's words.

http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak200312170902.asp

It seems that Cardinal Martino is NOT speaking for the Pope or other Vatican officials in being so blatantly "anti-whatever the US does".

And like me, Novak is happy that the Pope did NOT endorse the war since we don't want a clash of religions here. (Lord knows the Muslims are killing enough Catholics and other Christians as it is, without further provocation). We just wanted him and his messengers to be more nuanced about it and explain why the US was given the green light to bomb Kosovo and Serbia (neither of whom threatened the USA or Nato) when the UN Security Council threatened a veto, but gives the US and coalition a "red" light to invading and liberating Iraq.

It just didn't seem consistent. Where was the principle at stake?

Bomb and invade and occupy (we're STILL THERE) Kosovo - which is NOT a threat to the security of the USA or EU...but don't invade Iraq which was?

It just didn't make any sense unless you posit as an a priori the idea that the Cardinals and Pope a) didn't know the facts of the matter, b) sincerely believed it would ignite World War III, and c) would be a total bloodbath.

I've repeatedly stated that if I believed what they appear to have believed, I'd agree wholeheartedly...it's airtight logic. But that's the issue: their a priori.

There was no doubt in the UN or NATO or US' mind that Iraq was a military threat to its neighbors in its own right, that it had many WMD programs running up to 1998, that they never accounted for the weapons they admitted they had, and that Iraq had direct ties with REGIONAL TERROR groups, and strongly was suspected of ties with INTERNATIONAL TERROR groups such as Al Qaeda. (it's not like Osama's men have passports or ID cards that you track and stamp at the border!

So that's the facts. A real threat to world peace and US security specifically.

Then you have the facts of American Military capabilities and intentions - "modern weaponry" doesn't NECESSARILY mean MORE civilian casualties, but actually means LESS.

Shorter wars are less bloody and destructive when accurate and DISCRIMATE weapons are used. The total sum of people killed this past year was less than Iraq lost in a single battle in their war with Iran.

Maybe we're just falling for a pile of misinformation here... and a Cardinal with some burr under his saddle which he isn't expressing very well.

Of course I pity and pray for Cardinal Martino... and yeah, I also pray for Saddam's conversion and salvation. But also for justice.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 17, 2003.

Joe, You don't understand, the power-elite hate Bush because he represents middle-America who they distain. That is the prime mover here.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 17, 2003.