There has been much talk about the Iraq war in the forum and on just war theory. I am curious to know where some of you would rank war on a list of bad things in this world such as murder, sodomy, oppression, cheating etc.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 20, 2004

Answers

bump

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 20, 2004.

Brian

if, by "rank war on a list of bad things" you mean "how serious a sin is it?"

Aquinas I think said that murder is the worst sin. The politician who makes a decision to go to war, (even in a clear case of defence of his/her own nation against an attack), has to bear in mind that even the most "surgical" war necessarily will involve killing many innocent people and be an occasion of many other sins (extortion, rape, profiteering etc) and cause suffering and deprivation (including damage to economic systems, diversion of spending that could be used to relieve suffering etc).

If you mean "how bad is war as a problem in the world at present" compared with the other things you mention;

then in my opinion the wars currently going on are causing more human suffering than anything else at present, except perhaps for the abortion holocaust in Western countries.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 20, 2004.

Brian, for the answer to your question, we only need to examine the just war doctrine.

The following is from: What is Just War? by Colin B. Donovan, STL

As with all moral acts the use of force to obtain justice must comply with three conditions to be morally good. First, the act must be good in itself. The use of force to obtain justice is morally licit in itself. Second, it must be done with a good intention, which as noted earlier must be to correct vice, to restore justice or to restrain evil, and not to inflict evil for its own sake. Thirdly, it must be appropriate in the circumstances. An act which may otherwise be good and well motivated can be sinful by reason of imprudent judgment and execution. 

In this regard Just War doctrine gives certain conditions for the legitimate exercise of force, all of which must be met:

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

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

3. there must be serious prospects of success;

4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition" [CCC 2309].

The responsibility for determining whether these conditions are met belongs to "the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good." The Church's role consists in enunciating clearly the principles, in forming the consciences of men and in insisting on the moral exercise of just war. 

The Church greatly respects those who have dedicated their lives to the defense of their nation. "If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace. [Cf. Gaudium et spes 79, 5] " However, she cautions combatants that not everything is licit in war. Actions which are forbidden, and which constitute morally unlawful orders that may not be followed, include:

- attacks against, and mistreatment of, non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners;

- genocide, whether of a people, nation or ethnic minorities; 

- indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants.

Given the modern means of warfare, especially nuclear, biological and chemical, these crimes against humanity must be especially guarded against.

In the end it is not enough to wage war to achieve justice without treating the underlying causes. "Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war" [CCC 2317]. The Church has no illusions that true justice and peace can be attained before the Coming of the Lord. It is the duty of men of good will to work towards it, nonetheless. In the words of the spiritual dictum, we should work as if everything depended upon our efforts, and pray as if everything depended upon God.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 20, 2004.

I believe that war is the worst of things because it embodies murder, oppresion, cheating...

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), April 20, 2004.

Hi, Brian

Can you explain to me how you can equate the war in Iraq with having sex with someone in the but?(isn't this what sodomy is?)

I thought the CCC addressed the just war.

Are you trying to be funny??? Or are you being serious?

-- - (David@excite.com), April 20, 2004.

We should desire peace but we are not called to be pacifists. In fact, historically, decisive, unequivocal victories in war usually bring about more peace than do cease fires, negotiated truces, etc. Would humanity have been better served if the allied forces had done what George Patton desired to do: march in to Russia after defeating Germany and Japan? I think, in hindsight you could certainly make a case for such an action. Would we have been better off marching in to Baghdad in 1991 rather than pulling out after driving Iraq from Kuwait per UN agreement? Clearly Yes! It concerns me that many people and many bishops and cardinals appear to think that we should never engage in wars, ever. Should we guard against imperialism, and strive to make diplomacy work? Certainly. But good grief, sometimes evil has to be confronted. And when things start getting rough, we can not turn tail like Spain.

There are 4 "Sins that cry to heaven for vengeance:" 1. Willful murder 2. Sodomy 3. Taking advantage of the poor 4. Denying just wages to laborers

War, nor support of war, nor participation in war is not one of the 4 most heinous sins against God. God is more offended by sodomy than by war. That would surprise most people. When was the last time you heard a catholic official speak as vehemently against sodomy or abortion (willful murder) as he does against war? Not lately I bet.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 21, 2004.

David,

I am very serious. This has been traditional catholic teaching. There are 4 sins that offend God among all others. Sodomy is one of them. War is not.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 21, 2004.

Brian,

Yes, these 4 "cry to heaven for vengeance" as the Bible says. But it does not necessarily follow that they are "the 4 most heinous sins against God" or that God is more offended by these sins than any other. I agree that the bishops should speak more strongly against the now widespread view that sodomy is harmless. But you can hardly argue that one act of sodomy offends God more than any war, no matter how massive or unjustified.

You assert unequivocally "We are not called to be pacifists". I understand that ever since Apostolic times, the Church has respected the view of those of its members who see pacifism as a valid option.

Yes, evil has to be confronted - not sometimes, but always. But war or violence is not the only way to confront it. War is not the ONLY alternative to doing NOTHING. Don't you recall that the mighty and terrible USSR was brought down by non-violent action by the Church, the Siberian coal miners and the people of Moscow?

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 21, 2004.

Hi Bill thanks for posting the criteria for what constitures a "just war" under Catholic doctrine, you will now finally hopefully realise why not only your own Bishops in the US, but Bishops in EVERY national body throughout the nations of the world condemened the war in Iraq as unjust.

This does not prevent the Bishops also saying that their respective governments are the organisations who will make the decision on war not the Church. The fact a government has the power to make the decision doesnt alter the moral status of the decision in the eyes of the Church. Only a simpleton or rabid gormless republican utilitarian zombie (who has put their faith on the back burner) could fail to understand this simple truth.

You would do very well to read an awful book Ive had the misfortune of reading "Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos" by Robert D. Kaplan... the republican textbook on "moral leadership". His shallow blunt and imprecise thoughts are hailed by neo cons like yourself... but he explains the "philosophical basis" of neo conservative foreign policy and will hopefully finally awaken you to just how removed your own political stance is from Catholic morality. (even though he attempts to use ,in a most vile and dishonest way some Catholic theology to support his position )

BTW any way you could limit your torrent of politcal propaganda sometimes thinly tied(by the slimist of threads) to a Catholic "theme" to just html links on a single thread as I could equally flood the forum with similar inane press reports from Catholic liberal media outlets but commonsense dictates otherwise.

Brian its not only your Bishops youre failing to listen too but also our Holy Father I hope you and all AMericans take the time to read his message linked below very very carefully as it is so important given the nature of the world today

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/document s/hf_jp-ii_mes_20031216_xxxvii-world-day-for-peace_en.html

Peace is not only "desirable " as you put it but as a Catholic it is your DUTY. As a side note an "unjust war" (as has been determined by your own Bishops in Iraq) is certainly more offensive to God than sodomy. Your other statement "we are not called to be pacifists" is also not accurate or true-you are not qualified to make a statement as to whethr or not a person is called to pacifism.... there is nothing in Catholic theology that prevents a person, if called, living a life of pacifisim.

I am not pacifist but the question that will come to the fore in the future is not whether a Catholic (given the destructive capactiy of modern weapons) can be a pacifist, but rather if they can be anything else.

Peace!!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 21, 2004.

Rather imprecise myself with the usual spelling shockers, Peter I didnt see your post before replying to Brian but you said what I wanted to say, albiet with a gentler, kinder machinegun hand :)

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 21, 2004.

Again, I am not as eloquent as most on this forum..yet I speak from my heart..what is worse than war?? Apathy.. To stand by and watch fellow human beings be slaughtered or starved, tortured in unspeakable ways..and do nothing or care not..I am not speaking about Iraq per se..I am speaking about any incidents in the history of mankind where it becomes known that humans are suffering and other humans choose to do nothing..APATHY..I believe God will hold us accountable for doing nothing. War may or may not be the answer to the problem in some cases, yet in ALL cases of human suffering, apathy is never appropriate.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), April 21, 2004.

I like a lot of what Peter and Kiwi said (hope that doesn’t come as too much of a shock) but there is a correction that needs to be made.  Kiwi said, "Hi Bill thanks for posting the criteria for what constitures a "just war" under Catholic doctrine, you will now finally hopefully realise why not only your own Bishops in the US, but Bishops in EVERY national body throughout the nations of the world condemened the war in Iraq as unjust. "

 

This is misleading, there were some Bishops who spoke out against the liberation of Iraq, but there were those that supported it, and those that did not support it but did not call it unjust and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops did not call it an unjust liberation.  The Pope tried to convince everyone to go to the UN and let the UN handle it. I don’t happen to hold the faith in the UN that those in the Vatican hold.  Be that as it may the President DID go to the UN for help and they, as they usually do, didn’t act, instead continued to embezzle money from the oil for food program.  But the major point here is that the Pope didn’t condemn the war as an unjust war, in fact he didn’t have all the facts at hand to be able to do that.  As the Catechism points out, only the people who hold all the facts can do that.  In this case, the President and the Congress.

 

Here are some resources for you:

 

CiM: "The general public seems rather confused by the 'duality' of 'voice of the Church', hearing the statements of Archbishop O'Brien of the Military Services, Novak, Weigel and company vs. the USCCB most recent statement about Iraq and other statements coming even from the Vatican. Why is the current war with Iraq such a cause of division among Catholics? Is there any hope for unification over the issue? Is this really an either/or question, or a both/and? "

Michael: "This is an extremely important question and I see unity in these different positions in light of the Church's teaching. The Church teaches that war is a contingent question left to the prudential judgment of our political leaders. All the statements from the US Bishops have reserved moral judgment even though they pose their moral questions or concerns. They have the right and freedom to do so and I would be troubled if they were calling for a war at any time. They have responsibility to teach the faith and morality to the people of God. They are not politicians or military leaders. The bishops have and should instruct and admonish all of us regarding faith and morals but they recognize this is a prudential question. A prudential judgment entails a complex question that could go either way. But only the political leaders have the knowledge and expertise needed and the moral responsibility to defend us. The Pope is the shining example of hope and peace in a troubled world. Through his efforts to avoid this war he insured that all possible peaceful means were exhausted prior to war. I think everyone understands that the Pope wished this war could have been avoided. But when we read his statements, not the media spin, we find our Holy Father is not condemning the war. He is calling for respect for life, law, and solidarity. He goes on to say no to death, selfishness, and war. Who would ever want war? The Pope does not and no man in their right mind would seek war.

"The Church does not require unity on the conclusions of just war but rather urges that our determinations be based on the same principles. Again, prudential judgment is typified when two faithful Catholics can come to different conclusions using the same principles. The CatholicChurch is united when we understand the Church's teaching."

Inter view with Michael Hernon of CatholicJustWar

 

“As America turns to God for guidance and strength in the war on terrorism, its actions must be shaped by God's rules for when and how military action may be taken -- what Catholic theology calls just war doctrine. It is important that ordinary citizens be informed about these rules so they can help inform our leaders at key junctures through the democratic process.

This guide is a primer on just war doctrine. Because it is meant to be of use to Americans evaluating conflicts in the war on terrorism, it is written with an eye towards the present conflict.”

Catholic Answers Guide to Just War Doctrine

 

 

“A year later, here's the question posed to those who argued that it would be morally justifiable to use armed force to compel Iraq's compliance with U.N. disarmament resolutions: if you knew then what you know now, would you have made the same call? … I would. “

Iraq and just war, revisited by George Weigel

BIOGRAPHIES OF MILITARY SAINTS AND BLESSEDS FROM THE PUBLISHED "SAINTS OF TODAY AND YESTERDAY" PAGES OF MAGNIFICAT

 

G.K. Chesterton: First, a man reading the Gospels would not find platitudes….. For instance, he would not find ordinary platitudes in favor of peace. He would find several paradoxes in favor of peace….. But he would not find a word about all that obvious rhetoric against war which has filled countless books and odes and orations; not a word about the wickedness of war, the appalling scale of the slaughter in war and all the rest of the familiar frenzy; indeed not a word about war at all. There is nothing that throws a particular light on Christ’s attitude towards organized warfare, except that he seems to have been rather fond of Roman soldiers. (Indeed it is another perplexity, speaking from the same external and human standpoint, that he seems to have got on much better with Romans than he did with Jews. But the question here is a certain tone to be appreciated by merely reading a certain text; and we might give any number of instances of it.) ---- The Everlasting Man

Rear Adm. Louis V. Iasiello, 14th Chaplain of the Marine Corps and Deputy Chief Chaplain of the Navy: The service members here have been given an incredible mandate by the American people to check the forces of darkness and to bring justice and peace to the world. Know you are loved. Know you are respected, and years from now you can look back and say you served in a time of need.

Bishop Fulton Sheen: Where do we get our rights and liberties which we have to defend? They have a source.  Where do I get the right to free speech? Where do you get freedom of conscience, freedom of religion?   If you get them from the state of New York, the State of New York could take them away.  Do you get your rights and liberties from the Federal Government in Washington?  If you got your rights and liberties from the Federal Government in Washington, the Federal Government in Washington could take them away.

Our Founding Fathers had to face this question, and it was one of the very first that they answered. The sought for some basis and ground of human rights and liberties, and they found it and set it down in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence: It is a self-evident principle that the Creator- the Creator- has endowed man with certain inalienable rights.  They cannot be taken away.  And among them is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

USCCB: American Catholic servicemen and women and their chaplains are likewise called conscientiously to fulfill their duty to defend the common good. To risk their own lives in this defense is a great service to our nation and an act of Christian virtue.

Terence Cardinal Cooke: Love of our country does not mean forgetting the rest of the world. It does mean thanking God for giving her the strength to sustain those in the world who cannot protect themselves; for giving her the courage to hold fast to principles in a world of profit and loss; for giving her an eagerness to look in new directions in a changing world. Patriotism esteems the generosity to reach out to the poor, the oppressed of the world and to take them into our hearts.  May God make our nation grow in those qualities and lead us to grow with her.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 21, 2004.

Anybody have the statistics as to how many people die as a result of war every year, as well as how many people are murdered through abortion every year. That comparison might have impact on this discussion.

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), April 21, 2004.

Dano, Millions more die of abortion, but don't play a numbers game, it really is a matter of morality, not mathematics.

bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 21, 2004.

Peter: you said that the 4 sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance are not necessarily the sins that are most offensive to God. What is the basis for you saying this? Why aren't there 5 sins then or 6 sins? There are also 10 commandments. Are these the 10 we should live by or are there others more important? If I am wrong I will stand corrected. There are many here who know more than I do about many things.

You are correct about pacifism. I should have said we are not all compelled to be pacifists personally. We cannot be pacifists and apathetic as lesley pointed out, that would be a sin.

Bill:I am glad you mentioned the UN. I have made the point on other threads that the US worked with the UN, and invaded Iraq because of UN sanctions violations. The US dotted all of its i's and crossed all of its t's. There was public debate ad nauseum on a world stage, this was not a stealth invasion, it was as transparent as it gets.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 21, 2004.

Of course Bill, it wasn't about a numbers game. Abortion is a horrific evil. I thought the numbers might dirve home the point that this is a widespread pervasive evil that constitutes the greatest attack on human life in the history of the world. In the end I guess my point is that I think abortion is worse than war. Or maybe, abortion is the worst of all wars, it is the war against humanity itself.

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), April 21, 2004.

There is no sin that isn't deplorable. All sin offends almighty God, and we cannot hope to qualify one over another. Those who steal from widows and orphans will suffer damnation unless they repent. Just as adulterers and traitors and murderers must. Saint Paul says the love of money is the root of all evil. --All sin is repugnant, not only unjust war. Unjust attacks and wars of aggression are also sinful. But we should be aware that the ones who appease aggressors have the blood of their own country's innocent victims on their hands just as the warlike have.

God created man to be MAN, not mouse. In one case, David vs. Goliath, it was God who struck down the unjust one. By the hand of a fearless boy with a sling. When the cause is just, God doesn't want a man to run away from conflict with other men. That's why He gives them testicles.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 21, 2004.

There is no sin that isn't deplorable. All sin offends almighty God, and we cannot hope to qualify one over another

No, there is a hierarchy of sin, and there are some sins that are more grievious than others. You can turn your back to God and walk away, or you can run. For more information see the Catholic Catechism IV. THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 21, 2004.

Let's be honest; you must know I meant mortal sins. Those who steal from widows and orphans, adulterers, traitors and murderers --Sound like venial sins to you?

AND; Saint Paul DID say the love of money is the root of all evil. It can cause venial and/or mortal sin. If we acknowledge an heirarchy of all sins, war is not at the top. Because there IS no top. God hates every single sin.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 21, 2004.

Eugene,

Very well put as always. Thank you for bringing up manliness. This is kind of the heart of the issue for me. Our society and sadly our church has been feminized these past decades. Traditionally the feminine voice is the voice of restraint and gentleness, and fear while the masculine voice is the one of passion and courage and fire. I believe the church, today, speaks with a feminine voice more so than a masculine one. Things are out of balance. Young boys are being brought up with no masculine guidance because their fathers are not there due to divorce or illegitimacy or if they are there they are little more than overgrown adolescents themselves who would rather play x-box, or nintendo, or watch porn, or tattoo and pierce themselves while wearing their baseball cap sideways than be a good role model. These men are contracepting because too many kids would cut into their me-time and because they don't hear sermons against contraception, and many don't know it is a sin. Meanwhile, muslims are still popping out kids right and left. They have their designs on taking over Europe in a few decades just by immigration alone. These jihadists would love nothing more than to fly a plane into St. Peter's Square. I'm tired of pacifism, I want my leaders to have cojones. Whew, I feel better now after that rant, now I've got to get back to work.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 21, 2004.

Read section 1858, "Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother." The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger." [emphasis mine]

In Christ
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 21, 2004.

I can accept that, Bill. My opinion only states the reality of losing one's soul while giving some sins a relative value. The old saying was, might as well be hanged for a sheep as ??? Can't recall.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 21, 2004.

Cool phrase: "As well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb"...or in modern jargen: "One might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb".

It refers to an English law that the penalty for any theft of livestock was execution by hanging. It is not a theological reference.

Dante, in trying to explain this, gave levels to Hell. I think for our discussion what is important is that some mortal sins are worse than others and cause a greater and swifter separation from God. The time in Purgatory for such sins is greater was well, if they are forgiven. For the temporal punishment is greater.

While every mortal sin averts us from our true last end, all mortal sins are not equally grave, as is clear from Scripture (John, xix, 11; Matt., xi, 22; Luke, vi), and also from reason. Sins are specifically distinguished by their objects, which do not all equally avert man from his last end. Then again, since sin is not a pure privation, but a mixed one, all sins do not equally destroy the order of reason. Spiritual sins, other things being equal, are graver than carnal sins. (St. Thomas, "De malo", Q. ii, a. 9; I-II, Q. lxxiii, a. 5). More from St. Thomas on this topic is here.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 21, 2004.

Brian

"Cry out to heaven for vengeance" does not mean exactly the same thing as "are the most offensive to God" or "are worse than any others". If you claim that the first thing necessarily must imply the other 2 meanings you mentioned, the onus is on you to prove this, not on me to disprove it.

These 4 sins are mentioned in the Bible as crying to God for vengeance. I do not know of anything in scripture or Catholic tradition or teaching which states that NO OTHER sin cries to God for vengeance. Rather they teach that surely God will avenge and dispense justice for ALL sins, great and small and of whatever kind.

Your analogy with the 10 commandments is faulty. The Church has always understood that the 10 commandments implicitly include all possible sins. You will find the answer to "Are these the 10 we should live by or are there others more important?" in Matthew 23:36- 40.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 21, 2004.

Brian and Eugene

I agree that we are meant to be manly. But doing violence and "running away" are not the only two alternatives. It takes more "testicles" to confront evil in a non-violent way than to confront it with violence.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 21, 2004.

It takes more "testicles" to confront evil in a non-violent way than to confront it with violence.

Then there must be alot of testicles in the French government. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Peter, I still think the 4 sins that cry to God for vengeance must be the most offensive sins to God but I can't prove it scripturally or otherwise (nor can you prove it conversely), so as I said, I stand corrected. Good on ya mate.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 21, 2004.

But doing violence and "running away" are not the only two alternatives.

In this case they are. Islamisists (aka terrorists) are not interested in negotiations, they are interested in victory.

And Saddam was getting richer, we know now, because of the oil for food deals he was getting from the UN. He used the money to not only build palaces put to fund terrorists.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), April 21, 2004.

An affair with a 24 year old intern is worse than war. A uppity wife is worse than war. Whitewater cheating is worse than war. Firing people in the WH travel office is worse than war. Looking at a picture of Paula Jones is worse than war.

-- ziggy (ziggy@ziggy.com), April 21, 2004.

Bill,

Doing violence, "running away" and "negotiations" are not the only three alternatives. Non-violence embraces MANY alternatives for confronting evil. ONE possible avenue to overthrow Saddam non- violently would have been via a small number of vital technicians in the Iraqi oil industry. Iraqis are a proud people and wanted to free THEMSELVES from Saddam's tyranny. They feel humiliated that foreigners had to remove him for them, especially when the battle was so one-sided. Now they are taking out their humiliated feelings by turning on their liberators. When will we learn that instinctively reaching for our guns to solve every evil only creates more evils in the long run?

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 21, 2004.

Well Peter K you seem like a rare voice of reason around here. What I want to know is what we are doing liberating the people of Iraq when we never finished up in Afghanistan or caught Binladen. Yes, I know Sadaam was a bad guy, yada yada. Iraq was never about terorism, it was about settling an old score from Desert Storm. Bush One didn't finish him off and Sadaam tried to have him killed. Thats what this "war on terorism" is all about. Bush Two thought he could slip in there and finish up some old business and nobody would be the wiser. AMost Americans were blinded by patriotism but everyone else from the pope to Putin knew what was going on.

-- R. Santos (not@fooled.net), April 21, 2004.

Brian, have you considered that the invasion and occupation of Iraq probably involved all of:

- wilful murder (since it is at best extremely dubious whether all of the conditions for a just war were satisfied);

- oppression of the poor (exploitation by the huge US corporations that rushed in to make millions from reconstruction tenders awarded to Bush's buddies without a competitive tender process);

- depriving workers of their just wages (US troops deliberately targeted and trashed the HQ of a group of Iraqis trying to set up a labour union);

- and, for all I know, sodomy, given the US military's "don't ask and don't tell" policy.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 21, 2004.

Wow Peter, watch out. The Republicatholics around here will be screaming to have you kicked off of the board for "rudeness". Don't you know that abortion trumps all other issues? Who cares about a silly war. It's no big deal. Who cares what the Pope says. Who cares about anything but getting Bush elected.

-- Renee (stevenspoint@home.com), April 21, 2004.

Peter:
Non-violence is very commendable. i'm not a violent man. The context of our discussion was war for a cause. we were attacked by Jihaddists and reacted justly. Please don't insult me and the others by exonerating Saddam. Please desist from deploring a military solution to middle eastern complicity in terrorism; including the evil regime of Saddam Hussein.

One sad but undeniable fact is, non-violent means are just a sign of decadence and weakness as applied to barbaric extremist muslims. They respect force. When a nation has that force and hesitates to show it, they react with undisguised glee. They had predicted to one another that Americans would not fight a ground war because we are cowards.

A never-ending campaign of appeasement by UN interference, aided and abetted by their complicit allies in the UN Security Council would have sent them that message they love to hear: the west is finished. It's rotten at the core and we will destroy all of it.

In those circumstances, a military response is not only honorable and manly; it is completely justified. Bullies must be whipped. God rules all of our world; and he delivered Saddam into our hands. What is there about this so regrettable? Non- violence would never have unseated that monster. It was far from what you want to call it, ''confronting it''. What that is is inertia. Just accepting punishment like a helpless people. We are NOT helpless. We have backbones, Sir.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 21, 2004.

Renee: Wow, the sarcasm...I love it, LOL. There's no thin skin here. Bring it on. It looks like you answered the original question. For you, the Iraq war is worse than abortion. That's what I wanted to know.

Peter, your last post parroted typical liberal talking points. You sound like Elpidio and Anti-Bush. I thought you were different than that. I didn't realize we would be re-hashing just war theory and war for oil hysteria. Sigh!

You said: Iraqis are a proud people and wanted to free THEMSELVES from Saddam's tyranny.

What a pity they didn't do it. I am sorry if we hurt their feelings. We probably should have been more sensitive. BTW, are there any people who aren't proud? My brother in law is Iranian. My sister lived in Iran for a dozen years, my niece was born there. I consider him to be proud too. He would like the US to march right into Iran after Iraq. He would like to see these Muslim fanatics crushed for what they have done to his country. He doesn't care who does it, nor do I think most Iranians or Iraqis care. Don't underestimate how much people there like Americans despite what you hear in the press. Journalists in general don't like Americans.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 21, 2004.

There you have it, Peter K, you are being "insulting" by posing such embarrassing questions and making such scurrilous statements.

"Please don't insult me and the others..."

These armchair warriors can never admit the obvious, namely that we attacked a country that didn't attack us. If they were to admit that basic fact that any rational person knows, their whole argument would go down the drain. Denial is the order of the day. Shoot first and ask questions later. We have backbones, sir. BTW, matey, can you spare a few more troops? Thanks a heap.

-- Renee (stevenspoint@home.com), April 21, 2004.

Eugene

you said

How on earth could you construe that I am exonerating Saddam? I called him a tyrant and said that it was right to liberate the Iraqi people from him. I only questioned the means by which this was done.

you said

No doubt they also think Christianity is decadent and they would respect us if we became Muslims. That doesn't mean we have to do what they want. Non-violent action is exactly what they don't want, it would cut the ground from under them. One of the beauties of non- violent action is that the target usually doesn't expect it or even realise that it's happening until it's too late to stop it. By going in with guns blazing, the US has convinced many previously moderate Muslims that Al-Quaeda's propaganda is true, that Western countries are oppressing them.

you said

Non-violence has successfully unseated monsters such as Marcos in the Phillippines and the Communists in Russia. The latter murdered over 100 million people. Compared to them, Saddam was Mr Nice Guy.

you said

Read my posts again properly. My whole point is that violence and helpless inertia are not the only two alternatives. I speak of confronting evil with non-violent ACTION, the opposite of accepting helpless inertia.

You are welcome to express your political views but please don't imply that yours is the only possible political position for a good Catholic to hold. I respect your right to have different views and I ask you to do the same to me.

You imply I have no backbone. Gandhi said "Nonviolence is not a weapon of the weak. It is a weapon of the strongest and bravest. The force generated by nonviolence is infinitely greater than the force of all the arms created by man's ingenuity. I see neither bravery nor sacrifice in destroying life or property, for offence or defence. To answer brutality with brutality is to admit one's moral and intellectual bankruptcy."

If you say Gandhi is irrelevant because he was not a Christian, I say that although a Hindu, he was the greatest Christian of the 20th century. As he also said "If it weren't for Christians, I'd be a Christian."

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 21, 2004.

Hi Bill "sigh" weve done this to death before so I wont drag this out any further but obv the decision of the Bishops of the world that this war is unjust is not binding on Catholics and I acknowledge that you can dissent from the Bishops decision. But you as a Catholic need to reflect more carefully on how appropriate is for you Mr BILL Nelson esq internet armchair layman to publicaly challenge all the national conferenes of Bishops of the World and the HOly SEE.

Here it is (again)from your own US National Conference of Bishops

"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 teaching for overriding the strong presumption against the use of military force"

Given the "curret public information" that has come to light since this statement was released in 2002 we an be assured that this position was the correct one and the basis for war -WMD and the imminent threat posed to US seccurity nothing but lies. You cant retrospectively then try and dream up new reasons for justifying the war(equally false)in light of the exposed lies: ie humanitarian or part of the war on terror reasons etc.

Neverthless my younger brother (just a baby at 21!) has just left NZ to serve in AFganistan so I am accutely aware of the reality of the situation we find ourselves in now. Lets hope the AMerican public can stick this one out if things start to get real nasty. You folks made this mess, youve got to fix it.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 21, 2004.

Non-violence has successfully unseated monsters such as Marcos in 1917 the Phillippines and the Communists in Russia. The latter murdered over 100 million people.

Communist Russia murdered over 100 million people but we "successfully" unseated them with non-violence. Right on!

I'm sorry for the sarcasm Peter but I think this disproves the point you are trying to make. What if we had invaded the USSR in 1917, in the 20's, the 30's? How many millions of people would have been saved? Maybe Russia would have been consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, immediately, as Our Lady requested. Maybe the Catholic Church would not have been infiltrated with so much communist and masonic thought.

Renee: You've got a lot of spunk. You remind me of my wife, except for that liberal, pacifist thing you've got going on. You're probably young. Maybe you can grow out of it. :)

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 21, 2004.

I wonder if John Paul still has time to grow out of his liberal pacifist thing. Probably not.

-- Tony (Tonythetiger@tuffguy.net), April 21, 2004.

I'll try that again, with Eugene's quotes restored: you said "Please don't insult me and the others by exonerating Saddam"

How on earth could you construe that I am exonerating Saddam? I called him a tyrant and said that it was right to liberate the Iraqi people from him. I only questioned the means by which this was done.

you said "non-violent means are just a sign of decadence and weakness as applied to barbaric extremist muslims. They respect force."

No doubt they also think Christianity is decadent and they would respect us if we became Muslims. That doesn't mean we have to do what they want. Non-violent action is exactly what they don't want, it would cut the ground from under them. One of the beauties of non- violent action is that the target usually doesn't expect it or even realise that it's happening until it's too late to stop it. By going in with guns blazing, the US has convinced many previously moderate Muslims that Al-Quaeda's propaganda is true, that Western countries are oppressing them.

you said "Non- violence would never have unseated that monster."

Non-violence has successfully unseated monsters such as Marcos in the Phillippines and the Communists in Russia. The latter murdered over 100 million people. Compared to them, Saddam was Mr Nice Guy.

you said "you want to call it, ''confronting it''. What that is is inertia. Just accepting punishment like a helpless people."

Read my posts again properly. My whole point is that violence and helpless inertia are not the only two alternatives. I speak of confronting evil with non-violent ACTION, the opposite of accepting helpless inertia.

You are welcome to express your political views but please don't imply that yours is the only possible political position for a good Catholic to hold. I respect your right to have different views and I ask you to do the same to me.

You imply I have no backbone. Gandhi said "Nonviolence is not a weapon of the weak. It is a weapon of the strongest and bravest. The force generated by nonviolence is infinitely greater than the force of all the arms created by man's ingenuity. I see neither bravery nor sacrifice in destroying life or property, for offence or defence. To answer brutality with brutality is to admit one's moral and intellectual bankruptcy."

If you say Gandhi is irrelevant because he was not a Christian, I say that although a Hindu, he was the greatest Christian of the 20th century. As he also said "If it weren't for Christians, I'd be a Christian."

Brian:

I don't "parrot" anything. I make up my own posts and if I use anything from anybody else I put it in quotes with their name. I don't know "anti-Bush" or "Elpidio".

Please explain which part of my posts are "hysteria".

Whether it was wrong to hurt the Iraqis' feelings isn't my point. My point is that while using violent methods appeared to "work" initially, in the long run it seems that evil will increase as a result.

Yes I know most non-US journalists don't like the US. That doesn't mean everything the US government does is right. The indepedent opinion polls which have been taken in Iraq, which seem very well designed to be fair and impartial, show that more than a quarter of the Iraqi population believes that it's right to attack US troops. A pretty amazing result less than a year after these troops liberated them from a murderous tyrant.

I joined this forum because I thought I could discuss issues in an intelligent and Christian way with other committed Catholics. It is very disappointing when my honest opinions have been met with abuse, and accusations that I myself am being insulting, when I have done nothing of the kind. I am an Aussie and would not presume to tell you who to vote for in your election so why do you Yanks see everything I say through the prism of your Republican versus Democrat issues?

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 21, 2004.

Brian

You've not only misquoted me but you don't know much about 20th century history:

Marcos was unseated in 1986 not 1917.

"We" DID invade Russia in 1919 (it wasn't called the USSR until 1922) and fought the communists to a stalemate in a bloody war.

The USA tried for half a century to intimidate the USSR by building more and more and bigger and bigger weapons of mass destruction and threatening to use them ( a credible threat since the USA is the only country to have used nuclear weapons), not to mention the millions killed in proxy wars between satellite countries. It didn't work.

What did work was non-violent action by the Church, the Siberian coalminers and the people of Moscow and St Petersburg. The only credit "we" can take is the sabotage of Soviet computer systems by Western agents, which helped destabilise the Soviet system. Another successful non-violent action.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 22, 2004.

Peter,

Come on, I thought you Aussies were tougher than that. This is called vigorous debate. As Eugene has said before, this is not for the faint-hearted. I think we have been discussing things intelligently for the most part, yourself included.

I am not suggesting you lifted quotes directly from someone. I am saying that the essence of what you were saying in that paragraph sounded like a couple of other posters here, as well sounding like the typical liberal hyperbole which surprised me at the time. As for the "hysteria;" if you would re-read my post, I clearly referred to "war for oil hysteria." This is how I categorize what you said about US corporations profiteering in Iraq yada yada yada.

I consider myself a committed Catholic, I hope you consider yourself one as well. I love Jesus, I love Mary, I love the Holy Father, I love catholicism, and most of the time I love this forum. It would be pretty boring if we all agreed on everything. You are keeping a farmer awake way past his bed time, so Good Night, or perhaps G'day in your part of the world.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 22, 2004.

Peter,

I cut and pasted your quote. I don't know how 1917 got inserted in there, must have happened when I was moving stuff around. Sorry, didn't mean to. As I said, I am tired. I may be a dumb American, but yes, I did know that Marcos wasn't unseated in 1917. Good Night again.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 22, 2004.

Brian

By "abuse" and "accusations" I was referring mainly to Eugene (who I had thought was more Christian having read some of his other posts), not you. Sorry the order things came out in made it look like I was complaining mainly about you.

You must have missed my words "probably" and "for all I know" in the paragraph you say is hyperbole. My point was that war and the 4 sins you refer to are not mutually exclusive, but they (usually?/always?/in the present instance?) go together.

I never suggested the war was waged for oil. My point was it probably resulted in oppression of the poor.

Ditto to your last paragraph. Good night.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 22, 2004.

Oops I forgot to mention I'm now also called a spineless Koran- kissing Saddam-lover.

I guess that paragraph was a bit facetious, but not hyperbole.

Sorry I've been a bit hard on my American cousins - I was just a bit shocked at Eugene's hostile response and his demand that I "desist from deploring a military solution".

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 22, 2004.

The Bishops said  Our bishops' conference continues to question the moral legitimacy of any preemptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq. To permit preemptive or preventive uses of military force to overthrow threatening or hostile regimes would create deeply troubling moral and legal precedents. Based on the facts that are known .  However they did not know all the facts.  They were not privy to the reports the President was receiving, and the reports that are now coming out that a lot of countries that were speaking out against us going to war were taking bribes.  They didn’t know our government protested to the UN about it 40 times.  Only now it coming out in the press that countries on the Security Council were being bribed by Saddam and people in the UN 'tower' were taking bribes.   It was the UN, France and Russia among many who were profiting from the Iraqi oil.  They didn’t know that in October of 2002 Chirac personally called President Bush and promised to support us in the UN (Foreign Minister Dominick de Villepin did the same with Colin Powell) only to stab us in the back when he got his chance.    They didn’t know that the President of France may have had a large portion of his re-election campaign financed by Saddam.    

 

In short, the Bishops simply were not in a position to know.  That is why in the wisdom of the Church, the Just War Doctrine places the responsibility of determining what is or what is not a just war squarely in the hands of those with that knowledge.

 

Be that as it may, the US Bishops do not favor us ‘cutting and running’, instead they have said: while the U.S. Bishops did not support the military intervention in Iraq, now that the United States has intervened, it has a grave obligation to work with other countries and the United Nations on sustained, long-term efforts to work with Iraqis to build a just and enduring peace in their country.

 

Maybe the UN has changed????  ;)

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 22, 2004.

Thanks, good and faithful Bill;
You make some excellent points and I hope Peter will study them. Notice, I'm saying I hope; NOT I demand. I asked him PLEASE, desist from what he tried to accuse our people of. Also, I commended peaceful protest (non-violence) but stated my view of Islamist extremists; they only respect force.

This constituted abuse, I am told. Wow. We are sensitive Down Under.

Peter: ''That doesn't mean everything the US government does is right. The indepedent opinion polls which have been taken in Iraq, which seem very well designed to be fair and impartial, show that more than a quarter of the Iraqi population believes that it's right to attack US troops. A pretty amazing result less than a year after these troops liberated them from a murderous tyrant.''

REPLY: No one says everything the U.S. government does is right. But I believe we are right in destroying Saddam's regime. --The polls you reference are very possibly fair & impartial; but not necessarily. You may believe them. I don't. If we must battle a quarter of the Iraqi population to win, then it's bad news. But that's their problem. This is a war.

Soon they will have independence, if God is willing. When I took that position before, you considered me hostile? Now you presume to tell us what WE say about Ghandi? Get real, Peter. Ghandi never said we should accept wholesale slaughter in New York City and then NOT hunt down our enemies. According to your drift, that's the proper procedure. Non-violent response to our cities being destroyed.

Do any Aussies realise that even at this late juncture, the U.S. and our coalition could carpet-bomb all of Bagdad, Tikrit, Fallujah, Basra and keep going for weeks, if that were our intent? Our intent is to HELP the innocent citizens of that place.

And they seem to prove my first point; that American good-will is nothing but weakness in their estimation. (Since you point to that odd poll.)

I'm not hostile to anyone. I just say what I think: I say you judge this all incorrectly. With a good heart, but not well-informed or considerate. Why are you against the good guys? Because we aren't all like Ghandi? Saddam Hussein would have made pomade out of Mahatma Ghandi, Peter. Our people have laid down their lives to exterminate his nest, and you think we have offended God? I beg to differ with you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 22, 2004.

Eugene wrote: One sad but undeniable fact is, non-violent means are just a sign of decadence and weakness as applied to barbaric extremist muslims. They respect force. When a nation has that force and hesitates to show it, they react with undisguised glee. They had predicted to one another that Americans would not fight a ground war because we are cowards.

Is this true? Let's hear from Osama Bin Laden himself in one of his fatwas. Regarding Clinton Defense Secretary Bill Cohen who said that explosions in Riyadh and Khobar taught him one lesson: "that is not to withdraw when attacked by coward terrorists". OBL replies:

We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in lees than twenty four hours!

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 22, 2004.

Yes, Brian Crane,
I only wish the anti-war faction in our midst would see this dated release, never acknowledged by all those who oppose our President's actual war in the middle east. Nor does Osama bin Laden care a fig about UN Security Council prevarication. They can go to hell, as far as he's concerned. But we, the ones who suffered on 9-11; are supposed to consult a group of sleepy-headed bureaucrats at the UN before retaliating against terrorists? Obey the will of France and Russia and Germany, because we need their esteem? No wonder Osama holds us cheap. We aren't a nation of men to this fanatic.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 22, 2004.

Have you noticed that lately the anti-war faction in the congress has turned into the pro-draft faction? What gives with that?

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson34-nospam@hotmail.com), April 22, 2004.

Bill said "the US Bishops do not favor us ‘cutting and running’, instead they have said: 'while the U.S. Bishops did not support the military intervention in Iraq, now that the United States has intervened, it has a grave obligation to work with other countries and the United Nations on sustained, long-term efforts to work with Iraqis to build a just and enduring peace in their country'." Eugene said "Thanks, good and faithful Bill; You make some excellent points and I hope Peter will study them."

My position exactly coincides with the one you quoted by the US bishops. What makes you 2 gentlemen think it is different and that I need to be reminded what the bishops said? I was aware of the points Bill mentioned. If some third parties were taking bribes or profiting from immoral trade, what difference does that make to whether violent or non-violent methods of removing tyrants are more appropriate?

Eugene said "I asked him PLEASE, desist from what he tried to accuse our people of."

I never "tried to accuse" anyone of anything (other than Saddam and the USSR). Wow, We are sensitive up north. Yes, when you accuse me of having views which are clearly not mine, and dispute my right to express my opinions, and tell me you have a backbone in contrast to me, yes that is abuse.

Eugene said "Now you presume to tell us what WE say about Ghandi?" (sic)

I presumed nothing of the sort. I said "IF you say Gandhi is irrelevant".

Eugene said "Get real, Peter. Ghandi never said we should ... NOT hunt down our enemies."

You have clearly never read one word of Gandhi.(As evidence you can't even spell his name.) "Hunt down our enemies" is as totally contrary to all of Gandhi's philosophy as it is possible to be. Perhaps some further quotes from Gandhi will make his position clear to you: 1. "I see neither bravery nor sacrifice in destroying life or property, for offence or defence." 2. "To answer brutality with brutality is to admit one's moral and intellectual bankruptcy." 3. "The spirit of democracy cannot be superimposed from the outside. It must come from within."

Eugene said; "Our intent is to HELP the innocent citizens of that place."

I never suggested that wasn't the intent. But good intent is not enough. To quote the favourite saying of a dear nun who taught me: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Eugene said "that odd poll"

There have been 3 properly conducted opinion polls that I know of and all have shown similar results. If you know of any contrary results from scientifically conducted polls I would be grateful to read them.

Eugene said "not well-informed or considerate. Why are you against the good guys? "

I don't know everything but I try to keep as well-informed as I can by finding and weighing the evidence from ALL sources. If there is anything factually incorrect in what I said, point it out (with evidence, not just accusations). I am being considerate to you, and I hope, to everyone. Following the Church's constant teaching, I do not believe the world is neatly divided into "good guys" who can do no wrong and "bad guys". There is good AND evil in every human being, and consequently, in every government or other organisation.

Eugene said "Saddam Hussein would have made pomade out of Mahatma Ghandi"

I think not. The most powerful empire the world has ever seen tried and failed to stop Gandhi. And not because the Poms (Brits to you) were nice guys - they used massacres and other brutality against him and his followers. Also see above re the USSR - violent methods were tried for 74 years and failed to defeat it, until finally non-violent methods were tried and succeeded.

Eugene said "you think we have offended God"

I never said that nor would I presume to speak on behalf of God.

I repeat again, non-violent ACTION does not mean DOING NOTHING- quite the opposite. You seem to think that anyone who veers even slightly away from the party line that the USA is by definition 100% right, must be 100% anti-USA, 100% pro-France, Russia and terrorism, and ignorant and a coward and a bad Catholic to boot. The world is not that black and white.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 22, 2004.

You are writing at a ratio of six to our one, PK. That's OK;

''You have clearly never read one word of Gandhi.(As evidence you can't even spell his name.) "Hunt down our enemies" is as totally contrary to all of Gandhi's philosophy as it is possible to be.--My reply: It hardly matters. We aren't enforcing Gandhi's words here. We are serving the national security of the United States by retaliation against world terrorism. Gandhi was not opposing a terrorist network of fanatical religious zealots and murderers. As terrible as the English occupation of India may have been, we know better than to equate Jihad with the British Raj. (Again, Get real.) Perhaps some further quotes from Gandhi will make his position clear to you: 1. "I see neither bravery nor sacrifice in destroying life or property, for offence or defence." 2. "To answer brutality with brutality is to admit one's moral and intellectual bankruptcy." 3. "The spirit of democracy cannot be superimposed from the outside. It must come from within."

That's truly wise and comforting, Peter. We have more to do than to assert our moral and intellectual refinements against muslim fanatics, however. First we must round them up. Then imprison them or execute them. Refined ways will not protect us.

The ideas promulgated by Gandhi against his oppressors worked because essentially the British were reasonable. Many of them appreciated Gandhi. He was a holy man, after all. But jihaddists do not appreciate westerners. They want holy war, so called. They have attacked us; Saddam was complicit and guilty of collaboration at least. He gets only what's coming to him. And, our forces in Iraq and the middle east are NOT answering brutality with brutality; you offend Americans by insinuating that.

Our country (and yours) will not remain in occupation of these places because we aren't conquerors. We are liberators. You may fault us because we dismiss the objections of a ''world community'' and complete these tasks the best way available. This would likely displease Gandhi; who loved peace. Well we can emphatically state that America loves peace too.

I said, "Saddam Hussein would have made pomade out of Mahatma Ghandi" I'll explain. He would have imprisoned the holy man; tortured him and beheaded him. It would have been easy: Order it done.

Queen Victoria or the next English king, would never order Gandhi tortured and beheaded, because these were Christians! Horrible as the English in india may have been, they followed the orders of superiors. Just as Iraqis followed Saddam's orders. You cannot compare Victoria to Saddam.

Your words: ''USSR - violent methods were tried for 74 years and failed to defeat it, until finally non-violent methods were tried and succeeded.'' Reply: Wrong. It was our nation's military superiority in the face of world communism that made Solidarity and protest POSSIBLE in eastern Europe. We had a nuclear deterrent in place; (which peaceniks everywhere denounced.) If we hadn't, Stalin would have wrapped up the whole continent. Recall his famous joke? ''How many regiments does the Pope have?'' Peaceful protest was a sandwich to those tyrants. You give our armed deterrence against the USSR no credit at all, do you? It shows how indoctrinated they have you on the left. Lenin called your class of citizen ''Useful idiots.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 23, 2004.

"a ratio of six to our one"?? From where I sit it's three versus one in your favour. But the other two manage to remain civil whilst disagreeing with me.

And a very interesting debating technique. You claim Gandhi endorses your argument. When I show this is false, instead of apology I get "It hardly matters. We aren't enforcing Gandhi's words here. We are serving the national security of the United States "

What we are supposed to be doing here is "discussions that will contribute to the deepening of our knowledge and the strengthening our faith ... in a courteous Christian atmosphere. Kindly keep in mind that this is a Catholic forum, and as such is not a place for ... ad hominem attacks."

Eugene said "Gandhi was not opposing a terrorist network of fanatical religious zealots and murderers."

Really?? Someone who calls those who disagree with him "idiots" really should find out the facts before telling them to "get real". What the current middle east terrorists are doing is minor compared to the actions of the thousands if not millions of fanatical muslim terrorists whom Gandhi faced down. His response was not to demonise their whole religion but to study it and see the good in it. Then the fanatical Hindu fundamentalists turned on him.

Eugene said "The ideas promulgated by Gandhi against his oppressors worked because essentially the British were reasonable."

I concede you now have his name right. You are learning. But Gandhi and his followers were unceasingly vilified by Churchill and other Poms. They brutally beat, imprisoned, tortured and executed them. And guess what? The US leaders of the time, including I believe your beloved Republicans, criticised Britain for oppressing the Indians. Oh dear! Why weren't they on the side of the "good guys"? Or were the Poms "bad guys" then? Is a tiny bit of grey creeping into your black and white world yet?

It is true the Poms were not as brutal as the USSR. This demonstrates that non-violent action is actually MORE effective against the most brutal tyrants than against democracies. Tyrants all claim that they're doing what the people want. But without free and fair elections they have no way to prove it. They are always susceptible to actions which give the lie to their claims. The communists claimed to have created a worker's paradise where religion, "the opium of the people", was proven wrong and no longer necessary and would "wither away". You're right, I give the US-led nuclear arms race NO credit at all. All that did was make the USSR build more weapons to keep up. Not to mention the millions of deaths and suffering in all the wars between proxy states. Then the Church elected a young vigourous Pope from a Communist country, and thanks to this and modern methods of communication the world was made aware of the workers' struggles to build churches and free themselves from Communist oppression. The Siberian coalminers went on strike. Sure, the Communists could have just shot them all. Why didn't they? It had nothing to do with "nuclear deterrence". Shooting them would give the lie to their claims to have created a "worker's paradise" where religion had "withered away". Thanks to modern communication methods, and the Moscow Olympics, the whole world was watching. (No thanks to the USA which boycotted and ignored the Olympics.)

You continue you speak of "peaceful protest" which I have not even mentioned. Non-violent action is NOT "peaceful protest."

You said "Queen Victoria or the next English king, would never order Gandhi tortured and beheaded, because these were Christians!"

Now I really am beginning to wonder about you Eugene. The trail of history is littered with the headless and tortured victims of "Christian" monarchs of England.

Perhaps you would prefer a quote from your President Richard Nixon : "Those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself."

Eugene, you are so proud that your country's armed forces can impose their will on the world, and so convinced that God is blessing their activities, and that anyone who demurs even slightly from this view is a "useful idiot" indoctrinated by the left.

(BTW I am not as leftist as you think. I have avoided discussing your election because I believe it's not my business. But you compel me to say this. If I had to vote under your primitive electoral system where a nation of 300 million people has effectively a choice of just TWO candidates, both middle-aged Anglo plutocrats, then I would hold my nose and vote for Bush, because the other bloke seems even worse especially with his pseudo-Catholic posturing.}

You sneer at the UN. Yes it has a lot of faults. But it is the closest thing to a universal civil authority we have. Unfortunately I don't think the nations of the world are going to go back to the system when international disputes were referred to the Pope's jurisdiction. Today, the USA is so strong it doesn't need the UN. But what if (and it could be sooner than we think) Communist China became the mist powerful country. Say it wanted to "liberate" a Catholic country (say the Phillippines) from the "tyranny" of the Pope. Wouldn't you wish we had strengthened the UN?

Just over 100 years ago, the feeling you have now was common in Britain. They were more powerful than any country had ever been. They thought this would last for centuries or even to the end of time. They commissioned Rudyard Kipling to write a poem for Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee. But instead of triumphal jiongoism, it brought them back to earth with a shock:

Recessional

God of our fathers, known of old-- Lord of our far-flung battle line Beneath whose awful hand we hold Dominion over palm and pine-- Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet, Lest we forget - lest we forget!

The tumult and the shouting dies; The captains and the kings depart: Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice, A humble and a contrite heart. Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet, Lest we forget - lest we forget!

Far-called, our navies melt away; On dune and headland sinks the fire: Lo, all our pomp of yesterday Is one with Nineveh and Tyre! Judge of the Nations, spare us yet, Lest we forget - lest we forget!

If, drunk with sight of power, we loose Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe-- Such boasting as the Gentiles use Or lesser breeds without the law-- Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet, Lest we forget - lest we forget!

For heathen heart that puts her trust In reeking tube and iron shard-- All valiant dust that builds on dust, And guarding, calls not Thee to guard-- For frantic boast and foolish word, Thy mercy on Thy people, Lord!

Dont put your trust in reeking tube and iron shard, my friend.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 24, 2004.

Ok, I am going to wade into this non-violent ACTION theory and Gandhi even though I obviously know much less about him than either Peter or Eugene, and try to bring it back to the Iraq war specifically.

Peter, your constant theme here has been to support non-violent action as opposed to invading Iraq with military force. From the first gulf war to the second, would you say that the UN had practiced non-violent action? I would. In fact, these non-violent actions were condemned in many liberal circles. Sanctions against Iraq only hurt the Iraqi people. Saddam and the Baathists were propped up by the corrupt Kofi Annan and the UN oil for food program, France, Russia, and Germany. They were allowed to develop WMD, almost no one disputes this. Weapons inspections were a joke. If we haven't found WMD yet it only means they were destroyed just recently, they are still hidden in Iraq, or they are in Syria or some other country. They had ample time to do any of the three, it is not like we rushed into war. But the WMD issue is a canard anyway. Iraq provided training to Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Iraq repeatedly violated UN Sanctions. Case Closed. And BTW, as I mentioned earlier, I think, if we had gone into Baghdad in 1991, instead of pulling back per UN wishes, we wouldn't be talking about Al Qaeda, or Osama Bin Laden now. Iraq was not defeated, they just retreated, and lived to cause more havoc.

Faced with repeated Iraqi violations of UN Sanctions, what non- violent actions would be appropriate. Blow up their oil pipelines? Blow up some bridges? Can you imagine the hue and cry if this had taken place, especially by US covert operations. Sample headlines from around the World:

New York Times: "CIA Terrorists Seek To Ddestroy Remaining Iraqi Assets, While Iraqi Children Starve From US Sanctions"

Paris Daily News: "Unsophisticated Yanks Abandon Diplomacy for Devastation"

Baghdad Morning Star: "Crusading Infidels Wage Christian Jihad"

People Magazine: "The Sensitive Side of Saddam, My Life With a Dictator" as told by his mistress.

What is ironic is that the one of the most crucial elements of the Iraqi invasion was to save as much Iraqi infrastructure as possible from self destruction. So no, I don't think non-violent action worked in the past or would work in the future.

In regards to Gandhi, I think the Britain/India scenario is different. Gandhi wished to drive England out of India. The British ruled India for many, many years. The sun never set on the British Empire. To compare the British Empire, or Roman Empire, or Ottoman Empire to the American (Empire?) is a reach. If America is an empire, it is an empire of ideas, not force. (And some of those ideas are not great--eg. pornography, abortion, etc.) But if there was an Iraqi Gandhi, would American tanks run over him? No. Eugene mentioned the term "useful idiots" as coined by Lenin. It would not apply to Gandhi, who was spiritual and intelligent, and did accomplish something, but it does apply to most "peace protesters." Remember human shields?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 24, 2004.

Peter really didn't follow my logic, (My own fault, surely). Don't know how he figured I invoked Gandhi as my supporter. All I replied to Gandhi is, he didn't say we should NOT hunt down terrorists after our largest American city is attacked, (and the Pentagon, with 3,000 deaths.) Peter brought up what he calls non-violent ACTION; as if this is the only alternative for a peaceful society. I didn't condemn it. I simply point out the other, quicker alternative. Change things by catching & punishing the evil-doers.

Peter's hindsight of recent history is naive and disingenuous, to boot. Nothing would have changed in eastern Europe if the U.S. hadn't challenged Communism and totalitarianism from the beginning. He will not concede any part in the fall of the USSR to America's nuclear deterrence. Merely because it contradicts his pet theory, not because it isn't fair to say so. This is just unilateral history revision.

I quoted Lenin's notion of his narrow views and Peter was insulted. He quoted Gandhi's idea of truth, and I simply told him the truth: it works only if your enemy is reasonable. If he knows otherwise, let him demonstrate why. I took no offense; The phrase ''non-violent action'' itself is hard to demonstrate. I wish Peter would give us concrete examples of what action he means?

By non-violent action, does Peter mean standing in front of tanks and letting them crush you? Tienaman Square was non-violent action. The Chinese have yet to fold their communist tents and fade away into history. They still crush dissidents.

Islam will not only rejoice when we carry out non-violence. The Imams and ayatollahs will get busy circumcising all our daughters and cutting off all our hands; especially if we write anti-islamic pamphlets. What OTHER ''non-violent action'' we could possibly take, I fail to see. The UN has proven DEFINITELY it hasn't the clout nor the will to enforce agreements anywhere but in the west. IF THERE. We should recall that China as well as some middle eastern rogue states have a vote in the UN Security Council. They don't have to agree with any anti-terrorist decisions. (As if France, Germany & Russia will.)

Peter probably hasn't studied today's global questions in depth; and wants everything to fit neatly into that fine little anti-war cup he sips from. It hasn't been feasible yet, Mate. Historically, the odds are against it. Just recall that kindly old Neville Chamberlain. ''We shall have Peace in our times!'' Then compare to the words of Jesus Christ: ''There will be wars and rumors of wars.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 24, 2004.

You sneer at the UN

Here is another reason to do so. Read Softer Statement on Sudan...

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 24, 2004.

MEMRI Analyst's Testimony Before Congress on the U.N. 'Oil for Food' Scandal

Today, MEMRI Senior Analyst Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli testified about the U.N. 'Oil for Food Program' before the House Committee on Government Reform's subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Affairs. The following is his testimony: [1]

The Testimony

Mr. Chairman: On January 25, 2004 the Iraqi daily Al- Mada published a list of 270 individuals and entities who were beneficiaries of Saddam Hussein's oil vouchers. The Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI, translated the list from Arabic and made it available to non-Arabic readers on January 29.

In my presentation I will address five questions that we have frequently been asked:

First, what are these oil vouchers and how were they used?

Second, who were the beneficiaries?

Third, is the list authentic?

Fourth, what other means did Saddam Hussein use to subvert the Oil for Food Program?

Fifth, could the administrators of the Oil for Food Program have been unaware of the regime's subversion of the Program?

I shall now answer the questions briefly and in that order.

The Nature and Use of the Oil Vouchers

In May 2002, or two years before the oil vouchers achieved their present notoriety, MEMRI issued a special dispatch titled "Iraq Buys and Smuggles its Way out of UN Sanctions." [2] That dispatch catalogued techniques that were being used to subvert the Oil for Food Program, including the use of vouchers to buy friends.

In brief, Saddam Hussein granted oil vouchers to various beneficiaries - individuals as well as public and governmental entities - who could then sell them to oil dealers or agents operating from the Rashid Hotel in Baghdad. The agents would then sell the vouchers to oil companies which, in turn, would submit them to the State Oil Marketing Company or SOMO, to collect the oil. Both the beneficiary and the agent collected quick and handsome profits. A one million barrel voucher surrendered against $0.25 per barrel earned $250,000.

The Beneficiaries

The beneficiaries were from 52 countries and included 19 political parties, and numerous politicians and journalists. Russia led the way among countries, with 46 recipients for a total of about 2.5 billion barrels. Significant individual recipients include the president of Indonesia, the prime minister of Libya, the former prime minister of Yemen, a former French minister of interior, and Mr. Patrick Maugein who, according to French sources, is a financial supporter of French President Chirac.

Finally, the beneficiaries included the sons of the former Egyptian leader Gamal Abdul Nasser, the President of Lebanon Emil Lehoud, and the perennial Syrian minister of defense Mustafa Tlass.

The Authenticity of the List

There is a propensity among totalitarian regimes to keep accurate records of their misdeeds. The first half of the last century provides several examples. Saddam's regime provides another.

What gives credence to the authenticity of the list is the statements by many of those implicated that they had received the vouchers for goods which they provided under the oil for food program. These statements are, at best, disingenuous. Under the program, contracts had to be approved by the U.N., and upon the delivery of goods, the U.N. would reimburse the suppliers from the escrow account held at the French bank BNP-Paribas. No official contracts were financed by oil vouchers. Hence, if vouchers were granted they were given either as bribes or as payment for illicit goods, which could not be purchased under the program itself.

The Subversion of the Program by the Saddam Regime

Despite the sanctions, the regime of Saddam Hussein perfected a number of methods to sell oil for personal gains.

1. By the admission of Saddam Hussein's own son, Uday, Iraq exported to Syria approximately 200,000-250,000 b/d through the Kirkuk-Banias pipeline. Syria never denied it.

2. Trucks carried diesel oil from Kirkuk to southern Turkey. The Kurds who controlled northern Iraq were happy to collect transition fees.

3. Small Iraqi ships carried crude oil across the Persian Gulf mainly to Qatar for transshipment elsewhere. Many were intercepted and quite a few sank causing environmental damage.

4. Grains and other food supplies imported under the program were re-exported.

5. Legal shipments of oil were topped up by varying quantities with the excess sold for the benefit of the regime.

6. Invoices were inflated - a practice commonly referred to as pricing transfer.

The Knowledge, if Not the Complicity, of the UN Managers of the Program

On February 18, a month after the list was first published by Al-Mada, Mr. Shashi Tharoor, United Nations Under- Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information, wrote a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journalprofessing ignorance of wrong doing. That letter makes two curious assertions. First, it protests, "No one at the United Nations has yet seen the original list." Note, please, that Al-Mada had published the list one month earlier.

Second, it offers an elaborate explanation of procedure. "The oil buyer had to pay the price approved by the Security Council Sanctions Committee into a U.N. escrow account, and the U.N. had to verify that the goods purchased by Iraq were indeed those allowed under the program." Mr. Tharoor then introduces the caveat: "But the U.N. had no way of knowing what other transactions might be going on directly between the Iraqi government and the buyers and sellers." Now comes the shocker: Mr. Tharoor says, "The program itself was managed strictly within the mandate given to it by the Security Council and was subject to nearly 100 different audits, external and internal, [I repeat, Mr. Tharoor says, '100 different audits'] between 1998 and 2003 and, as the secretary-general has said, this produced no evidence of any wrongdoing by the U.N. Official."

It is odd, indeed, that all these audits, paid for from $1 billion collected by the UN to administer the program, could not find one of the several infringements of the program that had been noted two years earlier by MEMRI – which has no access to official records.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 24, 2004.

Bill yes very sad to see that news, no doubt youre delighted. Any human institution is fallible to human weakness- our very own Church history shows us that clearly enough, whatever the intentions. Your own governments history is littered with similar tales of woe , deciet and corruption. One needs only think of the repeated blocking of UN resolutions in Palestine by AMerica in the security council, allowing Israel to commit serious international crimes with impunity.

Now is not the time to get cynical about the UN, we need to recognise that states acting unliaterally are always going to act in their own best intrests and not necessarily in a moral way, we need the UN far more than you obviously realise. More than ever it needs US support and commitment without this it can never work-and it must work if a moral world is to emerge. You do understand just how strongly the Catholic Church supports the UN as an institution?? Smirk away Bill but really youre laughing at not only the UN but also your own Holy Father.

"I think, if we had gone into Baghdad in 1991, instead of pulling back per UN wishes, we wouldn't be talking about Al Qaeda, or Osama Bin Laden now"

The fact that Brian and probably Eugene Bill etc sincerely and honestly belive such things is a testament to the powers of propaganda and a great disspointment to those who hope for a safer more peaceful world in the future. If Brian and Eugene believe these things just what does "average Joe" in the street believe? Scary.

We all need IMHO to dispell this "all powerful" attitude that "we" are always "right"- and develop a little empathy and real knoweldge they have of the world around us, develop an understanding of the cause/motivations of Islamic terror groups esp in regard to the US position on Palestine and understand the geopolitical/strategic realities of US (and any nations) foreign policy especially in the Middle East .

Just becuase AMerica "can" do something doesnt mean she should and in the case of Iraq the means of acheiving,what I believe is ultimately a good end cannot under Christian morality and international law cannot be ignored for the sake of good outcomes.

AS POpe John Paul said

" International law must ensure that the law of the more powerful does not prevail. Its essential purpose is to replace “the material force of arms with the moral force of law”,(7) providing appropriate sanctions for transgressors and adequate reparation for victims."

Those who live by the sword will die by the sword, something to consider in amongst the belief of "another war won". A short term plan if ever I saw one and if one belives that Saddam/Iraq was the cause of 9/11 then youre in far more trouble than I first thought.

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God”

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 25, 2004.

"I think, if we had gone into Baghdad in 1991, instead of pulling back per UN wishes, we wouldn't be talking about Al Qaeda, or Osama Bin Laden now" If Brian and Eugene believe these things just what does "average Joe" in the street believe? Scary.

"average Joe" believes what the TV news tells him, or the newspapers tell him. So I wouldn't be scared if I were you Kiwi.

if one belives that Saddam/Iraq was the cause of 9/11 then youre in far more trouble than I first thought.

if one believes Saddam/Iraq provided no training or support for Al Qaeda or other terrorists, then you're in more trouble than you think. This is a War on Terror.

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God”

Do you think I don't desire peace as much, or more than you Kiwi? That's always the implication against us "warmongers." Sigh! But the fact is lasting peace is more often the result of decisive victories in war than from appeasement, or non-violent action, or "understanding."

Yes I, a simple layman, think the UN is a waste. If the Holy Father puts alot of his faith in the good works or potential good works of the UN, then I respectfully say that I diagree with him. My own earthly father has done some things that just exasperate me (can anyone else relate) yet I love him, I respect him, and I obey him when I must. I say the same thing about our Holy Father.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 25, 2004.

no doubt youre delighted.

No, I am not delighted. I am simply showing that the Vatican's faith in the UN is misplaced.

For years now, the Vatican has hoped and prayed for a one world government because such a world would be a peaceful world. It is a nice dream, but I am afraid, misplaced. We have to realize that we live in the world as it is, with all the corruption at all the levels that exist. We also need to realize that absolute power corrupts absolutely, as they say.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 25, 2004.

Kiwi,
This is just peachy: ''Just because America "can" do something doesnt mean she should,''

We can honestly say America would not do everything if she could or if she couldn't. America does just what has to be done.

You're thinking at short range; how the dissenting nations were snubbed. Or how the minority opposition can't sway public opinion anymore. We haven't forgotten this. It simply isn't as important for now; I'm sorry.

We're faced with what Churchill called a gathering storm. There may be serious danger up ahead, if Al Qaeda and its collaborators are allowed to remain active. Neither you, with the anti-war faction nor the Pope, nor the UN have an alternative plan IN PLACE. Yes; Peter can laud Gandhi's principles. You can deplore the use of armed might (because we ''can''). But in fact you can't fight Al Qaeda by yourselves. You have prayer, conciliatory offerings (diplomatic run-around) and platitudes but so far nothing concrete. Al Qaeda has fire power.

I think fighting fire with fire is admirable. Not ''because America can (Thank God), but because it has to be America. Not deplorable, but admirable; since it's showing responsibility and leadership. You're worried about forcing a Pax Romana, but seem unworried about coming injustices against hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the world. What's more, you treat American soldiers as perpetrators, not defenders.

So much so that even the fall of Saddam Hussein, a fiend, hasn't made you happy. You view it out of the corner of an angry eye; instead of giving thanks to God we have heroes laying down their very lives for you & me.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 25, 2004.

Brian, it's a bit sad that even when you try to think of non-violent actions, all you can think of is blowing things up. I have given plenty of examples above of concrete non-violent action which worked.

The USA doesn't call itself an empire and it doesn't have dozens of what it calls colonies, but it dominates the world economically and militarily, even more so than Britain ever did. This is where the real power is. And it WILL fade one day just as Britain's did. Will you be prepared to live in that world where you have torn down all international laws and your country is too weak to enforce its will?

Eugene, you continually refer to the events of 11/9/01 (or in your "correct" version 9/11/01) as if the terrible suffering inflicted on your country then uniquely qualifies it to disregard moral questions when retaliating. But we have suffered too. Yes Bali is not actually part of Australia but we almost consider it so. Per head of population we had more killed by terrorists than you did. Most were young people. They included the daughter of the caretaker at my daughter's school; in fact almost everyone I know has some sort of personal connection. We still have to play by the rules.

I repeat again, non-violent action is NOT "protest", but proactive.

Eugene shrugs off his reference to me personally as an "idiot" by saying he was only quoting Lenin. No this is not equivalent to the "insult" I gave him when I quoted Gandhi's description of war (NOT him personally or even the USA forces necessarily) as "brutality".

No I am not trying to fit anything into an anti-war cup I sip from. I am not even a pacifist. As I said before, if there is anything factually wrong with what I said about history or anything else, point it out with evidence. I could equally say you try to fit everything, far from convincingly, into a pro-war cup.

Bill and Brian, what you say about the UN's corruption and incompetence doesn't alter what I said that the past actions of any third party don't effect what would be the right thing for us to do.

Yes Jesus warned us there will be wars, but he didn't say "You must wage wars" and he certainly didn't say "You must wage wars in my name." Today is ANZAC day in Australia and New Zealand, when we remember the futility of war and the loss of the flower of our youth fighting against Muslims, including a previous liberation of Mesopotamia (now called Iraq). Lest we forget!

As I said I don't care what you say about me, it just washes off. But what concerns me is that this IS a site available around the world for an indefinite period. What if a moderate Muslim comes to this site to see what the Catholic Church teaches? If he read Eugene's posts he would be convinced that the Al-Quaeda propagandists are right - Christians are waging a holy war against Islam to suppress and forcibly convert them. I am even more worried if an honest seeker for truth comes here wondering about the Church. Maybe it is the only time in his life he will consider it. He finds Eugene et al admantly insisting that if you don't support the US military and the Republican party 100% you can't be a real Catholic. This is serious. We are called to win souls for Christ, not turn them away.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 25, 2004.

Peter, we may be meant to win souls.. funny, that is what Bush is trying to do in Iraq. He is trying to move the souls there to freedom. He thinks that will help the enire region, like it has Germany, Japan, and many other countries. This isn't a religous war (at least not on our part), it is a war of liberation, and a war of protection since liberating these states will free us from terrorist attacks, in the long run... at least that is the theory.

take care,
bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 25, 2004.

I wish I could recall when I stated anything close to what Peter accuses me of: ''--Eugene et al admantly insisting that if you don't support the US military and the Republican party 100% you can't be a real Catholic.''

This makes no sense. I am the one who's ad hominem postings have others baring their teeth at ME! Now we are to believe I'm bashing you for a pseudo-Catholic, Mr. K?

My discussion with a Democrat up there (Elpidio) is not with another Catholic, mind you. Would I like him much more if he were Republican? I'm only aware Elpidio doesn't call Jesus God. But I never attacked him for the party he believes in. This is a free country, Peter. Support for my country? For our U.S. military? Of course I support them. But not as the condition for remaining a Catholic in good faith.

As for insisting upon anything 100%; let me ask you not to make up your ad hominem charges. Serve me anything you can which is true. So far you've served double fault. (Be a good fella and remember everything Miss Gulagong taught ya.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 25, 2004.

Hi Brian

>>>>>>>"average Joe" believes what the TV news tells him, or the newspapers tell him. So I wouldn't be scared if I were you Kiwi.

Fox TV= "al-Jazeera" of the West, so yes Im very scared! >>>>>>if one believes Saddam/Iraq provided no training or support for Al Qaeda or other terrorists, then you're in more trouble than you think. This is a War on Terror

Brian there is little evidence to support that belief , certainly not to the extent you believe although Im open to links that back up your position. Either way its of little of consequence, Iraq and Saddam were "enemy no 1" among certain members of your administration and a plan to remove him predates the Bush administartions current term.

Its true that Saddam posed a major destabilistion threat to US intrests in the medium to long term both strategic, political and economic in the Middle East and Cheney and Rummy were obsssed with unfinished business with Saddam from gulf war 1. All they needed was an excuse to get rid of the evil creature and 9/11 conviently provided that excuse. Powell was bulldozed into submission, the threat of WMD was sexed up and in the patriotic/unquestioning climate of post 9/11 the fox tv viewers lapped it up. Indeed your major "ally" and the most corrupt regime currently in the Middle East - the Saudi ARabian government provided, and continues to provide far more assistance to Islamic terror groups than secular Iraq ever did. Saddam was deeply suspicious of Islamic fundamentalists and despite the apparent joint motive against AMerica did little to support such groups, seeing them as a threat to his own power base.

>>>>>Yes I, a simple layman, think the UN is a waste. If the Holy Father puts alot of his faith in the good works or potential good works of the UN, then I respectfully say that I diagree with him. My own earthly father has done some things that just exasperate me (can anyone else relate) yet I love him, I respect him, and I obey him when I must. I say the same thing about our Holy Father.

Fair enough Brian I think youre wrong to have given up on the UN - the catch 22 is as technology/trade/gloablisation etc increases the need for global law increases, at a time when US suppport , so cruial is sadly lacking. Every UN failure becomes a "told you so", a justification for increasing unilateral action, and even further erosion of support from the nation mkost needed. A short term mindset and massive, perhaps generation definning error for which may all have yet to pay huge consequences IMHO. ps we all are just simple laymen here except Deacon Paul God Bless

Kiwi, Hi Gene

>>>>>>This is just peachy: ''Just because America "can" do something doesnt mean she should,'' We can honestly say America would not do everything if she could or if she couldn't. America does just what has to be done.

Im well aware of the role America plays in the security of the world, I can face up to realpolitik and admit the realities of the world out there . AMerica as a state is not a moral agent in herself, imagine a world where every nation arrogantly ignored internation laws and and just "did what has to done" . WHo said it had to be done this way? WHose intersts are you really serving? A pre emptive armed strike against a nation which poses no immediate threat to your security nor has not attacked you is immoral and unjust anyway you try and justify it. You disagree and feel such a precedent is of no real importance and little more than academic hair splitting but the consequences are very real. Peter has already given you a theoretical example of China as world no 1,acting according to your new system of morality "doing what has to be done".

>>>>> You're thinking at short range; how the dissenting nations were snubbed.

Short range how so, please explain? "Dissenting" implies that you were in the majority and held the high moral ground. The reality is you dissented from the majority of the worlds nations, international law and Catholic morality... with a few other bootlickers keen for US handouts and trade deals.

>>>>>Or how the minority opposition can't sway public opinion anymore. We haven't forgotten this. It simply isn't as important for now; I'm sorry.

Sorry to let the facts get in the way Gene but the US was the only nation in the world where the majority of the people believed the war in Iraq was just and moral. Even amongst your allies youd struggle to find a poll that supported the war. SO apart from the US the rest of the worlds nations/religions/ are all just peaceniks who dont understand what as you put it "has to be done". Right? Or maybe youre wrong? Did that thought , in amongst the cartons of duct tape youve horded frantically, ever cross your mind?

>>>>We're faced with what Churchill called a gathering storm. Hmm and I thought he was long dead :)... perhaps he was referring to another war, many years ago under entirely different circustances?

>>>>>There may be serious danger up ahead, if Al Qaeda and its collaborators are allowed to remain active. Agreed. No arguments there.

>>>>>> Neither you, with the anti-war faction nor the Pope, nor the UN have an alternative plan IN PLACE. Yes; Peter can laud Gandhi's principles. You can deplore the use of armed might (because we ''can''). But in fact you can't fight Al Qaeda by yourselves. You have prayer, conciliatory offerings (diplomatic run-around) and platitudes but so far nothing concrete. Al Qaeda has fire power.

Oh dear. Now youre confused, it can happen. "Afganistan" and "Iraq" can to some minds sound very similar!. The war in AGhanistan and the Taliban and Osama was a just and moral war. The war on terror is a just and moral war, although you dont understand how it needs to be fought for it to be won. AL Qaeda is a red herring as far as Iraq is concerned. News flash old boy: Iraq and Afganistan are not the same war. The war on terror was not the reasoning behind the war in Iraq.

>>>>I think fighting fire with fire is admirable. . No argument there old chap.

>>>>Not ''because America can (Thank God), but because it has to be America. Not deplorable, but admirable; since it's showing responsibility and leadership.

Showing leadership is not the same thing as acting responsibily. Adnmirable leadership is itself dependant on where people are lead for a moral outcome. WHen people are feed lies and mistruths to fight an immoral war its certainly deplorable leadership and acting very irresponsibly

>>>>>You're worried about forcing a Pax Romana, but seem unworried about coming injustices against hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the world. What's more, you treat American soldiers as perpetrators, not defenders.

Im not unworreid , Im horrifed by the prospect of more innocent people dying becuase of the arrognace of one nation. How so, I dont blame the soldiers, theyre folowing orders, thats what professional soldiers do, why would I blame them? Ironically I was drinking with sailors from the USS Kittyhawk this weekend .

>>>>>So much so that even the fall of Saddam Hussein, a fiend, hasn't made you happy. You view it out of the corner of an angry eye; instead of giving thanks to God we have heroes laying down their very lives for you & me.

Thats just dishonest and you know it, but then I know youre always prepared to bend the rules. I said as much up thread and have said so many times before, hes an evil bastartd. But good outcomes such as the end of Saddam dont in themsleves justify the means and in this case they most certainly dont. You have no right to assume I dont honour war heroes, weve just had ANZAC day war commerations here, I was at a dawn service. Its you who dont appreciate that not every war is moral or right and that war is always a tragedy. You wouldnt even realise that few,if any, nations paid a higher price in the blood of its young men last century than New Zealand.

Peace!!!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 26, 2004.

Brian there is little evidence to support that belief , certainly not to the extent you believe although Im open to links that back up your position.

Kiwi, ask and ye shall receive: link

...Iraq and Saddam were "enemy no 1" among certain members of your administration and a plan to remove him predates the Bush administartions current term. ...All they needed was an excuse to get rid of the evil creature and 9/11 conviently provided that excuse.

It may surprise you to learn that I pretty much agree with that. That being said, this may be where our greatest difference lies. You say that 9/11 is a "convenient" excuse, while I say its a pretty darned good one, given the Iraqi link to Al-Qaeda given above, as well as the repeated UN violations. I hope we have plans for North Korea, and Iran, and China as well. This does not mean we go in there with guns blazing without just cause. But we best be prepared for the worst. If one fails to plan, one is planning to fail. BTW, ditto on Saudia Arabia as well. See Kiwi, we've got some common ground. :)

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 26, 2004.

turn the italics off you idiot

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 26, 2004.

okay

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 26, 2004.

Ha ha ha!
The Kiwi participates in his usual dust-bath; the heat is suffocating under the Southern Cross! Come up for air, Sir.

You pledged not to overdo the drinking, didn't ya, Madman? Come on-- This: ''leadership is itself dependant on where people are led for a moral outcome. When people are feed lies and mistruths to fight an immoral war its certainly deplorable leadership and acting very irresponsibly,'' following this: The fact a government has power to make the decision doesnt alter the moral status in the eyes of the Church. Only a simpleton or rabid gormless republican utilitarian zombie (who has put their faith on the back burner) could fail to understand,'' seem like a kegfull's outcome to me, not moral.

Which thread was it, as well, in which your description of President Bush was far from Christian. More like alcohol speaking?

''I hope I'm wrong. Let me only quote your own words in reply to this: ''[Brian] there is little evidence to support ''people are fed lies and mistruths to fight an immoral war--* (any of your) belief , certainly not to the extent you believe, although Im open to links that back up your position.''

You couldn't be wronger, or is it crazier? Let us have some evidence then; that aside from your biased news sources you're fairly well-informed. (is ''mistruths'' an English word?)

Our faith isn't on any burner you've ever seen. We are not in an immoral war, nor has the whole world denounced this war. We have a coalition of at least 30 participating free nations and none of them found the present action immoral or uncalled for. You conveniently forget these other countries who are with the U.S. in this war on terror. I'll tell you, Kiwi, what's immoral-- It's giving aid and comfort to unholy thugs who shed the blood of innocent men, women and children; thousands of them Iraqis and/or other middle eastern non- combatants. You likely think it is immoral to track and kill a snake.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 26, 2004.

Sorry Eugene no matter how many times you repeat the mantra "We are not in an immoral war" you can't make it magically come true.

TWO (2) other nations, Britain and Australia, supported the USA's invasion of Iraq. The governments of both nations did this against the will of the overwhelming majority of their citizens, and both governments seem certain to fall soon as a result. You deliberately confuse the "coalition" of two with the thirty nations who are trying to help clean up the mess caused by the invasion, just as you deliberately confuse the invasion of Iraq and the "war on terror".

You think it is moral to track and kill a snake?? To hunt down and kill one of God's creatures for no reason? Speaking from the country with the world's highest concentration of poisonous snakes, I can inform you that apart from being immoral, and illegal in most civilised countries, tracking and killing snakes is the most sure way of getting a fatal bite.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 26, 2004.

"We have a coalition of at least 30 participating free nations and none of them found the present action immoral or uncalled for."

Oh no, the Coalition of the Willing is coming! Allah save us! For the love of God, Poland is coming! They've got two hundred troops! What are we going to do?

But Poland is just one of the many military behemoths in our great coalition! We mustn't forget Bulgaria. Oh, and then there's Afghanistan. They are committing only the finest camels to the cause of democracy. Then there's Azerbaijan. Oo boy, don't want to mess with them.

But wait--we've got ETHEOPIA on our side! How could we lose? And Eritea! And Pulau! (I challange you to tell me where those two countries are!)

Don't get me wrong, there are a few nations in our coalition of the willing that are actualy of some consequence. There's Great Britain, for example (where only 9% of the population was infavor of going to war without UN approval). And Spain. Sort of. 1,200 troops. That's decent, compared to most of the other countries. Of course 87% of their population was against the war (not including those who were only for the war if it had the UN's approval). Australia is a real country. They joined our coalition of the willing despite the pesky little fact that 70% of their population was against the war. The only reason their government got on board is because the US bribed them with a lucrative trade agreement (and by a strange coincidence, New Zealand was cut out of the trade talks when it refused to join the coalition...). Japan also joined with 70% of their population against the war.

So all of the nations that committed more than 1,000 troops did so against the will of the majority of their populations. I am so glad the free world is on our side.

Oops, my bad, I left out Macedonia and Uzbekistan.

And the Solomon Islands. How silly of me.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), April 26, 2004.

Let me see: Yes, according to you it's ''immoral'' to hunt & kill a dangerous snake. Not only bad strategy (you'll die,) but against the moral code of a Christian. OK; prove it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 26, 2004.

Sure, anti-- As if we needed your approval. You are now guilty of denigrating every coalition soldier who entered the war in Iraq; as if you were more deserving of our love because you are an enemy of Bush? Italians, Brits, Salvadorans, Japanese, Poles, YES, Spaniards-- a long list of willing partners of our country (NOT just Bush), all on your schdt-list. With friends like you, who needs terrorist enemies?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 26, 2004.

But Poland is just one of the many military behemoths...

Just how many military behemoths do you think there are in this world?

By the way, it came out yesterday that Saudi Arabia provided basing for us during the invasion, as well as air-ports for our planes. I guess they knew what kind of threat Saddam was... you can put them into the 'Coalition column.

. As for popular support, it all depends on who is spinning the press and how. The European and Mid-East press were being spun big time before the way. Much of it with Saddam's money, we know now.

Anyway, who cares, we know the UN was corrupted by Saddam and that those on the Security Council were taking bribes. We know we did the right thing, even if we would of had to do it alone.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 26, 2004.

Way to dodge the argument.

I haven't denigrated any soldier. I'm just disproving your argument that the rest of the world is on our side, and I'm disproving it with- -gasp--FACTS! Perhaps you could try and do the same?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), April 26, 2004.

Bill,

Ok, so now we have an oppressive monarchy that imprisons political opposition and has public beheadings helping defend the free world...doesn't anyone see the irony?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), April 26, 2004.

Ok, so now we have an oppressive monarchy that imprisons political opposition and has public beheadings helping defend the free world...doesn't anyone see the irony?

They were defending themselves. Hey, you wanted support, now you spit in it's face? Who did you want to support us? S.A. are neighbors to Iraq, we had to have at least the limited support of the neighboring countries (and we got it from all of them, I believe). Anyway, who did you want to support us? France? Germany? Russia? Sorry, Saddam already bribed them with billions.

Did you know we pretty much routed the Taliban in Afganisan by ourselves? Where were all these wonderful nations you are hinting at at that time? In fact, there are only about 4,500-5,500 NATO troops in Afghanistan right now. The United States and its Anglo allies routed the Taliban by themselves. NATO contingents in Afghanistan are not commensurate with either the size or the wealth of Europe (as usual).

Some reading for you:

bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 26, 2004.

Some reading for you:

Denmark has declassified intelligence reports compiled before the Iraq war which show officials thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 26, 2004.

Thank God, the intelligence reports didn't show that Canada had weapons of mass destruction!

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 26, 2004.

Eugene said: "Let me see: Yes, according to you it's ''immoral'' to hunt & kill a dangerous snake. Not only bad strategy (you'll die,) but against the moral code of a Christian. OK; prove it."

I can't believe that even you, are seriously asking this question. What do you do in your spare time over there? Bear-baiting or cock- fighting?

Eugene, you think I am a radical and that you are reasonable. You really seem to be living in a little glass bubble with a few others. Catholics in Australia (and it appears (no, NOT from leftist media) that Catholics throughout the world, even in the USA, are the same) regularly criticise me for even mentioning the Just War doctrine and because I suggest that there could, even in theory, be such a thing as a just war.

You claim that I have wrongly imputed to you beliefs which you do not have. OK, you like things in black and white; I’ll make it simple for you (and anyone else who’s interested).

Are all of the following statements true? Yes or no.

1. Christ gave us the apostles and their successors, the Pope and bishops, to teach, guide, and have authority over His Church.

2. Each of the Catholic faithful owes a duty of obedience to his bishop and the Pope in matters of morality. This is by no means restricted only to formal assent to Papal statements considered to be infallible, but includes obedience to all of the authoritative moral teaching of the bishop and Pope.

3. The Pope and the US Catholic bishops conferences (and virtually all other bishops and bishops’ conferences) have, both in formal and informal statements, expressed very grave doubts about the morality of war in general and the invasion of Iraq in particular, saying that it is at best extremely dubious that all of the necessary conditions for a just war have been met. The Pope and bishops have repeatedly and unequivocally called on nations to renounce war.

4. Unless ALL of the conditions for a just war have been met, that war is unjust, and any deliberate killing of a human being in that war is the sin of murder, a sin crying to Heaven for vengeance.

5. When a Catholic finds that his opinion regarding a moral question differs from that of the Pope and his bishop, his duty is to very carefully study and reflect on the Pope’s and bishops’ teachings, and others supporting them on the matter, to try sincerely to bring his opinion into obedience to the Church’s teaching.

6. If he finds that despite strenuous effort to do so, he cannot in conscience agree with the Church’s teaching, he must refrain from public efforts to convince others that he is right and that the Pope and bishops are wrong. He must especially not publicly ridicule those who remain faithful to the Church’s teaching, nor dismiss their position as ignorant or immoral or the result of evil forces, nor claim publicly that his opinion is in fact the more correct, orthodox, moral or “true Catholic” position.

7. It is a basic principle of the natural moral law and Catholic moral teaching that it is never licit to do something wrong (such as an unjust war) in the hope that good (such as removal of a tyrant) may result. Even if good does in fact subsequently result, this does not retrospectively make the wrong action good.

8. Where there is some doubt whether an act is wrong, moral law obliges us to refrain from it. (eg if a deer-hunter is reasonably certain that an object in the distance is a deer, but there is 1 chance in 1000 it might be a man, he must not shoot). This is especially the case where, IF the act were in fact wrong, it would involve serious sin (eg unjust killing, especially of large numbers of people).

9. On moral questions a Catholic’s obedience to the Church’s teaching outweighs any requirement to obey civil authorities, and far outweighs any loyalty to the policies of a particular leader or political party.

10. The fact that one’s enemies are grossly immoral does not in any way justify one’s own immoral behaviour towards them. On the contrary, our Saviour commanded us to love our enemies and do good to those who persecute us.

11. The belief that some nations are “good guys” and others are “bad guys” is totally incompatible with the Church’s teaching on the nature of all men. No nation, no matter how powerful, democratically governed, or otherwise admirable, has a superior right to decide right and wrong among other nations and to make war on them to enforce such decisions.

12. The Just War doctrine calls for all possible non-violent options for remedying an evil to be investigated and tried or found to be impracticable, before contemplating the use of violence.

13. Holy Church has always recognised pacifism as a valid and valuable Christian option. In the light of the horrific power of modern weapons and the powerful means of resolving conflict afforded by modern technological and social developments, the moral argument against any use of war is almost overwhelming.

14. Catholics may in good faith vote for, support and participate in, socialist parties or governments, and indeed those of any party, except insofar as endorsing or facilitating policies which infringe God-given rights (such as the right to life or freedom of religion). This does not make them better or worse Catholics than any others who support other parties. In deciding which political candidates to support, Catholics must be mindful of the Church’s call for wealth to be shared fairly among all, both within and among nations, and for adequate provision for the poor, sick, old, ignorant, children, prisoners, foreigners and others needing particular care and support.

15. Pope John XXIII’s encyclical Pacem in Terris (on promotion of peace) and Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Populorum Progressio (on economic justice, development and peace) share an equal status in the Church with Pope Paul’s encyclical of a few months later, Humanae Vitae (on the regulation of birth).

16. Our Lord blessed the “peacemakers”; not those who “love peace” (as any sane person does) but those who actively make peace (as distinct from those who make war, or do nothing). They are “sons of God”, that is they are doing God’s work.

17. The story in St John’s Apocalypse of Michael and the angels making war on the devil, is understood as a struggle between good and evil spirits, and provides no justification for human beings (all of whom contain within them both good and evil) making war on each other.

18. God man made the steward, not the owner, of all creation including all living things. It is immoral to destroy any of them wantonly or without just reason.

If you can’t answer “Yes” to all of these, please refrain from continuing to claim that you are an orthodox member of the Catholic Church and that those who believe the above truths are heterodox.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 26, 2004.

Anti-bush said "Australia is a real country. They joined our coalition of the willing despite the pesky little fact that 70% of their population was against the war. The only reason their government got on board is because the US bribed them with a lucrative trade agreement (and by a strange coincidence, New Zealand was cut out of the trade talks when it refused to join the coalition)."

Unfortunately when we were finally allowed to read the fine print of the "lucrative trade agreement" 12 months later, we found it will actually kill our sugar industry, get only tiny increases in our exports of beef, steel and agriculture to the US (and even they will probably be disallowed by the US congress), hand our world's best Pharmaceutical Benefits (affordable medicines for families and the poor)Scheme to the tender mercies of US drug corporations, and allow US corporations to complete totally their already massive domination of our media and entertainment industry.

Not to worry, our bootlicking leaders have ensured we're the only country that's fought side by side with the US in every war that it's fought for the last 100 years, so maybe we will get SOMETHING in return for being such a loyal little doggie...some day...?

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 27, 2004.

Peter:
This new method of yours, incense-burning to an eastern god of the Starship Enterprise, hasn't even bought you time.

I recall Capt. Kirk, your hero. ''Mustn't harm a life-form here on Kalypsos, no matter if its spider-jaws are engulfing five of us! We will pamper this monster gladly, just as if none of us earthlings were worth a Canadian penny!''

''So must the Pope. So must all who love Christ.'' --And, how do we know? Why; because John and Paul and Ringo told us so! We must ''Give peace a chance!''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 27, 2004.

Eugene, when you've finished smoking whatever it is you're on, could you attempt to actually answer my question? Yes or no?

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 27, 2004.

Dear Peter,
I'm a non-smoker. Never have had a marijuana stick in my hand, all my life. It's your generation X that smokes trash. If ad hominem is what you want . . ?

You haven't posed much question. You never reply to a serious question. It's apparent the fascination you have with India is something akin to the one the Beatles had when they went to ''study'' eastern religions under that guru. Never kill; not even a sand-fly etc.,

As for my devotion to the Church and the problems of qualifying for your version of saintliness, leave us to meditate on that and pray for peace. I'll pray for you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 27, 2004.

Wow, this is quite a thread. I wanted to respond to something Peter said earlier. He said, "Don't you recall that the mighty and terrible USSR was brought down by non-violent action by the Church, the Siberian coal miners and the people of Moscow?

The major point you're missing here is that war was indeed the major factor in bringing down the USSR. It was a cold war - the "threat of war" - and the costs involved with maintaining that war. Make no mistake, the US military might kept the Soviet Union in check for decades and when Ronald Reagan came to office and declared the Soviet Union to be an evil empire and escalated America's investment in the military, the Soviet Union could not keep up.

Now declassified intelligence documents, which I first read in the early-1990's, reveal that Reagan's military push literally pulled the rug out from under the USSR. They couldn't keep up with the arms race and were forced into a different strategy - Glasnost. They wanted to appear to give up and make peace with the world. They were even prepared to allow some of their states to separate into different countries and provide the appearance of dissolving the Union. All the while, they would keep building their missiles and subs secretly and hope that their peaceful front would cause the US to back down and partially disarm. It was a huge risk for them and was a plan they were prepared to unfold over the course of decades, and it was forced because the might of the US military gave them little choice, but it's mostly backfired. Once people got a taste of freedom, the revolution began and couldn't be totally stopped, though you'll notice that the old line leadership is beginning to reassert itself these days.

While what happened to the USSR was definitely planned by God and was influenced by the Pope and the churches throughout the former USSR, let's not underestimate the dominant role that military might played in this. God uses the world's military might and war to keep evil in check and to overthrow evil when necessary. WWII alone proved that.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), April 27, 2004.

Thank God, the intelligence reports didn't show that Canada had weapons of mass destruction!

Oh, but we know they do! They are called Moose. ;)

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 27, 2004.

A success story directly attributable to the liberation of Iraq?

EU commissioner Prodi greets the colonel and his bodyguards Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has used a landmark official visit to Europe to urge peace and disarmament.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 27, 2004.

Scrapbook: Iraq is much better off

British liberal commentator William Shawcross, who's in Australia this week, in The Spectator

The numbers are obviously inexact. But the new Iraq Human Rights Centre in Kadhimiya has calculated that more than 70,000 people would have died in the past year had Saddam [Hussein] still been in charge. Even if that is too high, UNICEF argued that sanctions were killing 5000 children a month. Liberation ended sanctions at once, so if UNICEF is right, that would be 60,000 lives saved in the past 12 months.

There is violence and there is progress in Iraq. Most visitors understand that, and most Iraqis are using their freedom well. Municipal elections have been held in 17 cities so far; according to Iranian- born author Amir Taheri, they have all been won by democratic and secularist parties. There are now more children in school and university than at any time in the past 20 years. There is not yet enough clean water or electricity, but there is more in more places than under Saddam.

There are 200 newspapers in Iraq, instead of the few that mouthed the ghastly Saddamite lies a year ago. Iraq's Mafia-style command economy is history and foreign capital has been rushing into the country. Many marsh Arabs are moving back to their traditional rivers, which are being reflooded after Saddam drained them in a brutal act of ethnic cleansing.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 27, 2004.

Does anyone have in possession a link or series of links or the actual texts of the Pope himself (not media words in his mouth, not what cardinals think they heard him say, but his actual words) regarding the war in Iraq?

I've looked all over the place for them and haven't been able to find more than 2 pages worth of text - and most of this, in small sound bites or sentences in larger speeches.

Please let me know the actual words...otherwise we're all arguing about what one pundit said or thought should be said and not what the MAN himself has said!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 27, 2004.

Does anyone have in possession a link or series of links or the actual texts of the Pope himself (not media words in his mouth, not what cardinals think they heard him say, but his actual words) regarding the war in Iraq?

The Pope did not condem the liberation in Iraq publically. He wrote a letter to the President of the US trying to disuade him from fighting, but no one knows what is in the letter. It was kept private. What you are hearing is speculation.

The Vatican policy now that as long as we are in, we should stay and see the peace process through to the end. If we can get the UN involved, so much the better (the Vatican is a big UN fan).

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 27, 2004.

I'd like to add one more thought to mix, if I may. No one likes it when the strong assert their will. It makes others feel helpless and weak. But understand something, human nature and life in general, dictates that strength will always be asserting itself, that will never change until the Lord returns.

People around the world who recognize this fact of life appreciate that the current strength is held by the U.S., who, for all of the disagreements that exist, are still recognized as being motivated by good. The US has sacrificed many lives on behalf of other nations over the past 100 years and to day remains the most charitable nation on the face of the planet. It could have been the Soviet Union who won the cold war and all of Europe would be under Communist opression. It could have been the Nazi's in WWII who won with the world's Jews and others exterminated from the planet.

That is what strength does - it asserts itself. Strength changes hands. For now, the US has it. We've earned it with our blood and our hardwork. No one gave it to us. The world can be angry, resentful or jealous, but what really matters is that at least for today, strength is in the hands of those who want each nation to be free. It could easily be otherwise, enjoy it while it lasts.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), April 27, 2004.

Funny thing. After posting my earlier response here, I read an article in NewsMax that illustrates my point pretty well. Here are a few snipets:

McNamara: Nuclear War Still Possible; NY No. 1 Target Jon E. Dougherty, NewsMax.com Tuesday, Apr. 27, 2004

Russia, Leading Nuclear Superpower

Russia, despite press reports to the contrary, remains a nuclear superpower, arguably the greatest nuclear superpower.

Between Moscow and Washington, the two governments can lay claim to 96 percent of the world's 30,000 nuclear weapons.

In Russia, says the National Resources Defense Council, most of the 8,200 nuclear warheads are pointing at American cities and defense sites.

In return, most of the United States' 7,000 warheads are targeting Russian missile silos and command centers.

Russia continues to lead the U.S. in smaller tactical nuclear warheads. The U.S. destroyed most of its tactical nuclear arsenal during the 1990s.

. . .

Perhaps worse, as Russia's overall military structure continues to suffer from a lack of funding and crumbles, Moscow continues to pour scarce military funding into more nuclear weapons.

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov told reporters Monday Moscow will test its mobile version of the Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missile once more before it is put into service.

The missile, which will form the backbone of Russia's nuclear defenses, is 47 tons, will carry one warhead, and has an estimated range of 6,900 miles. Ground-based Topol-M rockets are already in use; the mobile version could be operational by 2006.

The last test of the mobile missile came earlier this month, Ivanov said. It traveled its maximum distance before hitting a target on the Kamchatka peninsula.

The relevant points of that article are: (1) World power is based on military might and can change hands quickly, (2) Strength will assert itself - there's a reason Moscow is still adding new and improved warheads to their arsenal, and (3) Note that the Soviets point their missiles at American cities while America points her missiles at Russian missiles.

Now tell me, who would you prefer to be the superpower? You may want to support the US, cause without her leadership, whose strength will be asserted?

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), April 27, 2004.

And the world will continue to be a dangerous place with dangerous tyrants when Bush is gone... so voting against him with some idea that all evil and all danger will magically vanish when he's replaced by some socialist/democrat is akin to the belief by those cargo-cult natives who think that if they contruct fake runways and hangers the gods will return with largess... nuts.

Russia and China are piling nuke upon nuke, as are Pakistan and India, Israel and probably Iran... and all the while do we hear the peace-niks even mention this? No! They reserve all moral-outrage for Bush as though he had a monopoly on evil.

Amazing too that while they profess "moral relativism" when it suits them, by condemning Bush they reveal themselves as moral dogmatists.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 27, 2004.

Eugene I'm still waiting for a yes or no answer to my question. All you've done is try to bury it under a mountain of irrelevant bombast and hope no one notices that despite all your sword-waving and drum- pounding, you are too afraid to answer it.

It's very revealing how you make assumptions about how old I am and why I would be interested in a certain country, and then condemn me based on your assumptions.

If you're not smoking smething then what is producing the random irrational ravings I get instead of an answer? Previously, you at least made some pretence of addressing my arguments, even if you did distort them. Now that I have pricked your self-righteous balloon, you have descended to gibberish.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 27, 2004.

Dave

Your revisionist history of the USSR's decline and fall reminds me of the story of Chanticleer, the cockerel who was so proud that he thought that it was his crowing that made the sun come up.

"the most charitable nation on the face of the planet" ? - That must be a different USA from the one which gives a smaller proportion of its GDP as foreign aid than any other developed country. And the majority of what it does give in foreign aid goes to Israel, an already rich country.

"enjoy it while it lasts" - The philosophy of the fool. See Luke 12:16-21.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahho.com.au), April 27, 2004.

Thank you, Peter, thank you. What my irrelevant words say isn't important. We just disagree, and it probably makes you angry someone will speak up against your supercilious fancies. In your last 3 or 4 posts all I get out of you is undisguised hatred. I would really like for you to disprove everything I'm saying. Not my ''flag- waving & drums''; ignore them.

I mean the truth I've cited about Saddam Hussein, the truth spoken about the UNSC, and about anti-war gurus like yourself, who feel qualified to belittle our nation from afar.

For the meantime, just acknowledge if you will the complete failure you've had here, touting ''non-violent action''; a grandiose misnomer exposed. Now what you ought to do is go tout it to the Baath party and Shiites in Iraq. Maybe they'll fall for it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 27, 2004.

As I said, others manage to disagree with my "supercilious fancies" without descending to belittling me personally. I have learnt from them as I believe they have from me.

"undisguised hatred"? - try holding up a mirror. I came to this site to discuss religious and moral issues with fellow Catholics in a Christian atmosphere. If any Baathists or Shiites want to put in their opinions they're welcome, but I'm trying to communicate with my fellow Catholics on Catholic issues. Instead I get your political- military theories presented as a necessary part of Catholicism. I would really like for you to disprove what I'm saying by answering my question above. Yes or No? That's all I ask.

I have not disputed anything you have said about Saddam Hussein or the UNSC. I have no ambition to be a "guru". I merely present my own opinions and facts which are proven to be true, facts which you ignore. Doubting the morality or wisdom of the invasion of Iraq is not belittling your nation. Are the majority of your own countrymen who also doubt it, belittling their own nation?

''non-violent action'' a grandiose misnomer"?? So now you say that ALL action is necessarily violent. You are straying further and further. You need to pull yourself up and remember why we're here.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 27, 2004.

Peter,

You need to get your facts straight. I'll ignore your petty insults, for they aren't worth commenting on - pretty much expected based on the character you've displayed thus far. But, let's at least get the record straight on total foreign aid from the US. Sorry if it doesn't meet your standards, but US foreign aid is approximately 100 times the total contributions of Australia if we take both public and private sources into consideration. US Government direct aid exceeded $15 billion dollars for 2003. That doesn't include the largest source of government aid - trade. A new way of helping nations to stand on their own. We buy their goods even if we don't need to. It doesn't make the contributions ledger, but it far exceeds direct aid. And then there's private donations - corporations, religious charity, etc. Add another $34 billion for private contributions. That's a total direct aid from the US of over $50 billion for 2003. The next highest donator was Japan with over $9 billion. Australia gave $500 million.

So I repeat - the US is the single most generous nation in the history of the world - period. The facts speak for themselves.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), April 27, 2004.

Oh, and your comment about the cockerel who was so proud that he thought that it was his crowing that made the sun come up, that's pretty accurate if we apply it to your naive theories about Siberian mine workers being mostly responsible.

I'm just glad to see that Americans aren't the only ones in the world ignorant to world events.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), April 27, 2004.

You want to include all the facts Dave? Then if you add on the private outflow you need to subtract the vastly greater sum extracted from other countries as private profits and dividends to US corporations. The USA is the world's largest debtor. You also conveniently omitted to mention that the USA's population is 15 times that of Australia and its GDP 25 times as large.

That's some fine rhetoric about "we buy their goods even if we don't need to" and US trade "helping nations to stand on their own", but in the real world it's the opposite. The USA has massive trade barriers (admittedly not quite as high as those of the EU, though that is at least a GROUP of countries) to protect its own industries and penalise more efficient industries in other countries. The facts speak for themselves - that is if you allow them to do so fairly without manipulating them to support your favoured argument.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 27, 2004.

Excuse me? "if you add on the private outflow you need to subtract the vastly greater sum extracted from other countries as private profits and dividends to US corporations"? These are contributions, not investments. There are no profits directly related to these contributions - a completely different accounting category. But since you bring it up, 'yes', we should add all of the foreign investments to the mix which would make the ways that the US benefits the world astronomical. We gain profit, but the nation gains jobs, tax income and a increased economy, hmmm, I think you're catching on here. Can you find more positive things to say about US?

"USA's population is 15 times that of Australia" - yet it's contributions are 100 times as great. Seems like you've got a plank in your eye, mate and complaining about our splinter.

" and its GDP 25 times as large - not my fault we work more efficiently and produce so much. We bust our butts and will NOT apologize for it.

"The USA has massive trade barriers (admittedly not quite as high as those of the EU, though that is at least a GROUP of countries) to protect its own industries and penalise more efficient industries in other countries." - Now who's deluded. Our trade barriers don't compare to other nations - not even close. Do you really want to go there? Do you want to know how hard it is for US manufacturers to have access to foreign markets and the tariffs involved? I don't think so.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), April 27, 2004.

italics off

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), April 27, 2004.

Dave said "I'm just glad to see that Americans aren't the only ones in the world ignorant to world events."

Don't be too glad Dave, some of us are doing our best to fight ignorance. BTW I think the expression is "ignorant OF", even in America.

Hmm let's see, violent methods used against USSR since 1917, USSR keeps growing in power. Nuclear arms race used against USSR since 1945, USSR keeps growing in power and spreads communism to half the world. 1980s Polish pope, church, labour unions and people take non- violent action, USSR collapses. Oh, I know! it must be some sort of delayed effect of the violent methods! Too bad 200 million people had to die before the delayed effect somehow produced a result!

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 27, 2004.

This thread is supposed to be about war, not trade or accountancy, so I'm not going to keep swapping statistics with you. Maybe you should have checked who you were speaking to though. Australia and New Zealand have the world's lowest trade barriers, in fact they're virtually nil. USA's barriers are very high, though as I said some other countries' are worse. Our farmers and steelmakers "bust their butts" too to be the most efficient in the world, but the USA's and EU's tariffs and quotas almost totally prevent them selling to the world's largest markets.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 27, 2004.

"..So I'm not going to keep swapping statistics with you."

Peter that would probably be a good choice. You are getting "SPANKED" Dawg!!! :-)

-- - (David@excite.com), April 27, 2004.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too Dave. You tell us USA has the strength and that's good for the world, then you tell us Russia is way ahead with its nukes and is a menace to the USA. You guys aren't planning an invasion of Russia next are you? The precedents aren't good (Hitler, Napoleon, Genghis Khan)

I hope getting that out of your system made you feel better David (the other one). We are however supposed to be discussing Catholic issues, in this case war, to try to shed light rather than heat. I'm not going to play a game of "I'll take your number and double it."

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 28, 2004.

This thread is supposed to be about war, not trade or accountancy

Peter, I'll give you credit. You're still plugging away. You're a better man than me. In regards to this thread: I started to feel like Bill Murray in "Groundhog Day" a few days ago. Actually this thread is supposed to be about what people think is worse than war. Predictably, the thread has been about war, war, and more war. To many people, war is the worst thing going right now. But I can think of many things worse. You think the war is unjust, I think it is just. So be it. But the Catholic Church is in crisis, maybe unprecedented in its history. I fear we are fiddling with war and other less important issues while our Mother Church burns. Here in my opinion are things worse than the Iraq war. Threads on these subjects will not generate 100+ posts IMO.

1. Liturgical abuses abound. Because of these abuses, the mass has become banal for many, equivalent to community get togethers. Catholicism has become equivalent to other religions in the eyes of many! People go to church to be entertained, not to worship our Lord. How many souls are lost because of this?

2. The laity is extremely poorly catechized. The fact that people can defend John Kerry is a case in point. How many people know that one cannot receive communion in mortal sin? How many people know that contraception is a sin? How many people know that abortion is a sin? How many people know that sodomy is a sin? How many people go to confession? As far as most people are concerned, if you are nice and tolerant, that is enough. In fact, intolerance may be the only mortal sin left in the minds of many. Most catholics can be led astray by heretical priests and bishops because they don't know heresy when they see or hear it. How many souls are lost because of this?

3. We have a crisis in vocations. Actually I think this is a result of #1 and #2. Cardinal Ratzinger says: "We find ourselves faced with a progressive process of decadence. ... It is incontrovertible that this period has definitely been unfavorable for the Catholic Church.” Kenneth Jones, author of the "Index of Leading Catholic Indicators" says "(s)ince Cardinal Ratzinger made these remarks in 1984, the crisis in the Church has accelerated. In every area that is statistically verifiable – for example, the number of priests, seminarians, priestless parishes, nuns, Mass attendance, converts and annulments – the 'process of decadence' is undeniable." And the modernist solutions are women priests, and laicization of the church to name a few. No, the answer is in orthodoxy. Our church is dying and we are fiddling. The gates of hell will not prevail, yet we do have free will. We must be vigilant. How many souls will be lost because of this crisis in the church?

4. We have a crisis of sodomy in the church. Many seminaries, for years, have been breeding grounds for homosexuals and homosexual thought. As a result we have a priesthood and community of nuns which consist of many homosexuals. As a result we have a pedophile crisis unlike anything the Church has ever seen. We are supposed to hate the sin and love the sinner. Yet I fear that with the lack of adherence to church teaching in this area, we are tolerating the sin and not only loving the sinner but protecting them as well, from punishment that they have earned. How many souls have been lost because of this?

I could go on and on, but my pillow calls. So you see, to me, arguing about the Iraq war is inconsequential in the face of the war the Church faces today against apathy, modernism, heresy and apostasy. We are here on earth to do good works, to praise God. Our goal is or should be eternal salvation. We should not be too concerned with things of this life. We should however be concerned for the souls of those in purgatory and of the souls of sinners here on earth. Yes, war will always be with us, and many will lose their lives in such wars. But many, many, many, more souls are being lost every day to Satan. It was once said that Catholics make great soldiers because their souls are in a state of grace due to the sacraments, including the sacrament of confession, and thus they are not afraid to die. Is that the case any more? Is there anything worse than war? This catholic says YES

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 28, 2004.

Brian I agree with 90% of what you said. Yes those things are true and they are terrible. But we must not despair. There are signs of hope and many positive changes have occurred as well. Many of the changes for the worse which you mentioned really apply only to Western countries, and the problems are the problems of Western society as a whole, not just the Church.

Two positive deleopments: 1. I believe the world no. of priests has actually increased since 1984 (though there are fewer priests per head of Catholic population). Nearly everywhere the number of priestly vocations is increasing (albeit often from a low base).

2. In Australia at least, 10 or 20 years ago we felt like we had to apologise even for being a Catholic or a Christian. Now many of us have more confidence. Even though the voices raised in opposition to the Church have become louder and shriller.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 28, 2004.

Sorry Brian I actually got off your subject again didn't I? I just thought you needed cheering up.

To address your question directly, I could say "Satan is the worst thing because if not for him we would still be in Paradise and would not have sinned." But I guess that's not what you had in mind. Yes, the worst thing that can happen to a person is to lose their soul. Yes, your points 1, 2, 3 and 4 have probably (who are we to know?) led many people indirectly (and in the case of #4 possibly directly) along paths which ended up in them losing their soul. But (unjust) war is also a source of many evils, chiefly but not confined to murder, which may also lead to total loss of grace in many souls.

And not forgetting that even where the decision to wage war is just, there are invariably unjust individual acts within that war which are unjust, both on the "bad" side (because by definition both sides in a war can't both meet the just war conditions) and on the "good" side. So as I said, I believe war, with its only possible rival abortion, is the worst thing in the world today.

Unfortunately the discussion was diverted from "war in general" to "the decision to invade Iraq" and/or "whether foreign armies should stay in Iraq".

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 28, 2004.

Dave, I'm at a loss to know what are the "petty insults" that I've offered you which you are ignoring in line with your country's "most charitable" nature. Or what is the evidence for my poor "character" other than my failure to go all the way along with your convenient pro-war world view. Perhaps the ref to Luke 12 to "the rich fool"? That's what it's called in my Bible, sorry if it's too confronting for you.

Interesting new word "donator".

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 28, 2004.

So insults have become so commonplace with you that you're no longer even aware of doing it? Sad.

And I'd like to take credit for creating a new word, but I'm afraid that the word "donator", with it's Latin origins, predates me slightly. Or were you referring to it being "new" to you? Yes, "donor" is more common today, but "donator" is a word.

And finally, what you call "revisionist history" was anything but. I summarized some of the conclusions of our nation's top intelligence analysts immediately following the break-up of the Soviet Union. That the information wasn't made public isn't a surprise, it's only recently been declassified. I'm not saying that the factors you mentioned weren't relevant, they were, but they weren't the key factors, to think so is just naive.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), April 28, 2004.

Many faithful Catholics believe our Holy Father was deserving of the so called Nobel Peace Prize, for having supported his country's efforts with Solidarity; finally helping bring down a totalitatian government. Don't think we Americans haven't appreciated him. But naively, many more were expecting Gorbachev to be honored instead, because of his Glasnost and Perestroika. We have many naive revisionists around, and always will. That doesn't mean the ones who aren't naive, and can face the truth, must necessarily be cynical. Peter K must think we are; because we don't revise recent history to suit his hobby horse. We aren't cynical and we're not naive. We believe this is the world, not Paradise. If it were, we wouldn't have to die, ever.

The Nobel Prize, BTW; is probably liberalism's most insane traditions after the end of World War II. Only our dear Mother Theresa, of so many modern laureates, was worthy of that honor. And she gave all their money to her poorest of the poor. Even Lech Walesa was something of a stretch, IMHO.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 28, 2004.

Lucio, that's interesting, but if you're going to insert links to schismatic churches please identify them as such. Some people might innocently think they are reading something from the real Catholic church until they see the gross disrespect to our Holy Father.

Dave, you can't identify my supposed "insults" to you but they are "commonplace"??? Come on, you're beginning to sound like Eugene.

Yes you're right "donator" is not new in the sense that the ancient Romans used it, but I meant in English. It passed into Old French as "doneur" and in this form thence into Middle English. The spelling became "donor" in the 18th century when many spellings were standardised along Latinate lines, as Latin was considered a superior language which should be emulated. (The unpronounced "S" was put into "island" for the same reason, by false analogy with "insula".) If you or anyone else know of any other uses of "donator" in English I would be interested to see them. (Perhaps by direct email as I suspect most readers here find this subject boring and irrelevant.)

"our nation's top intelligence analysts" who gave you this "recently declassified" info on what really caused the breakup of the Soviet Union - would they be the same guys who told you that Saddam was about to drop nukes, anthrax and mustard gas on our cities, and that religious fundamentalist Osama was best buddies with neo-Marxist secularist Saddam? Isn't it funny how those damned peaceniks John Paul II, Paul VI, John XXIII and Pius XII all condemned the wonderful arms race and the US-sponsored proxy wars which supposedly led somehow to the downfall of the USSR? What would that "naive" JP2 know? It's not like he has any experience of what really happens under communist rule, is it?

Oh dear Eugene. Now even all the "so-called" Nobel laureates, bar only Mother Teresa, are unworthy, tainted by "liberalism" and honouring them is an "insane tradition". Perhaps you would prefer Mr Bush to get one for "loving" the Iraqis, instead of that Iranian woman who is actually doing something to bring democracy and women's rights to that "axis of evil" regime. BTW I believe Bishop Belo, most of the other Peace laureates and several of the other laureates also gave their prizemoney to charity.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 28, 2004.

btw did you know that one of Blessed Mother Teresa's last acts was to sign a letter to all Heads of State urging them to "build a new culture of non-violence"?

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 29, 2004.

Don't act dumb Lucio. A site that calls people in communion with the Pope "Novus Ordinarians", says "the Church does not exist in the New Order", calls Catholic priests in good standing "corrupt Novus Ordo presbyters" and our Holy Catholic church "counterfeit" etc etc can hardly claim to be part of that same Church. We have only one Holy Father Pope John Paul II.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 29, 2004.

There is a spiritual warfare raging all about the globe that no one even considers as the cause of all war, discord, unhappiness and misery. It is a war fought for souls, not power or oil. It is the educated opinion of Catholic biblical scholars that the final physical battle of this war will be fought on the soil of the Mideast nations. But much of the fine eschatological studies done in the earlier part of the 20th century were lost in the shuffle following Vatican II. Some believe the papal see will be "relocated" to Jerusalem in the near future and Rome will be abandoned or destroyed, although such a relocation has been proscribed by the Church Herself. Unjust though it may be, (and all modern wars are suspect, having the secret soceties as their true fomentors) it is my firm conviction, based on the works of these scholars, that the war in the Middle East will rage unchecked until it becomes World War III. This war will be the decisive battle for Satan, murderer of souls, and we should remember Christ's own words on this subject: Fear not him who murders the body, but those who murder the soul and cast both body and soul into hell.

Unjust war is a terrible thing, undoubtedly. But the successful campaign to war agaisnt the Church and capture as many souls as possible through trickery and deceit is far more loathesome and despicable. It is a war directly against God and His Church, a sin directly opposed to the first commandment. And since the commandments are listed in oder of importance, doesn't this sufficiently answer the original question?

-- Teresa Benns (bennstere@aol.com), April 29, 2004.

Peter K, I admire your fidelity to the Pope and your hope for peace but...as Our Lord said, his peace is not the world's peace...

So while we all love the idea of harmony and joy with neighbors and pray for "peace"...in the real world how does peace come about when there are evil, vice-ridden, passionate and ignorant people for whom violence (terrorism or socialist government repression) is their quickest ticket to power and material wealth?

Nazism wasn't defeated by Kumbaya songs and feel-good peace protests. It was destroyed on the battlefield. Russian Communism too wasn't led to collapse by peace-protests but by the double factors: military force (NATO and the USA) kept the USSR from expanding its economic base (remember, they were materialists) and the Polish Church gave intellectuals an alternative humanism. The 1, 2 punch made it collapse. But in places such as China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba, where economic and geographical realities (trade with the West and isolation) can keep the materialist mauw alive, the state can continue to crush all foreign thought.

Communism in those lands won't die just because we feel good about brotherly love.

In today's confrontation with Islamo-fascism or Islamic-terrorism in which violence against unarmed civilians is praised as "martyrdom" and the whole ex-Marxist Leftist Peace Movement DOES NOT CONDEMN THIS ATROCITY but claims that there is a moral equivalence between a suicide bomber intentionally killed children on a school bus and a US soldier shooting a hooded terrorist waving an AK-47, we see a situation almost worse than Red Communism.

Wilful blindness does not lead to justice and therefore will never lead to "peace" - unless the peace in question is that of the grave.

So let's not kid ourselves: the end of hostilities or "war" is not the same thing as "peace" and the Peace that came in the USSR after WWII was not the same thing as that enjoyed in the US either.

The Peace spoken of by Pope John XXIII and Paul VI and John Paul II includes honoring the truth about God and man (theology and morality) which is something the atheist materialist hedonist anti-Catholic Western "peace-niks" specifically DON'T believe in.

Yet naive Churchmen seem to think that people who protest against war (but strangely only war waged by democracies against tyrannies and not tyrannies against democracies) are all uniformly in favor of the peace of God and the Church. Not so.

But it's oh so easy to believe that wishful thinking alone will solve the worlds problems and give people bread, clean water, shelter, and a decent, humane job. Or to believe that by condemning one group of people (like, say, capitalists or entrepreuners) all poverty will magically disappear and all the moral, legal, political, and cultural barriers to such a halcyon state of civilization will vanish too.

But alas, such wish-ful thinking abounds. "Let's just be nice and Osamma will be nice to us" doesn't even work on the school playground when bullies pick on younger kids, so what makes us think it works among adults?

"Let's just not rock the boat and maybe IPPF will stop promoting abortion, contraception, and a view of human sexuality that consists in promoting it as much as possible so people become addicted (and thus guarantee business for the condom makers, contraceptive companies and abortion mill owners)".

The common denominator: give evil ambitious barbarians a total pass and blank check to gain power, take control of all the means of societal and political power...and feel real good about ourselves for not being "warmongers"....and then blame all social ills on those who thought that something is worth defending and even fighting for.

My question is essentially the same St Augustine had to grapple with in 410 and all other Church men have had to deal with when invading hordes came sweeping in.

It's one thing to be a martyr when martyrdom means "bearing witness" to Christ. But if the mob couldn't care less about the faith...and indeed only want to rob and kill you, is martyrdom what is needed?

Do you think war in "Middle Earth" could have been avoided had the hobbits extended a palm branch of peace to Sauron? A non-aggression pact and unilateral disarmament? What if Sauron didn't want peace but war and the annihilation of humanity? Ah, well then, war is a better alternative to simple execution.

Look at the passionate (and non-thinking) partisans in favor of creating the Muslim Umma - the one huge Islamic "empire". They don't want to argue or dialogue. They want to destroy the West - making absolutely no distinction between the Christian remnant and the reigning atheistic materialist West. They've killed Christian civilians in dozens of nations on 3 continents over the last 30 years. And while many well-meaning Church men call for dialogue and peaceful initiatives... how many call for the forthright evangelization of Muslims starting with heavy-duty Trinitarian theology to debunk Mohammed's 6th century neo-Arianism and bold witness to the superiority of Christ's Gospel?

In the Middle east evangelization is forbidden and the population of Christians continues to decline....All the desire for peace and brotherly love come to nothing in the face of both human nature and reality on the ground.

So simply condemning the US as though war was our invention and bloodshed is a US export...totally misses the point. World Peace doesn't come by the US unilaterally declaring peace. It comes when we force the other side to unconditionally surrender. Then is justice established and peaceful congress among people allowed to flourish.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 29, 2004.

Lucio, we 1.2 Billion members of the "sect" of the one holy catholic apostolic church don't drop hate-filled messages onto the websites of your ten-thousand member sect and call your leader the Antichrist. We'll thank you to pay us and our leader the same courtesy.

Joe, your speech is directed at the wrong person. Read ALL of what I said above. I don't just "love", "hope", "desire", "protest", and "pray" for peace, nor indulge in "wishful thinking", I am trying, in obedience to Christ, His apostles and their successors, to actively MAKE peace in my own small way and encourage others to do the same. I certainly don't do it to make myself "feel good" or I would be bitterly disappointed judging from some of the responses I've had here.

Yes some people condemn the US and ignore crimes by others. It should be clear that I am not one of them. As for "atheist" and "anti- Catholic" - your accusations only have to be stated for their absurdity to be apparent.

"Middle Earth" stories are a work of fiction. You can hardly argue that they prove how one should behave in the real world.

"World Peace ... comes when we force the other side to unconditionally surrender." - well that's one statement that you and Osama have in common.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 29, 2004.

The Pope has told no lies. What we have here is a failure of communication, of distinction, and of expectations. Those who claim he's not the vicar of Christ or who think the Church founded by Christ on the apostles - is not the Catholic Church, are not playing with a full deck. Disagreeing with someone's prudential decisions - such as about politics or geo-politics is one thing. Disagreeing about matters of faith and morals is entirely different.

I don't even disagree with the Pope's teaching about politics and war. I've tried to see it in context and with the view that if we can't follow the entire plan of evangelization (which we can't right now because we don't have the trained and willing manpower), then other courses of action must be pursued - such as militarily destroying tyrannies.

War is never in and of itself "the answer" - but sometimes armed force is necessary because too few virtuous men exist in the positions of political and cultural power. After hostilities end the forces of politics, culture, and religion have to immediately go in and pacify the populace....but that's obviously impossible in the middle-East because we have no thousands of willing and trained missionaries ready and willing to bring Christ's Gospel to the people - in large part because the West is so undermined by internal dissent and religious/moral confusion.

So what to do? Wage war now to buy time. Fake peace will only embolden the enemies of both the West and Christianity - allowing them to strike us at their leisure.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 30, 2004.

Dear Moderator:
Why is the coward from the east being allowed to blaspheme our holy faith and publish slurs against the Holy Father? EIGHTY-SIX; please-- The Old Heave- ho, right away. Goodbye Lucio; Ciao and don't go away mad. Just go away.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 30, 2004.

Very strange Lucio. You're quite happy to be absolutely subject to someone you think is the Antichrist. Thank you Eugene for helping me handle this "ratbag" as we call them in Aus.

It is true that that the Nobel Peace Prize committee has been accused of anti-Catholic bias, but this is considered to have diminished, not increased, since WW2. It is ironic that you now shed crocodile tears over JP2 missing out. When he was touted as a favourite for the NPP last year for his efforts to try to avoid war in Iraq, Right-wing US commentators howled that if JP2 won the prize, following the 2002 prize given to Jimmy Carter for his previous efforts in the same cause, it would prove that the NPP committee were “anti-American”.

Eugene, even assuming you endorse Bill’s response, you only deigned to answer a small part of my question, (why was it “ominous”??), but it’s enough to confirm my opinion of you. You are no doubt a fine and loyal Catholic in most ways, but where Catholic teachings conflict with your nationalist pride and political prejudices, they are out. I’m sorry, you can’t just say “the decision is up to the President and Congress” and that you are only following their orders.

You try to have it both ways. You insist “there is no evidence that this was an unjust war”; then whenever anyone provides such evidence and opinion you bully them into silence by saying the President surely has other evidence that refutes it.

Yes, technically it is possible that the moral teaching of one bishop may contradict that of another, but how often does this happen in real life? When it does surely the safe thing is to go with the majority view.

Re your answer to part 8, which is it? Is there “usually” doubt ? or “always” doubt whether an act is sinful? Either way, I shall make sure I never go within gun range of either you or Bill.

You endorse Bill’s statement “The fact that one’s enemies are killing or about to kill others and that the only way to prevent that you must kill them is at the heart of the just war doctrine”.

Then in the same breath you damn Ben for objecting to this. You contradict Bill and say “President Bush clearly said “We cannot wait until the danger is imminent”. He never pretended any such thing as you claim; “they are about to kill us”.

If that is so President Bush is condemned out of his own mouth. Pius XII declared that avenging evil and restoring violated rights could no longer be used to justify war; self-defence from an imminent attack is thenceforth the only possible justification for war.

The abuse of prisoners revealed in the last few days ilustrates what I said earlier, that even on the “good” side, there are always evil acts in war. The most chilling aspect is that those responsible didn’t even realise they were doing anything wrong. They smilingly posed for photos as they abused the prisoners, having been convinced by their cheer squad that they are the “good” guys and anything they do is OK.

I do not think I "know everything" nor am I showing you "undisguised hatred" nor am I being anti-american. Any criticism I make of the USA’s government re Iraq applies to my own country’s government even more so. There is nothing wrong with being devoted to your country. But that includes being willing to consider whether your country’s government may be taking the wrong choice, and if so to do what you can about it. It is your duty as a citizen and a Catholic.

The just war doctrine is not designed so that we can justify our wars, but to try to reduce and ameliorate wars. It is not “unjust to fight evil”. Yes God knows we have to defeat those who are evil. He shows us a way to do this, and it doesn’t involve guns, bombs and torture. Do you hold the form of being a Catholic and a Christian but deny the power of it? (2 Tim 3:5).

If what I say falls on deaf ears anyway, as I fear it will, I will take Paul’s advice and avoid you. Goodbye. I hope that one day you choose to follow ALL of the Church’s teachings in letter and in spirit, not hide behind “It’s not proven to be infallible” whenever the Church’s teachings conflict with your personal or national reflexive desires for vengeance (not even directed at the same people who attacked your country) or your personal prejudices.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), May 02, 2004.

It seems at least some American Catholics agree.

http://www.wcr.ab.ca/columns/rolheiser/2004/rolheiser042604.shtml

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), May 02, 2004.

Well Lucio, I've had enough. It appears you have not read our "Rules of the Forum" thread. You obviously have come here to incite and provoke for reasons, we as a group, do not consider pro-Catholic. Perhaps it's time you found some other venue that is more tolerant of your beliefs. Please refrain from posting further to this forum.

Moderator

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 02, 2004.

Lucio's messages have been removed.

Moderator

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 02, 2004.

Yeah--
I like you too, Peter K. Take your choice, then. Leave us brutes to collide with the enemy; you have your principles. You haven't hurt MY feelings.

Our Lord and Saviour said clearly: ''There will be wars and rumors of wars.''

You simply will not take part.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 02, 2004.

You are no doubt a fine and loyal Catholic in most ways, but where Catholic teachings conflict with your nationalist pride and political prejudices, they are out.

THAT SAYS IT ALL.

-- Jerry (JMJC&fam@aol.com), May 02, 2004.

Please, --
We are not at all concerned about nationalist pride. Many good countries have been on our side in Iraq; others were not. That's up to them & their leaders. Neither have we any reason to dispute about political differences. At least, not the President's party.

It's his opposition who screams political prejudice. (When your party is in power, why insist on prejudices?)

The Democrat party, in fact, has no other option except to politicize the Iraq conflict in order to make up ground. It's called electioneering.

If the economy had gone flat, then the Democrats would have had that for a pretext for electing a Democrat. But the economy is going excellently. This leaves only the war over which to attack Bush. They will demonize the Republicans all they can, because they have NO OTHER cause to complain.

It's simply hunger for power. A child can see this; Bush has all the power. They want to take power away from him no matter what it takes. They will call Iraq some kind of Vietnam; they will use religion, they will plead for pacifism; ANYTHING! But it's power they demand. (They won't get it. --SORRY.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 02, 2004.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 02, 2004.

"You are no doubt a fine and loyal Catholic in most ways, but where Catholic teachings conflict with your nationalist pride and political prejudices, they are out."

THAT SAYS IT ALL.

-- definitely! (williajameison@companion.net), May 02, 2004.

uncenter?

-- (trying@to.uncenter), May 02, 2004.

Can you show us what you mean by ''Catholic teachings''--? I was taught in the Catholic Church, now for 66 years; and have no conflicts. They aren't ''out''.

You are under some mistaken impressions about the Catholic who supports a just war. There is no Catholic teaching that condemns war for a just cause.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 03, 2004.

A few of the thousands of teachings you have somehow overlooked:

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God...You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist one who is evil. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also...You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and do good to those who persecute you." Matthew 5

"All who take the sword will perish by the sword." Matt 26:52

"Where do these wars and battles between yourselves first start? Isn't it precisely in the desires fighting inside your own selves?" James 4:1

"We who formerly murdered one another, now do not make war upon our enemies" St Justin, 2nd century

"If we are commanded to love our enemies, whom have we to hate? If injured, we are forbidden to retaliate...Who can suffer injury at our hands?...We count it better to be slain than to slay." Tertullian, 3rd century

"Providence urgently demands that we free ourselves from the age-old slavery of war. But if we refuse to make this effort, we do not know where the evil road we have ventured upon will lead us" Vatican II, The Church Today

"No more war! War never again! ...You cannot love with weapons in your hands...We are making our own the voice of the dead and of the living: of the dead, who fell in the terrible wars of the past; of the living who survived those wars, bearing in their hearts a condemnation of those who would try to renew wars...The edifice that you have constructed [the United Nations] must never fail; it must be perfected, and made equal to the needs that world history will present." Pope Paul VI

"If violence is met by violence, the world will fall into a spiral of violence. The only true answer to violence is to have the courage to face the injustices which contribute to violence." Archbishop Helder Camara

"Christians today are faced with decisions concerning fundamental truths. If they are to be true followers of Christ they need to be peacemakers. Peacemaking requires careful building of trust, in families and local communities; between peoples of different ethnic and religious backgrounds; among leaders and between nations. In the face of the man-made calamity that every war is, one must affirm and reaffirm, again and again, that the waging of war is not inevitable or unchangeable...Clashes of ideologies, aspirations and needs can and must be settled by means other than war and violence." Pope John Paul II

"The scale and the horror of modern warfare, whether nuclear or not, make it totally unacceptable as a means of settling differences between nations. War should belong to the tragic past of history. It should find no place in humanity's agenda for the future." Pope John Paul II

-- Gerry (gerryg@aol.com), May 03, 2004.

The US is trying to build trust by defending civilization against terrorists - we are not the ones using indiscriminate violence. Our violence is discriminate: against only armed aggressors. When our soldiers accidently kill an innocent, they are punished. When terrorists kill the innocent they achieve their goal. To confuse the two is unjust.

-- withheld (anonymous@yahoo.com), May 04, 2004.

Gerry; you need more than the above to condemn a just war. Saints have been soldiers, Popes have led armies in war. Saint Joan of Arc is one example. In defense of Christianity during the Moorish occupation of Spain, and in that Civil War versus the Communists.

Your ideas are strictly idealistic; made so by the soft liberal mind- set western society lives in.

Combat against terrorists and Jihaddist muslim fanatics is in every way as justified as the wars of the Israelites under Moses, Joshua, King David and the Maccabees.

The forces of totalitarianism were defeated by arms, not platitudes and Bible-pounding. Haven't you ever seen World War II film, showing Catholic priests administering Communion to America G.I.'s entering battle? You must think those priests & soldiers acted anti-Catholic, and against Christ's teaching? Did the teachings of our Church defend Hitler & Mussolini, and Hirohito? Not at all, since Americans & the allies fought for YOUR liberty and mine. Why must you insist on such a supercilious view?

You may have a right to your bias; (I have a right to mine) but you still need to get a life!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 04, 2004.

"No more war! War never again! ...You cannot love with weapons in your hands...We are making our own the voice of the dead and of the living: of the dead, who fell in the terrible wars of the past; of the living who survived those wars, bearing in their hearts a condemnation of those who would try to renew wars...The edifice that you have constructed [the United Nations] must never fail; it must be perfected, and made equal to the needs that world history will present." Pope Paul VI

I'm not sure of the context of the quote(s) by Pope Paul, but if taken literally, wouldn't this go against Catholic teaching that there are just wars?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 04, 2004.

Brian, This is the hope of the Pope and of all rational men, but wars can and are fought for just reasons and the just war doctrine is a doctrine of the Church. Unfortunately, the UN is not ready to be the world government the Pope would like to see (that is why his words are phrased the way they are). We know that today, the UN is corrupt and sides with the highest bidder.

And you are correct, you don't know the context of the Holy Father's words, and neither do I. So it is very hard to comment further on them.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 04, 2004.

The context is " Address by Pope Paul VI to the Unied Nations General assembly, New york, 1965"

-- Gerry (gerryg44@aol.com), May 04, 2004.

Gerry, you're wasting your breath on this supercilious insulting miltarist. He has no interest in following the teachings of the Popes or of Christ himself, unless they happen to agree with his agenda. He chooses to follow Simon the Zealot rather than Christ. He would see it as "in every way justified" to make war on the Romans, rather than befriend them and see the good in them as Christ did.

The cause of the otherwise holy Joan of Arc was held up for 500 years precisely because she had taken part in a war. No doubt Mr Chavez would rather St Ignatius Loyola had remained a soldier rather than forswearing violence to fight spiritual battle in obedience to the Pope.

Mr Chavez has nothing better to do than ridicule those who follow ALL of Christ's and the Popes' teachings. He needs to "get a life". His ideas are strictly militaristic and materialistic; made so by the soft liberal mind-set he lives in, which tries to conform Christianity to his nationalist and far-right agenda, where anything which increases the power of the USA and its big private corporations is always right.

He says I am "timorous" and have no "backbone" or "testicles" because I choose instead to follow Jesus Christ, the real man's man, who has more "testicles" than all the so-called "war heroes" put together.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), May 04, 2004.

Actually, Peter, it's easy to bewail another man's convictions. You've never even tried to understand my point of view; it's below you.

What you demean as militaristic and ''materialistic'' is the pursuit of evil men and the defeat of barbarous fanaticism. You call for non-violent ''action'', but can't even describe a concrete example. Except Tienamen Square, maybe? Has Christ asked His people to lay themselves in the path of a tank column?

When you write this tripe: ''[He] tries to conform Christianity to his nationalist and far-right agenda, where anything which increases the power of the USA and its big private corporations is always right.''--

You convict only yourself of a totally slanted ideology. You urge others here to conform Christian doctrine to your false premise; that everybody right of center is evil. Then you object when left-wing hatred is exposed.

It has impelled you to accuse your own brethren, unjustly: ''[He has] nothing better to do than ridicule those who follow ALL of Christ's and the Popes' teachings,'' This is plain, because I've never done that. I have reasoned with you and other fanatics. I follow ALL the teachings of Christ and His Church, P.K.

Whereas, you forgot His greatest commandment: Love one another.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbel.net), May 05, 2004.

New article from La Chiesa Islam plus Democracy: The Lewis Doctrine Makes Inroads at the Vatican

Excerpt: The word “democracy” is used sparingly by Vatican authorities in regard to Iraq and to Muslim countries in general. There are still those who maintain that the pretext of exporting democracy to these countries is “particularly offensive to the Islamic community” (see “La Civiltà Cattolica” of last February 2). But the prevailing opinion within the secretariat of state is one of support for the development of democracy in Iraq and the Middle East – even, when necessary, with the use of armed forces on “missions of peace.”

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 05, 2004.

When the Church teaches about war - as the Popes did following world war II, we have to understand that there is a difference between wars waged "in the family" so to speak, i.e. the Western nominally Christian countries (World War I, II, the Cold War) and war waged between people who believe in God, the dignity of each human person, and the inalienable human rights that flow from human nature..and those who don't. AND OF COURSE a big difference between wars waged indiscriminately (i.e. "modern weaponry" understood as NBC "weapons of mass destruction) and limited warfare.

In the 900's the Church has Christianized all of Europe and so taught the "Peace of God" - basically outlawing all warfare, and making kings responsible for the keeping of peace (armies turned into police). But this didn't hold...so they taught the "Truce of God" - wherein wars were not to be fought on Sunday (Lord's Day), Saturday (Mary's day) or Friday (Lord died). Nor were non-combatants to be harmed "women, children, elderly, injured" and quarter was to be granted to anyone who surrendered, entered a Church "the right of sanctuary" and foreswore violence.

This state of affairs lasted about 50 years...then Europe was confronted with the Turkish Muslims who changed the 400 year old Muslim policy of respecting Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem and started to rape, pillage, enslave and kill them AS WELL as attack the Christian Bzyantine Empire which only recently had broke away in schism...

This was the start of the Crusades... offensive war fought outside of Europe with the restricted aim of liberating solely the Holy Places... and thus the real application of Just War theory. The crusaders didn't wipe out every Muslim they saw. It wasn't genocide. I wasn't strictly speaking "religious warfare" either because BOTH sides often entered alliances with various factions on occasion - for political motives. Thus the 5 Crusading columns passed peacefully through Beruit and Lebanon enroute to Jerusalem. They bypassed Acre and other towns too - because conquest and bloodshed for the sake of it wasn't the goal. Safeguarding Jerusalem for pilgrims was the goal.

So the crusades were limited warfare and apart from one or two exceptions - the only people involved were combatants (at least when Papal legates were involved in the Crusader side of things).

Fast forward to the present.

Since World Wars 1 and 2 showed an indiscriminate "total war" concept to the Church, the distiction between types of war was perhaps lost not conceptually but emotionally among European prelates. THEIR personal experience of war was the moving wall of fire "front lines" of WW2 tha swept through EVERY town and hamlet, city and countryside from Sicily and Normandy in the West to Moscow and Stalingrad in the East. Carpet bombing, artillery barrages, massed urban assaults, and the constant threat of nuclear, chemical or biological armageddon convinced these prelates that "war" always and only means a WW2 type scenerio.

So it's humanly understandable that most of them refuse to accept the American protests that OUR idea of warfare is NOT indiscriminate and frontal assault, but based on DISCRIMINATE and lightning quick and directed assault - sparing both civilians and as much infrastructure as is possible.

For them - war can not be discriminate and can not only include combatants... even though in most cases this isn't entirely true. Snipers and modern guided weapons can and often do just hit armed soldiers. Even the terrorists have such accuracy - their IEDs and RPGs aren't used haphazardly but only on passing military or contractor's convoys.

So as I've always been saying...to make a moral judgment about war you have to base your judgment on an analysis of FACT not perception, feeling, attitude, guesses, opinions, desires, fantasies, hypotheticals, and imagination. It's a fact that WW2 included indiscriminate warfare and that a nuclear war - or any war using chemicals or biological agents WOULD BE INDISCRIMINATE AND THUS, ABSOLUTELY IMMORAL.

But it's not a FACT that other use of conventional and modern weaponry is ipso facto immoral just because they're powerful and modern. In fact, a modern 500 lbs. bomb may actually be less indiscriminate than a 1940's 250 lbs. bomb precisely because modern guidance and shaped charges direct the force of explosion in one way rather than 360 degrees, limiting, discriminating who gets the "business end" and who (civilians, neighbors) don't.

Look, in every other field of theological and moral debate, the Church authorities tend to go long on detailed analysis, distinctions, definitions, circumstances, etc. and only after weighing all aspects and angles, give a pronouncement....but in the case of war all this necessary work hasn't typically been done except by those of us who see that the Iraq war is in fact, just.

Before shrieking a reply about the recent torture scandals let me make a note: post hoc ergo propter hoc isn't a logical argument. Just because a handful of US soldiers do admittedly criminal acts (for which the US will punish them) doesn't make the whole war effort instantly "unjust" anymore than 1 or 2 liturgical abuses after Vatican II automatically makes the Council illicit!

The argument "well it wouldn't have happened if you hadn't gone to war" won't wash because Saddam was ROUTINELY torturing hundreds of Iraqis PER DAY - and no peace nik had a cow about it. Now the US catches and punishes its own men for such crimes - and you have a cow???? Well, if anything at all bad happened after you were born, does that make you the cause of it? if anything bad happened after Vatican II, does that make the council the direct cause?

If you love Trent then you have more problems: Protestantism rose after Trent. The rise of atheism, masonry, the loss of Catholic monarchies, socialism...all happened after Trent. But how many people lay these events at the feet of the council? FEW.

So I leave you this: the war was just according to Catholic Just war doctrine, chiefly in that the unjust were attacked not the innocent, it was limited, not indiscriminate. It responded to unjust aggression - and a "structure of sin" which had no viable diplomatic means of ending...

We now know with 100% assurance that the UN "oil for food" program was corrupt, allowed the security council nations to break the UN embargo, allowed Saddam to keep building illegal weapons, did not keep him in a box, and thus made Iraq the primary funder of terrorist groups around the world, including al qaeda - which offered the UN mandated (legal) embargo of Iraq as part and parcel of THEIR justification for attacking US targets abroad and domestic since 1993.

Since the Terrorists and UN made the explicit and implicit connection between Iraq and themselves, why should the US have had to prove beyond all doubt that this was so? Al Qaeda had more real connections with Iraq than Imperial Japan had with Hitler, yet who has said that the US war against Germany wasn't just because the Germans hadn't attacked us or weren't "an iminent threat" to the US mainland?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), May 05, 2004.

I"m not wasting my breath im just quoting what Jesus and the pope says about War. If anyone chose to take notice of it or not, thats up to you. Please dont involve me in your arguements and call me idealistic and biassed nd supersilious and bible pounding soft liberal mind- set and tell me to get a life. I got a life in Jesus and he tells us to love each other, not arguements which you're all doing.

-- Gerry (gerryg44@aol.com), May 05, 2004.

I didn't realize Jesus told us not to argue. If you don't want to be involved in arguments, don't involve yourself. There are plenty of people in this forum who feel like you do, and don't bother posting to this thread or that; that's fine by me. You can't play the "I'm just quoting Jesus and the Pope" card unless you are prepared to quote everything Jesus and every Pope and every council and every Doctor of the Church etc. has said and done throughout the centuries. I'm glad you've got a life in Jesus. It is often said that we are called to be disciples of Christ. Even the original disciples had their arguments didn't they?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 05, 2004.

What a brilliant piece of unintentional irony from Mr Chavez: "you forgot His greatest commandment: Love one another."

I certainly got a lot of incredulous laughter from everyone I told that someone had described me as a left-wing fanatic! I usually get accused of the opposite.

Mr Chavez plainly does NOT follow many of the Church's teachings spelt out above, where they are inconvenient to him. That's fine, that's his choice, but what I object to is him misrepresenting the Church's teaching and ridiculing those of us who DO follow ALL of it. I never wanted to debate the Iraq war; Bill and Mr Chavez introduced it to a general discussion we were having. When he had introduced it with such fatuous arguments, and especially claiming that the Church endorsed it, I had to defend the truth. I admit I am a stubborn old bastard, especially when I see the church's truths being misrepresented.

The Church unequivocally condemns war in general and the invasion of Iraq in particular. Mr Chavez tries to weasel out with "we don't know for sure what the pope said to Mr bush" because it's in a letter that Mr bush refuses to make public.

Why the hell do you think he has kept the letter secret (and probably shredded it)? There's only one possibility. Because it unequivocally told him not to invade Iraq. If the letter had left even the tiniest bit of wriggle room, which bush's spin doctors could have twisted to claim that the pope had said an invasion might just possibly be all right, bush would have gleefully displayed it to the world.

The invasion was wrong. Get over it. Next question.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), May 05, 2004.

''Mr Chavez tries to weasel out with "we don't know for sure what the pope said to Mr bush" because it's in a letter that Mr bush refuses to make public.''

Is that so? Where is my post showing that I ever said that? Now you resort to making up fictions about me? Peter, please be a man. An honest man; and show this forum what I EVER said that misrepresents the Church's teaching. You won't, since I never made such misrepresentations. As for ''weasling''-- why would it ever be necessary? You haven't brought an honest argument to the forum. All you brought is a personal opinion; and at the very start I stated that you have a right to your own opinion. It happens that it's a biased, anti-American opinion and we reject it. That's not weasling. That's common sense telling you to stuff your opinion. REPEAT: I never mentioned the Pope; nor any ''letter''. I never contradicted a church doctrine; nor misrepresented any. I only gave my honest version of what is happening in America and in Iraq. And the Church has NOT condemned it, Peter.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbel.net), May 05, 2004.

My mistake, it was in fact Mr Chavez's tag-team-mate Bill who said:

"The Pope did not condem the liberation in Iraq publically. He wrote a letter to the President of the US trying to disuade him from fighting, but no one knows what is in the letter. It was kept private. What you are hearing is speculation."

Chavez has made a dozen posts on this thread since, and though he goes through every statement of mine with a fine-tooth comb looking for anything he possibly twist, he certainly has made no correction to Bill's statement, in fact he gave every indication that he endorsed everything Bill has said.

"Now you resort to making up fictions about me? " - That's a bit rich coming from someone who's been doing exactly that for a week.

And now he's so full of himself he refers to himself with the old papal "We". Sorry, no thanks, I'll choose to continue to obey Christ, the real pope and the bishops. As for being a man, see my last post.

When I joined this discussion I had an open mind about the invasion of Iraq. I thought at least it might have been an honest if ghastly mistake. But if the increasingly frantic ad hominem attacks, vain searches for WMDs or links to Al-Quaeda, macho posturing, and excuses that "other people do even worse things" are the best "arguments" for it that its most passionate supporter can come up with, I begin to think there might be some truth in the allegation that it was done for base purposes.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), May 06, 2004.

“I never mentioned the Pope. I never contradicted a church doctrine; nor misrepresented any. I only gave my honest version of what is happening in America and in Iraq. And the Church has NOT condemned it, Peter."

Yeah, right, just like he never showed political bias or ad hominem attacks or macho posturing. Let’s review some examples of all of the above on this thread alone, at the risk of being called “traitors” who will “suffer damnation”:

“ God rules all of our world; and he delivered Saddam into our hands. If we must battle a quarter of the Iraqi population to win, then it's bad news. But that's their problem.” “Do any Aussies realise that even at this late juncture, the U.S. and our coalition could carpet-bomb all of Bagdad, Tikrit, Fallujah, Basra and keep going for weeks” “Why are you against the good guys?” “We are serving the national security of the United States” “First we must round them up. Then imprison them or execute them.” “We had a nuclear deterrent in place; (which peaceniks everywhere denounced.) If we hadn't, Stalin would have wrapped up the whole continent. Recall his famous joke? ''How many regiments does the Pope have?''” “You give our armed deterrence against the USSR no credit at all, do you? It shows how indoctrinated they have you on the left. Lenin called your class of citizen ''Useful idiots.''” “Islam will not only rejoice when we carry out non-violence. The Imams and ayatollahs will get busy circumcising all our daughters and cutting off all our hands the dissenting nations were snubbed. Or how the minority opposition can't sway public opinion anymore.” “Neither you, with the anti-war faction nor the Pope, nor the UN have an alternative plan IN PLACE.” “The Kiwi participates in his usual dust-bath; the heat is suffocating under the Southern Cross! Come up for air, Sir. You pledged not to overdo the drinking, didn't ya, Madman? “ “You are now guilty of denigrating every coalition soldier who entered the war in Iraq; as if you were more deserving of our love because you are an enemy of Bush? Italians, Brits, Salvadorans, Japanese, Poles, YES, Spaniards-- a long list of willing partners of our country (NOT just Bush), all on your schdt-list. With friends like you, who needs terrorist enemies?” “Peter: This new method of yours, incense-burning to an eastern god of the Starship Enterprise, hasn't even bought you time. I recall Capt. Kirk, your hero. ''Mustn't harm a life-form here on Kalypsos, no matter if its spider-jaws are engulfing five of us! We will pamper this monster gladly, just as if none of us earthlings were worth a Canadian penny!'' ''So must the Pope. So must all who love Christ.'' --And, how do we know? Why; because John and Paul and Ringo told us so! We must ''Give peace a chance!'' “ “It's your generation X that smokes trash.” “it probably makes you angry someone will speak up against your supercilious fancies” “all I get out of you is undisguised hatred” “anti-war gurus like yourself, who feel qualified to belittle our nation from afar.” “the complete failure you've had here, touting ''non-violent action''; a grandiose misnomer” “Many faithful Catholics believe our Holy Father was deserving of the so called Nobel Peace Prize” “The Nobel Prize, BTW; is probably liberalism's most insane traditions after the end of World War II. Only our dear Mother Theresa, of so many modern laureates, was worthy of that honor.” “slurs against the Holy Father” “Neither have we any reason to dispute about political differences. At least, not the President's party. It's his opposition who screams political prejudice. (When your party is in power, why insist on prejudices?) The Democrat party, in fact, has no other option except to politicize the Iraq conflict in order to make up ground. It's called electioneering. If the economy had gone flat, then the Democrats would have had that for a pretext for electing a Democrat. But the economy is going excellently. This leaves only the war over which to attack Bush. They will demonize the Republicans all they can, because they have NO OTHER cause to complain. It's simply hunger for power. A child can see this; Bush has all the power. They want to take power away from him no matter what it takes. They will call Iraq some kind of Vietnam; they will use religion, they will plead for pacifism; ANY THING! But it's power they demand. (They won't get it. --SORRY.) “ “Your ideas are strictly idealistic; made so by the soft liberal mind- set western society lives in.” “you still need to get a life!” “You convict only yourself of a totally slanted ideology. You urge others here to conform Christian doctrine to your false premise; that everybody right of center is evil. Then you object when left-wing hatred is exposed.” “I have reasoned with you and other fanatics.”

Etc etc. And it appears the only part of the New Testament he knows is : ''There will be wars and rumors of wars.'' which he interpreats as “You must wage wars in my name.”

And yet though he continues with this farrago of abuse and lies he still doesn’t deign to fully answer the question I put to him on 26 April. (For partial answer misrepresenting and distorting catholic teaching see “why im voting for kerry” thread).

The pope and bishops have condemned the war. If anyone has a problem with that, complain to them, not me.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), May 06, 2004.

Peter, back in March of 2003 the Pope condemned the war in Iraq as having “no legal or moral justification”. This was done through senior Vatican officials and through Bishops and Cardinals around the world, for diplomatic reasons. In his wisdom, his holiness saw fit not to embarrass or antagonize the United States or other coalition partners and thus escalate tensions around the world. This story was widely reported in every major newspaper in the world. There is absolutely no doubt as to where the Church stands on this issue. Those who argue this point have simply turned a blind eye to everything written by Church officials since the beginning of the war.

At that time the war began, there was extensive discussion here in the forum about whether the war in Iraq was a just war or not and it has continued to this day. The official opinions and comments in the form of statements of many Catholic Bishops Conferences regarding the justification and morality of the war with Iraq have been posted to the forum in the past, in the hopes that after examining them, some might come to the realization the Magisterium has definitely rendered an opinion on this most un-holy war.

At the time those in support of the Pope’s/Magisterium’s position on the war were told the Church’s intelligence was lacking and/or flawed. We were told U.S. intelligence far surpassed that of the Vatican’s and that basically this area should be left to the experts. Well, guess what? One year later, it turns out that U.S. intelligence was slightly off when it declared that Saddam was a threat to the world. It was slightly off when it declared Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was about to use them on American targets. It was slightly off when it declared Saddam and Al Qaeda were the best of buddies and that TOGETHER they planned to wreak havoc on the world. It was slightly off when it declared Saddam was attempting to purchase ingredients for atomic weapons from third world African countries, (refer President Bush’s State of the Union Address, January, 2003). It turns out that all along, the Vatican’s intelligence sources were far superior to any the U.S. could muster. It turns out there were no WMD; Saddam was not a threat to the world; Saddam and Bin Laden detested one another, came from hugely different ideological backgrounds and would never agree on so much as a two-car funeral let alone a joint assault against the world; and that there was never any proof of President Bush’s claim that Saddam had secured materials to wage atomic war on the world - as the forged documents for this claim were exposed by the head of the International Atomic Agency, Dr. ElBaradei. All of this was pure fabrication, conjecture, dishonesty and/or wishful thinking on the part of the U.S. intelligence community. But that didn’t really matter, it made for good ammunition in convincing the world that war was necessary NOW, and that the U.S. couldn’t wait an additional 90 days for the world community to find the elusive WMD through properly-appointed weapons inspectors, (who by the way were branded incompetent for not finding anything in 12 years of inspections) and disarm this tyrant who posed a world threat. How far this misinformation went knowingly up the line, so that more panic about imminent attack by Iraq on the U.S. could be spread, I dare say, we’ll never know.

Back in April/03 we were told by some in this forum that the war in Iraq was 95 per cent complete. Remember the “mission accomplished” fiasco? In the ensuring twelve months, the U.S. has suffered 3 times the casualties it did during the official “war” which supposedly lasted less than 60 days. Iraqis have been dying in droves. No count is being published of Iraqi loss of life for obvious reasons. It is estimated by those who are on the ground in Iraq and in the know, in excess of 10,000 civilians have died in Iraq from this conflict; yet some here in the forum will tell you this is the cost of doing business for this “just” war, that the war being waged is “discriminate” and that any civilian casualties suffered should be considered “collateral damage” and should be balanced off against the world “good” that is being accomplished, in freeing a country from a tyrant and giving the people of Iraq democracy - something by the way, they didn't want and never asked for. When will the U.S. realize that not everyone wants a democracy? The Church is not a democracy and has withstood the test of time for 2000 years. What is good for the American goose is not necessarily good for the non- American gander. When will America realize the world is multi- cultured?

Peter, your arguments are falling on deaf ears. If you continue your crusade against the war in Iraq here in the forum, I can assure that soon you will be branded as “anti-American”. The original American argument (they’ve had to adopt some new ones) of WMD and the ties to terrorism have not been borne out. The “liberation” argument is scary to say the least and the coalition runs the danger of getting bogged down in a country, it has no business being in morally, for years to come. This also begs the question: who will the U.S. choose to “liberate” next? Sudan, Libya, Egypt, countries in Central and South America, North Korea, China? Africa? Daily atrocities and oppression are occurring throughout the world. If they keep this new “foreign policy” up they will certainly need all of Iraq’s oil revenues lest they go bankrupt freeing the rest of the world.

Let’s face it, the real reasons the U.S. went to war in Iraq was to change the dynamics in the Arab world. It’s all about power and money. It’s all about control. It had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam has never been linked to 9/11. It’s all about corruption. Can you say “Haliburton”? It amazing how the U.S. can preach fairness and democracy when extolling the virtues of waging war with Iraq and in the same breath award an open-ended contract to Haliburton without first having had the benefit of public tender. This same Haliburton coincidentally, is the same one that U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney received $25,000,000 from in a severance pay package for running the company for a few years. Everything however, is apparently above board. But I digress.

We can talk until were blue in the face about the statements that are now in the public domain with regards to the Church’s condemnation of this war but it won’t do any good. It is clear the Magisterium has spoken on this issue but, minds have been made up along political ideologies and lines have now been firmly drawn in the sand. It’s too late to turn back now. It would be too embarrassing for the Administration and too devastating for Iraq.

I fear to think of what will happen in the future. If the Americans leave Iraq prematurely, civil war is a virtual certainty. If the Americans remain and finish the job they originally intended, it will take many, many years and many, many lives to accomplish. I can only hope they live up to their “moral” responsibilities since this is apparently what this war is all about, so that loss of life is minimized.

What a mess! And some call this a “just war”! Yeah right!

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 06, 2004.

Peter, back in March of 2003 the Pope condemned the war in Iraq as having “no legal or moral justification”. This was done through senior Vatican officials and through Bishops and Cardinals around the world, for diplomatic reasons.

Where did this come from? I have seen no evidence of such a declaritive statement by the Pope. He may not have seen a justification from the information he had, but I have not seen any statement from him saying that there was in fact “no legal or moral justification”. Ed, I think you are making his statements and what little we know of what he said in private, into more than what he did say. Again, as I have stated in the past, many times, the moral justification for a war is left in the hands of those who have the access to know the details. The pope, as far as we know, did not have access to top secret information coming into the Congress and President of the US. This includes information on the UN Security Council being bribed by Saddam.

The pope would preach outside the Catechism on this matter.

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 06, 2004.

correction, I should have stated: The pope would NOT preach outside the Catechism on this matter. I think the pope chose his words very carefully, when he issued what he did on the war. The Bishops of the US did as well.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 06, 2004.

Ed,

You are passionately against the war--fine. But good grief, your hyperbole is a little over the top. For example:

...Saddam and Al Qaeda were the best of buddies and that TOGETHER they planned to wreak havoc on the world

No one ever said that they were "best of buddies" and "TOGETHER" they would do anything. But there was copious evidence that there Iraq provided assistance to Al-Qaeda, mainly in the form of training. A link was presented on this thread discussing this evidence.

Saddam was not a threat to the world; Saddam and Bin Laden detested one another, came from hugely different ideological backgrounds and would never agree on so much as a two-car funeral let alone a joint assault against the world;

Sigh! Again where is this "assault against the world" business coming from. Fact is, they are both terrorists and terrorist abetters. They both hate The Great Satan that is the US and the western world. They both are megalomaniacs. One attacked the US. The other continually violated UN sanctions and UN resolution 1441, in addition to constantly deceiving, denying access to and stalling weapons inspectors. I guess they never had WMD, they just thought it was fun to mess with the inspectors a little. ;-)

It had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam has never been linked to 9/11. It’s all about corruption. Can you say “Haliburton”?

LOL, You just couldn't help yourself could you. You started out calm, writing about WMD, liberation, civilian casualties, etc. and the emotion was building. You couldn't hide your contempt for the enemy any longer. That truly despicable creature, the scourge of civilization, the cause of wars, the cause of oppression. Who is this enemy--George Bush?-- Saddam Hussein?-- Osama Bin Laden,? no its HALLIBURTON. Ed, why do you descend into the realm of birkenstock wearing college professors.? The "war for oil" mantra is better left to the Noam Chomskys of the world. You're better than that for crying out loud. I take this Halliburton stuff about as seriously as I take the "Zionists are controlling Bush" argument.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 06, 2004.

Peter said: Why the hell do you think he (Bush) has kept the letter secret (and probably shredded it)? There's only one possibility. Because it unequivocally told him not to invade Iraq. If the letter had left even the tiniest bit of wriggle room, which bush's spin doctors could have twisted to claim that the pope had said an invasion might just possibly be all right, bush would have gleefully displayed it to the world.

There's no way Pope John Paul would "unequivocally" tell Bush not to invade Iraq. No way! And you think that Bush would make public a confidential letter from the Pope? This is all wishful thinking Peter.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 06, 2004.

''No legal or moral justification.''

How about global terrorism, Ed? How about the Atocha Terminal in Madrid? How about hundreds of thousands of unmarked graves and scores of torture chambers where that erstwhile dictator had his fun? That is MORAL justification; because the next time it might be Grand Central or your children being tortured in front of your eyes.

Legal justification? I'm afraid our Holy Father cannot declare this illegal. When he does, let us know right away. None of your pleas ''fell upon deaf ears''. I for one am not hard of hearing; I simply object to Peter K's ultra-leftist pin-pricks. He is parading his Catholic faith around as a peace-maker. As if we here didn't want peace?

All of us want peace, Ed-- including Bush AND Halliburton (sick!) for Pete's sake! Peace and security in difficult times. It doesn't come cheap, and we don't ''steal'' anybody's oil to make peace. Our country, for your information, BUYS oil; pays our bills. We owe it to our armed forces and those of the coalition to be united behind them; not be here denigrating the important sacrifices they have had to make.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbel.net), May 06, 2004.

There's no way Pope John Paul would "unequivocally" tell Bush not to invade Iraq.

I agree, if he did, he would be going against Catholic teaching. The pope simply did not have the access to the information needed to make such a determination. Anyway, if he did make such a declaration, as it turns out, he would have been wrong.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 06, 2004.

The Disciples argued who was the greatest and Jesus rebuked them. You can have arguements without belitling people. eugene c. chavez called me hateful names and bear false witness against me just because I told him what Jesus and the pope says about War. And he does the same to anyone who disagree with him. He makes War with words and this is a sin too.

Jesus said "You have heard how it was said to our ancestors, 'You must not kill, and if anyone does he must answer for it before the court.' But I say this to you: anyone who is angry with his brother will answer for it before the Court; if a man calls his brother 'Fool' he will answer for it before the court; and if a man calls him 'Renegade' he will answer for it in hell fire."

-- Gerry (gerryg44@aol.com), May 06, 2004.

Ed,

Are copies of the C.C.C. available to read in Canada? Have you ever actually read what it says about "just war"?

Last month you were qoating Canon law wrong. This month you are reading your C.C.C. WRONG! This is not how the Catholic Church operates.

You're a trip Ed! Do you still find habits intimidating on Nuns? BOO!!!!:-)

-- - (David@excite.com), May 06, 2004.

Gerry: --Nobody called you bad names. You are over- sensitive; and since your Bible quotes are used out of their context, they don't apply here. It's very silly for you to say, ''He called me hateful names and bear false witness against me just because I told him what Jesus and the Pope says about War. (What was it Jesus said about the war in Iraq? --Nothing.) And he does the same to anyone who disagree with him. He makes war with words and this is a sin too.-- ,/u> War with my words ? ? ?

Well, then Gerry, why aren't you dead or in the hospital ? ? ? Haha! As for saying I sin; please remember. Christ says ''Judge not, that ye be not judged.'' --Meaning, stick to your own sins and don't accuse others. I will confess my own, you worry about yours.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 06, 2004.

Peter:
Is it your belief my posts here misrepresent Catholic teaching? I asked you to quote something. You went to some trouble to paste up some of my rambling; Thank you. Very sporting.

None of it is contrary to Church doctrine, P.K. Thanks for trotting it all out; everybody can see it bears NO resemblance to the ugly things you thought I wrote.

But you are in a fever to win this argument, so all you can hope to do is challenge my Catholic faith. Good luck, Pete. You'll have to try harder.

No, I never insinuated Christ wanted us to have wars. I said what anybody who wishes can read for themselves. Jesus plainly stated, ''There will be wars and rumors of wars.'' Not meaning we should embrace them, but neither saying, ''There will be Pie in the Sky, and rumors of pies.'' It's a sad fact; wars will have to be fought. You and Neville Chamberlain were simply in a fog. There shall NOT be ''Peace in our times.'' We must face a great tribulation, and these terror threats are only the beginning. Good men will have to stand up and fight.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 06, 2004.

Hi Bill. Shortly before the President declared war on Iraq the Pope sent his envoy, Cardinal Pio Laghi to the White House with a letter imploring Mr. Bush to explore all the alternatives to war. Although the Cardinal did not release the contents of the letter that was delivered to the President, he did give reporters and outline of the gist of it. Basically it said that if Bush went to Baghdad, he went without God, that the war in Iraq had no moral justification. It stated that all decisions involving Iraq should have gone through the United Nations. In the letter the pope said that war with Iraq would be neither “morally nor legally” justified and suggested that Saddam be disarmed short of using military force. The pope said a war would be a “defeat for humanity”.

Now, all the nay-sayers will comment that the comments above are pure speculation and that the contents of the letter was not made known. However, the President through his spokesman has acknowledged that the pope felt the war in Iraq was immoral and illegal. In an official White House press conference, former Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer acknowledged on behalf of the President that he was aware of how the pope felt about impending war. Fleischer, in response to a reporter’s question about confirming that the letter stated the pope’s view, that the war was immoral and illegal, had this to say: “Clearly, the fact that Saddam Hussein has violated the United Nations Security Council resolutions means he is not following the legal path that the world has set out to preserve peace. The president thinks the most immoral act of all would be if Saddam Hussein would somehow transfer his weapons to terrorists who could use them against us. And so, the president does view the use of force as a matter of legality, as a matter of morality and as a matter of protecting the American people.” Clearly here, Fleischer, while defending and explaining the President’s position, is acknowledging, on behalf of the President, that the pope’s view is that the war is immoral and illegal and is confirming the Pope said as much in his letter to President Bush.

In fact, Bush so wanted to gain the support of the Vatican so desperately (Catholics make up 25% or more of the U.S. electorate) in terms of the morality of the war, that he sent several emissaries to Rome, to argue his “just war” case. Their arguments were refuted by senior Vatican officials and to this day, the Vatican views the war as unjust, illegal and immoral.

In an older thread, which I will bump up for all to read, entitled, “Thread dedicated to declarations by Church officials about the war on Iraq” there are over a dozen sites listed which give the Church’s opinion on the war with Iraq through her Ordinary Magisterium. The sites of many Bishop’s Conferences have been listed that clearly show this war is not a just one. But you know, people will read into statements what they want to read.

Hi Brian, I beg to differ with you that no one has ever maintained that Saddam and Al-Qaeda were “out to wreak havoc against the world”. I am surprised you haven’t heard of the hypothesis before. The United States government has been promoting this falsehood ever since they began looking for reasons to invade Iraq. The government desired to link Saddam’s regime with Al-Qaeda so that opposition to the illegal and immoral invasion of a sovereign nation might be more readily accepted by a gullible, terrified duped American population. What better reason to invade a nation than to paint a picture of an imminent threat to the free world from a union of two of the most detested enemies?

In the New York Times, September 30, 2002, Daniel Benjamin made reference to the well-known fact that National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld had stated in the past that senior Al-Qaeda officials had visited Baghdad and that there was evidence of cooperation of weapons of mass destruction. Of course none of this was true and Saddam and Al-Qaeda have never cooperated in anything, much less planned cooperation as allies (“good buddies”) to destroy the non-Muslim world, as their ideologies are diametrically opposed. Al-Qaeda calls for the destruction of secular Muslim regimes such as Saddam’s and yet the American intelligence community have maintained the two have cooperated in many respects “to wreak havoc” on the world.

There have been are many other references to this non-existent or flimsy Saddam/Al-Qaeda link from White House sources. They have been put forth by them to help sway public opinion in their favour about why America had to do something about Saddam’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction. This imagined alliance of the two has been blown all out of proportion in order to advance the argument that war with Iraq was necessary.

Secretary of State Colin Powell in a presentation to the United Nations, February, 2003 stated “These Al-Qaeda affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months...”. George Tenet, CIA Director, in February, 2003, also stated, “Iraq has, in the past, provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to Al- Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two Al- Qaeda Qaeda associates...”. I could go on and on, ad infinitum quoting such references. It’s been no secret the U.S. Administration would love to link Al-Qaeda with Saddam to further their own purposes.

The fact is, the Bush Administration had set it sights on Iraq many months before 9/11. In their pre-occupation/obsession with Saddam, they failed to properly assess the threat Al-Qaeda posed. Richard Clark, former terrorism expert for the Bush Administration, in his book, Against All Enemies, states clearly that the Administration was obsessed with doing away with Iraq long before 9/11. Paul O’Neill, former Treasury Secretary made a similar assertion in his recent book, The Price of Loyalty, for which, he was branded a liar. For a few years now, the Administration has been incorrectly but intentionally using the word “terrorists” to describe rogue nations such as Iraq in order to form a psychological link in the minds of all Americans to foster support for their foreign policy. What better way to tie in old objectives with new targets than to link the two and claim they have been clandestinely working together (as “best buddies”) to destroy the non-Muslim free world?

Brian, you seem to dismiss “Haliburton” as insignificant or irrelevant to this discussion yet, you have not offered an explanation as to why the United States government issued the open- ended contract without first putting it to tender.

Hi Eugene, you said, in reference to my comments, “How about global terrorism, Ed? How about the Atocha Terminal in Madrid?” I wasn’t aware that Saddam had waged global terrorism. Can you please supply me with some evidence of this? I was not aware he was behind the bombing in Madrid. I was under the impression he was incarcerated in Iraq and in the hands of American authorities. How then, could he possibly have anything to do with the bombing in Madrid? Eugene, I fear you’re confusing the war in Iraq with the war on Terrorism, but then again, that's what the U.S. Government wants you to do.

Moral justification might be argued for war with Iraq by the U.S. had the U.S. a history of stepping in, in other situations where citizens human rights were being violated. Why didn’t the U.S. invade Chile when Pinochet was at his peek and murdering far many more Chileans than did Saddam, Iraqis? Where was the U.S. when genocide was being carried out in Rwanda ten years ago? Where is the U.S. now in numerous countries around the world where human rights violations are taking place against the masses? The argument that the U.S. had a moral duty to invade Iraq to free the Iraqi people is laughable in light of the fact the U.S. has done little to help other nations in similar situations when for strategics purposes, they are of little value.

Our Holy Father has declared this war illegal (refer Fleischer’s comments above) and the U.S. officially has acknowledged as much. The United Nations has declared the U.S. war on Iraq to be in violation of international law and the U.S. officially has acknowledged as much. This is all a matter of public record.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 07, 2004.

Bill & Brian, you claim there is no way the Holy Father would unequivocally tell President Bush not to invade Iraq. Why not? Is he contravening teaching in the catechism when he condemns injustice and inhumanity? The Pope uses condemnation occasionally to point out wrongs that are being committed against humanity. This is usually done though spokesman for diplomatic purposes; but just as Powell, Chaney, and Rice speak for the President in official capacities, so too, do senior Vatican spokesmen speak for the Holy Father as do Bishops and Cardinals. They all speak for the Church.

It seems there are only five people in the entire world who believe that when Vatican officials speak “officially” they are not speaking for the Holy Father and his Church. It seems there are only five people in the entire world who believe that when Bishops and Cardinals speak around the world, condemning the war in Iraq in unison, that they are not speaking for the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church or His Holiness, Pope John Paul II. More amazingly, these same five individuals frequent this forum. What are the odds that would ever happen? It’s a small world!

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 07, 2004.

Dear Ed:
I'm calling you wrong about any failure in Iraq that relates to moral justification, not global terrorism per se. You seem willing to concede the high road to Saddam Hussein; because he didn't order the atrocities mentioned above?

No, we have to realise what kind of regime has been attacked. It was not attacked for immoral motives, as you've recklessly stated. That's the sin of detraction at best, possibly false witness too, not just against our G.I.'s and coalition, but the corporation you suppose is immoral, and our government.

Saddam's regime was actually diabolical. No matter what you (privately) believe he shared or NOT with Al Quaeda. There has been every reason to believe he was in possession of bioweapons, and moving toward a nuclear capacity. Therefore, the motive motive for invading and disarming him HAS BEEN REASONABLE AND MORAL.

Not only would it have been extremely dangerous to let him have such weapons, because he would certainly have allowed them to proliferate among terrorists. He would have made attempts with these to expand into neighboring states, as he did in the past.

It's easy for you to say --No weapons were found. Go on, if you believe they didn't exist, you contradict the whole world. Saddam used them against Iraqis and nobody can deny it.

I have no doubt that any terrorist cell that obtained them from Iraq would surely use them on you and me. God forbid; they might still find a way to do it. No one can say with any certainty where the weapons are right now.

Meanwhile, too many poor souls keep their heads buried in the sand. Sanctimoniously scolding President Bush & his administration, who rightly say we can't afford to wait until all hell breaks loose in America. There is nothing complicated about these events, Ed. It's a no-brainer, we shall all die soon if we don't fight the good fight.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 07, 2004.

Eugene, you said, "Saddam's regime was actually diabolical. No matter what you (privately) believe he shared or NOT with Al Quaeda. There has been every reason to believe he was in possession of bioweapons, and moving toward a nuclear capacity. Therefore, the motive motive for invading and disarming him HAS BEEN REASONABLE AND MORAL."

Even officials of the U.S. Government now acknowledge Saddam's nuclear ambitions were over-rated. Was Saddam's regime the most diabolical the U.S. could find? They couldn't have looked too far. There are many more countries much more diabolical than Iraq was. Why didn't the U.S. go after them? Bush had decided long before 9/11 that Saddam was going down, no ifs, ands, or buts.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 07, 2004.

Ed,

You say: It seems there are only five people in the entire world who believe that when Vatican officials speak “officially” they are not speaking for the Holy Father and his Church. It seems there are only five people in the entire world who believe that when Bishops and Cardinals speak around the world, condemning the war in Iraq in unison, that they are not speaking for the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church or His Holiness, Pope John Paul II. More amazingly, these same five individuals frequent this forum. What are the odds that would ever happen? It’s a small world!

I don't know if you are including me among these five people, but if you are, you are mistaken. I don't think I've said that I believe that Vatican officials do not or cannot speak for the Pope. What I have said is that despite Bishops, Cardinals, and Vatican officials condemning the war in Iraq, a catholic such as myself can disagree with that condemnation. The US Council of Catholic Bishops, whom, according to you can be considered as "speaking for the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church or His Holiness, Pope John Paul II," says as much:

"People of good will may and do disagree on how to interpret just war teaching and how to apply just war norms to the controverted facts of this case."---USCCB, March 19, 2003

EWTN says say the same:

According to the Church's teaching, it is the authority of the temporal authority to determine whether a given war is morally justified. It is the Church's role to articulate the criteria for determining whether a given war is morally justified. However, the determination of whether a given war is morally justified is a prudential rather than a doctrinal one. Thus, Catholics are free to disagree with the pope on this matter. The point that I am making is that you need to distinguish between the Church's doctrinal teaching on justifiable war and the temporal government's determination whether a given war is morally justifiable.---Fr. Stephen F. Torraco, 4-23-04

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 07, 2004.

Dear Ed:
Instead of parsing every sentence this way, simply face the facts about middle east rogue states. They all pose a great danger for the west if we don't stabilize that region.

Iraq under Saddam has been particularly dangerous in the terrorist milieu, not only because of militant Islamist traffic through their area, but because Saddam commanded immense oil wealth. Wealth means power; and we now begin to see that he even bribed officials of the United Nations. They likely tried to block the invasion of Iraq in return for millions of dollars in oil money. Money that was supposed to bring food to the children of Iraq! Saddam, holding limitless wealth as well as biological & nuclear weapons-- could only pose the ultimate danger to the west. Name any other problem greater? You couldn't.

North Korea comes closest. But now that Kim Jong Il has seen the fate of Saddam Hussein, he could start to cut back on his options against us. They ALL learned a hard lesson: You can't hide from the United States Armed Forces.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 07, 2004.

"The one who denies Me in the presence of men, I will deny him in the presence of my Father in Heaven." Matt 10:33

-- Gerry (gerryg44@aol.com), May 07, 2004.

"We must face a great tribulation, and these terror threats are only the beginning. Good men will have to stand up and fight." And Jesus' clear commandments to us don't matter??

Is this guy actually a Catholic? Next he'll be telling us that if you don't join the noble "US Armed Forces" you won't be "taken up in the Rapture"!

As for fighting terrorism, you could be forgiven for thinking that everything the US govt has done in the last 15 months has been deliberately designed to INCREASE terrorist groups' popularity and recruiting among Arabs and Muslims.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), May 07, 2004.

Look at Peter the Rock of Australia; pontificating again;

Of course, he's qualified to question who's Catholic and who isn't. He earned the right because he thinks Jesus condemned just wars, (Don't know why).

His debate couldn't stand the gaff; so Peter will call upon the lord. ''That guy can't be a Catholic, he disagrees with me. I'm a real Catholic.''

During the whole dispute, I've never hit Pete below the belt. He may or may not have religious scruples about wars in Iraq or anywhere else. I leave it to God to help Peter understand His Divine Will.

Here he is, defying the coalition which brought down a crude idolator and his ''Republican Guard''. Defending thugs who believe Christians should be annihilated all over the globe, and Americans first. Leave it to ''non-violent actions'' of some kind or leave it to chance. Because if you don't, you must not care about Christ's commandments.

In fact, this donnybrook at his keyboard is what Peter calls ''non-violent action''. He expects these posts somehow to make a difference, when the ''holy war'' fanatics break down his door. Keep up the good work, Peter the Rock.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 07, 2004.

Taking up the original question, war is indeed evil with its disastrous effects on thousand or millions, it is a grave evil against mankind irrespective of whether reason for war was justified or unjustified. But, the personal gravity of sin before God of starting a war depends on the person's intent, motives, conditions, reasons, etc., irrespective how great or less the consequences are.

Sexual immorality is evil by its very nature that it offends directly against the very holiness of God and defiles the temple of the Holy Spirit (our bodies). Externally, there may not be much disasters or deaths, but nothing kills souls than sexual immorality, it extinguishes fire of divine love and replaces it with a fire of hell, hence, most detestable before God. It is better to kill or get killed rather than defile oneself with sexually. We have a priest Phinehas who is approved in the Bible for killing a immoral couple in his great zeal for God (Num.25:6ff), while St. Maria Goretti gave up her life rather than defile herself, and St. Dominic Savio is said to have ran with a knife to kill someone who tried to tempt him with something immoral. All other sins can be good, evil or neutral based on its intentions (subjective or objective), while sexual immorality is always intrinsically evil, nothing justifies it. For example, it is good and patriotic for a man give up his life for the whole nation, but is always better for the whole nation to give up their lives to protect the sexual integrity of one man or woman. Such is the nature and difference between sins before the most High God. Never in the entire OT God has ever approved or commanded any sexual immorality in any forms, even when he commanded his people to war, plunder, slaughter, etc. the pagan nations. The reason is, sexual immorality is an act of direct violence against love and holiness of God and cuts off his presence from our lives like nothing. Sodomy is more perverted and unnatural therefore the curse is greater.

Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside his body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from god? You are not your own. (1Cor.6:18-19)

Yes, it has turned out that what we easily give into, what does not seem to trouble the people around, what seems so private, and what gives us much pleasure is most detestable before God than any sort killing, stealing, lying, etc. It is good, because we Christians may find ourselves unworthy and humble before Him with nothing to offer (or boast) but our sins, and bow down before Him that he may rise up and redeem us from all our iniquities.

-- Leslie John (lesliemon@hotmail.com), May 08, 2004.

Taking up the original question, war is indeed evil with its disastrous effects on thousand or millions, it is a grave evil against mankind irrespective of whether reason for war was justified or unjustified. But, the personal gravity of sin before God of starting a war depends on the person's intent, motives, conditions, reasons, etc., irrespective how great or less the consequences are.

Evils and injustices accompany all wars (we are seeing that today in Iraq), however, the Catholic teaching is that there can indeed be a just war. Such a war would not in itselfe be evil. As the Catechism teaches The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 08, 2004.

Thanks for that concise explanation of the real Church teaching, Bill. If I've ever misinterpreted or misconstrued it as regards Iraq, then you would see it immediately.

Our Lord is the prince of Peace, we all know. That hasn't brought peace and love to His holy land, nevertheless. Not even to Bethlehem herself; where Islamofascists of another stripe cause war. That is the City of David, Jesus Christ's earthly ancestor. David also, by the grace of God confronted Goliath in mortal combat. God has blessed just wars before; no one should forget.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 09, 2004.

No, unlike some, I leave the pontificating to the real Pontiff. I'm sure he's better qualified to do it than Mr Chavez. And yes I think we're all entitled to question whether someone is really the Catholic he claims to be, when he displays such a cavalier disregard to everything Christ, his apostles and their successors have taught us on his pet subject. And yet he naively swallows whole and faithfully regurgitates the pro-war propaganda put out by the Bush govt (or is it the Cheney govt?) and the "embedded" journalists parroting the lines approved by US armed forces commanders; all other sources of information are "liberal" (a word he seems to regard as the ultimate insult) and therefore to be disregarded.

Now he even arrogantly invokes the right to pronounce God's blessing on his beloved "just" war.

I and several others have repeatedly refuted his ridiculous argument that anyone who queries the "just" war is "defending Saddam". That aside, it must be said that for all his many faults, Saddam most certainly never believed "Christians should be annihilated all over the globe". In fact he spent most of his time annihilating Muslims. No doubt it will come as a shock to this man's blinkered perspective to be told that Saddam ruled over a large Catholic community in Iraq, who suffered less persecution than in almost any other Arab country. Certainly a lot less than in the USA's closest Arab ally Saudi Arabia where any hint of Christianity is utterly prohibited.

But I will spare him these details. He wants to "be a man" and he thinks the only way to do it is to shoot people. (Or rather demand that others shoot people from the safe comfort of his armchair). He is just the latest in a line of scoffers stretching back 20 centuries who derided the church as a religion for women. (And simultaneously some condemn it as dominated by men! I guess then we must be doing OK if extremists from both ends if the spectrum don't like us.)

And no, I don't expect my posts to make a difference to him, his mind is closed tight. But they may be of interest to those who would prefer to follow the teachings of Christ, the popes and the bishops rather than those of Mr Bush.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), May 09, 2004.

Bill, even Mr Bush has become too embarrassed to continue the charade of claiming that his invasion of Iraq was somehow some kind of "self- defence".

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), May 09, 2004.

Was World War II a defensive war for the United States? How about World War I? I don't recall either Imperial Germany or Nazi Germany declaring war on the US first. Yet we went to war and both times defeated Germany...not on US soil, but in Europe!

Neither time did Germany attack the US mainland. Yet those wars were considered "moral".

Why was there not massive peace protests in the US and Europe of NATO's invasion of Kosovo and the bombing of Yugoslavia? Both were actions outside of the UN...? Neither action was an act of "selfdefense" of Europe.

People are as blind as they want to be...but if you think toppling the Taliban in Afganistand and Saddam in Iraq weren't just as defensive as the 2 world wars...then you obviously don't understand how things work in the real world.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Poor Peter the Rock; he falls back on:

''But I will spare him these details,'' having accused me once more of displaying such ''a cavalier disregard to everything Christ, his apostles and their successors have taught us on his pet subject.''

I don't recall disregarding these things; certainly not ''everything.''. Can we see an example in writing, Peter? Don't spare the details. And don't put words in my mouth. As you have repeatedly put words in Christ's holy mouth. He was silent on these subjects, and even befriended some Roman soldiers. Look it up in your miniature (inch X inch 3/4) Bible.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 10, 2004.

Joe, There were massive peace protests before both WWI and WWII. There were also large pro-Nazi marches prior to our entry into WWII.

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 10, 2004.

Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."

Matthew 5:19 "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

-- bushintank (gasnow@$2.00gal!!!), May 10, 2004.

bushintank,
Most of the peace marchers before WWII were either communists or pro- Nazi.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 10, 2004.

PEACE = COMMUNIST

PEACE = NAZI

PEACE = BAD.

WAR = GOOD.

BUSH = RIGHT.

JESUS = WRONG.

THIS BOARD = WEIRD.

-- The Muse (dontbother@fake.net), May 10, 2004.

This thread shows great contributions to Peace from Generation X-ers; those very ones who smoked pot and listened to the Beatles since the sixties. Never was a question they couldn't answer.

It always had the same answer. Hell No, We Won't Go. Today they're cloaking it in wise interpretations of Christ. But it was just the Beatles back then and Capt. Kirk of the Starship Enterprise.

It's not surprising the first peace model we saw in this thread was Gandhi. The Beatles travelled to India to learn at the feet of eastern gurus. There was precious little Christian in their Peace Movement. The great hypocrisy of their peace protests was and still is-- wanting the world to believe only they want peace. All others want war. It's so easy to point the finger. ''You're not Christian.''

We all want peace. None of us is for war; we would rather be good neighbors.

We've been attacked savagely, however. The world is crazy; muslim fanatics who don't care a fig for Christian values have declared war on us. Words to over-simplify seem so Christian:

WAR = GOOD.
BUSH = RIGHT.
JESUS = WRONG.

I suggest:

JESUS=LOVE.
MUHAMMAD=HATRED

You have no choice but to defend Christ's own against the Anti-Christ's own. Therefore, as things have stood to now, Bush HAS been right.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 10, 2004.

BUSH = EXEMPLARY CHRISTIAN

WAR = FABULOUSLY EXCITING

THE ANTI CHRIST = BIG SCARY WORD

THE POPE = FOOLISH OLD PEACENIK

JESUS = TYPICAL JEWISH LIBERAL

THIS BOARD = CODE BLUE!

-- McMiddleClass (MiddleClass@middle.class), May 10, 2004.

McMiddleClass posts nonsense, must be a troll....

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 10, 2004.

Taunt away Mr Chavez if that's the only way you can amuse yourself. It doesn't change the facts. Just keep your fingers in your ears and deny you can hear the Pope and bishops. And yes I am proud to be named after "Peter the Rock" and to follow his successor. I have put nothing in Christ's holy mouth that the Gospel writers did not put there. The foulness coming out of your own mouth, I don't know what causes that but I didn't put it there.

"Can we see an example in writing, Peter?" - See above.

Nice to see you have at least noticed that Christ befriended Romans instead of making war on them as your spiritual ancestor Simon the Zealot would have done.

"Muhammad = Hatred" and his followers are "the Antichrist's own". Yeah keep it up that should really win over hearts and minds in Iraq.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), May 11, 2004.

Joe you say WW1 and WW2 "were considered moral". The Catholic Church certainly did not consider them moral. And I'm sure millions of people, from the Australians who were pointlessly slaughtered at Gallipoli to the (33% Christian) population of Nagasaki, would question the morality of these two bloodiest wars in history.

Mr Chavez has reverted to his tactic of damning all who disagree with him as "Generation X-ers who smoked pot and listened to the Beatles since the sixties". None of his opponents in this thread has revealed their "generation" - not that that matters anyway to whether their opinions are valid. (BTW I am the same "generation" as Mr Chavez and have never smoked, nor used any illegal substance.) The only contributor on this thread who shows evidence of mind-altering substances in some posts is Mr Chavez himself. ("Capt. Kirk of the Starship Enterprise" -??)

The inventor of the "peace movement" as he calls it was not the Beatles but the Prince of Peace. This "movement" is also called the Catholic Church. It's a pity Mr Chavez is so dismissive of the world's greatest democracy and the man who created it non-violently against all odds. He really should study it and learn something. As far as I'm aware we are not forbidden to study countries and cultures other than our own.

BTW Gandhi was several times short-listed for the Nobel Peace Prize but was blackballed because he was considered too nationalistic and not non-violent ENOUGH. (They thought he didn't condemn Indian violence against Pakistanis strongly enough.)

Yes "We all want peace." I repeat again for the last time, that is not enough. You must MAKE peace.

I'm afraid even us "do nothing" Aussies have to work for a living. So I bid goodbye to you all. And thank you especially to all those bar one who have disagreed with me, who maintained a respectful and Christian manner towards me. Whether or not you wish to work for peace and justice in the same way as I, let's all join in praying that by some miracle, peace and justice do come to Iraq, the whole middle east, and the world, in spite of the war.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), May 11, 2004.

Peter, how do you propose to bring Peace to the world?

You have this romantic notion that peaceful protest ALWAYS AND IN EVERY CASE SUCCEEDS thus to not use it is automatically immoral.

But alas, this is simply not true.

There are relatively few cases in history where a mass mobilization of people is even possible - India, Phillipines, Poland, South Africa. But in every case the government in question was heavily challenged by OUTSIDE powers to NOT repress the movement, and the sheer numbers of people involved made violence not an option.

The only reason Ghandi obtained a peaceful resolution to India's independence was the sheer fact of demographics - and British exhaustion after WW2... outnumbered 2000 to 1, the British had no choice but to hand over independence. This was the same equation in South Africa.

But note that in both cases the big bad white government actually believed in freedom - a western concept. Their own philosophy and theology made tyranny untenable.

But peace protests in tyrannies like Russia, China, and elsewhere simply resulted in bloodbaths - suppressed by a compliant media machine.

So there is a time and place for peaceful protest: Phillippines, Poland, etc. and a time where (Sarajavo, Bosnia) where such protests are impossible given the other side's complete disregard for human life!

If the Jews got together 100,000 people and marched through the streets of Gaza to "protest" terrorism...they'd simply not return home that evening. Now if they protested THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT, their own people in Tel Aviv, chances are good that no blood would flow.

So the common theme is this: colonial governments are easy to sway as are a internal governments composed of the same ethnic and religious group...but woe to the peace marchers who try this tactic with a hostile ethnic and religious group who doesn't care very much about peaceful co-existence!

Thus you couldn't have negotiated with Hitler - people of good will tried and failed! He wasn't a moral man. You don't negotiate with Charles Manson either.

But you simple-minded peace-niks NEVER EVER make distinctions. One- size fits all. If one war is bad...all war is bad. If one tactic works one place...one tactic works always everywhere...not!

Peace is good - sometimes. But as the Proverbs tell us, it is not absolutely good always. "don't say peace, peace, when there is no peace". God is not at peace with the devil. Christians are not at peace with sin. There can be no peace - no tranquilitas ordinis - with the likes of Osmama Bin Laden who does not want peaceful co- existence. He wants the destruction of the West, Christianity included.

Bush is for all his faults - and he's far from perfect - much more moral and Christian than Kerry. And the people he surrounds himself with are much more moral than those riding around with Kerry.

If you cared enough to actually read what the Pope says...you'd see that he doesn't just offer platitudes about peace. He invokes the concept of solidarity - which includes humanitarian intervention at times, and at others involves the "international community" which means more than the whim of France, Germany, and Russia!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

Excellent reply, Joe;
And PK cannot say you've been taunting him. No matter how he denies the facts. He claims he isn't a Generation X pop-off. He is.

Look at this-- ''Yes "We all want peace." I repeat again for the last time, that is not enough. You must MAKE peace.'' I would like to inquire; How many times in your life, Pete, have YOU arranged a peace between western nations vs. thousands of terrorist cells ranging the whole globe? Ten times? Two times? ONCE?

But ''It's not enough to WANT to,''-- ? ? ? Well, we want to; you think you know HOW to. Go ahead and show me; and when you have, I'll carve it in stone for the world.

Meantime, I'm just as much the peacemaker as you or your holy monks. I follow Jesus Christ just as all of us do, and HAVE to believe Him when He states: ''There will be wars and rumors of war.''

Good work, Joe. May God bless you and keep you from all harm & misfortune. You are the salt of the earth.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 11, 2004.

Peter K:

Apparently you didn't notice that we are very manly men here. Yet you barged in (uninvited) quoting Jesus, supporting the Pope, and preaching against war. What distorted form of Catholicism is this? I hope you are not receiving communion, sir. Please examine your conscience and stop spammning this form.

In Christ,

RCRM

-- Real Catholic Real Man (RCRM@testosterone.net), May 11, 2004.

Dear RCM. Real or not, you are an anonymous, therefore timid, man. Your obnoxious humor is just fine, you can keep it coming. But why do have the impression we aren't in favor of peace, Jesus' teachings, the Pope's words?

All of us here love Jesus Christ. We all treasure His teachings. None of us has disparaged or disobeyed the Pope. None of us has accused Peter K of barging in uninvited. He's welcome here.

We take issue with him over the things he is assuming to be true, when they AREN'T.

It isn't true we support unjust wars. Or unjust invasions of unfriendly countries. The case of the rogue state, where terrorism is aided & abetted by evil parties, is as I once described: Killing a dangerous snake before it strikes you and your children.

Peter was scandalized; that a Catholic should consider killing ''one of God's creatures,'' a poisonous snake. We should co-exist with the snake as long as the world council of leaders (UNO, UNSC) doesn't give the green light to bashing it.

The United States has already been bitten several times by the Jihaddist serpent. The order to disarm Saddam Hussein was put back more than 12 years, because the UN hadn't the will to act. In fact, now it's revealed why. Several higher-up officials of the same august body, that peacemaking council, UNO-- have shared in oil-for-food billions, eating from the hand of Saddam Hussein. He was fast becoming a bullet- proof snake, thanks to his pals in the UN.

That doesn't mean we love war. Nor that we reject Christ's words, Love thy neighbor as thyself.

Nor have we become willing accomplices of an ''evil'' leader, George W. Bush. We have an honorable President, one whom Peter K insists on demonizing. Why shouldn't we respond indignantly to the demagoguery of those who hate Bush? Bush and Jesus Christ are not strangers; Bush has unfailing faith in Christ. We do too; it hasn't anything to do with our ''manliness''. We just speak honestly and without fear. That is one of the Holy Spirit's gifts to men: fortitude. Haven't you ever heard of it?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 11, 2004.

You guys would be interested in this letter

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 12, 2004.

I guess you think Jesus and the Pope is a Generation X "simple-minded peace-nik" who smokes pot.

"You have heard how it was said to the men of old, you shall not kill."

"Put your sword back in its place; for all who take up the sword will die by the sword."

"If you love me, keep my commandments."

"Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honours me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.' You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men." Mark 7:6-8

-- Gerry (gerryg44@aol.com), May 12, 2004.

Dear Gerry:
this is the sin of bearing false witness-- ''--you think Jesus and the Pope /// a Generation X "simple- minded peace-nik" who smokes pot.'' That's bearing false witness against us who disagree with you. No one said the Pope or Jesus were anything but holy.

God will judge who was true to His Holy Word and who was not. (I said to you once before-- look after your own sins.)

"You have heard how it was said to the men of old, you shall not kill."

"Put your sword back in its place; for all who take up the sword will die by the sword."--

Learn from the scriptures, Gerry. God sent His people into the land of Canaan with permission to cast out and kill idolators. Moses himself killed an Egyptian slave-driver, and David killed Goliath. Jesus Christ knows they acted justly.

Dying ''by the sword'' can be honorable and good. Are we ashamed of the men who died in World War II defending the world from Nazism? Their holy vocation was to fight and die.

You have a fixation on scripture but little wisdom for the interpretation. Please do not misconstrue the Word of God in this forum. If you have nothing constructive to write, just read. When you find something to disagree with, state your case without presuming to preach from the Bible. You make yourself seem lightweight and naive. What would someone like you do; if one day a sister or mother were being abused and violated by evil men? Would you stand back and quote verses from scripture-- Or defend your family? Would you act with courage, or preach to the attackers? --I wonder.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 12, 2004.

I guess you think Jesus and the Pope are light weight and naeve too.

Fighting is not a holy vocation. You read scripture but little wisdom for the interpretation. Please do not misconstrue the Word of God in this forum. If you have nothing constructive to write, just read. When you find something to disagree with, state your case without presuming to preach falsely from the Bible or be rude and hating to others.

You say you have courage and I do not. It takes more courage togo without a sword than to take up the sword.

-- Gerry (gerryg44@aol.com), May 12, 2004.

The Pope isn't preaching here, nor is Jesus. You are a very poor substitute for the Pope. The fight for justice is definitely a holy vocation. Why don't you face my challenge?

If your mother or sister is attacked by vile men; are you supposed to let your sister or mother suffer because you think you're a plaster saint? TELL US! You say, ''It takes more courage to go without a sword than to take up the sword.'' So-- Now you think you have more courage than our soldiers? Who knows?

Nobody's telling you to ''take up the sword''. Just don't lord it over those who defend their country and their children. You may or may not have courage; but you aren't much of a leader. Go hide under a bed when men are called to fight. (NO-- Jesus and the Pope don't hide under a bed. -- Only cowards.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 12, 2004.

I quoted the The Pope's and Jesus's preaching not my own preaching. Why don't you face their challenge?

Instead you ignore them and you lord over me because I do what they say. Who is the coward, you or me.

-- Gerry (gerryg44@aol.com), May 12, 2004.

Do what Jesus says: ''Judge not, that you be not judged.''

What about your mother and sister(s) ? ? ? Will you defend them, or are you only brave at the keyboard?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 13, 2004.

I leave judgement to God just like I leave vengance to God. If my mother and sisters were attacked by vile men, of course it would make me feel good to take the cowards way out and take up the sword and attack them. But if that happend I pray that God would give me the courage to resist that feeling and defend them without violence.

It is easy to be "brave" at the keyboard like you or to be "brave" with a gun in your hand. To obey what the Pope and Jesus tell us to do takes courage. Real courage. not fake war movie "courage".

-- Gerry (gerryg44@aol.com), May 13, 2004.

Poor soul. ''Defend them without violence.''

Your one- track mind hasn't the sense to understand. Your mother and sister in danger, and you want courage to ''resist the feeling.''

I think I've shown you what God expects of a man. I suggest you pray to Saint Michael the archangel for his holy intercession. I'll pray to him as well, for you. You need to learn something about fortitude.

-- (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 13, 2004.

From the catechism:

2321 The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.

Emphasis mine.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 13, 2004.

Poor souls. You claim the only way to defend is to kill. You think the only way to "render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm" is to kill. You think that is the only "legitimate defense". Your one- track mind hasn't the sense to understand. Your mother and sister in danger, and you want "courage" to kill people.

I think I've shown you what God expects of a Christian man and woman. I suggest you pray to Saint Michael the archangel for his holy intercession. I'll pray to him as well, for you. You need to learn something about fortitude. And about obeying God's commandments even when its hard and you feel like lashing out at me or at your enemy.

-- Gerry (gerryg44@aol.com), May 13, 2004.

Gerry, get a grip. No one here has said, taught, or thinks that "killing is the only way" - and that's not the opinion, belief, or teaching or official policy of the Bush Administration, the US Military or the US Government either. Look at the facts on the ground...if we thought KILLING was the solution there'd be no Iraq left.

Look at all the blogs from all the US soldiers who are actually there! www.bootsontheground.blogspot.com and others... these guys are in Iraq, and working WITH THE IRAQIS all the time. They only shoot when shot at. They've been extremely careful to not hurt civilians - far more than you'd be if someone were taking potshots at you and your loved ones.

Check out Iraqthemodel.blogspot.com for an Iraqi's point of view and how happy most of them are for freedom from tyranny and improved standards of life. They also know that 99% of US Soldiers are decent human beings, not bloodthirsty savages (like your typical Peace-nik is).

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), May 14, 2004.

Gerry isn't just a good Catholic, he's (she's?) a fanatically supercilious Catholic who never understands.

Never understands God's commandments and doesn't understand life. If preserving life is the only important commandment, how does Gerry explain the Catholic martyrs, who laid down their lives for Christ? (Were their lives unimportant?) Why does the Bible say, ''How sweet is the death of His saints to Almighty God?'' And why did David kill Goliath? Why did Judith kill Holophernes? (She praised the lord-- saying, ''He has killed Holophernes today-- by the hand of a woman.'' She showed the people, it was really GOD who killed, and she was His instrument.) (Judith, 13 :19)

What else are the armies in a just cause, but God's instrument? This has nothing to do with plain hatred; we are to love our enemies, even as they die. Of course there's nothing loveable about warfare. We cannot be Samurais; we're Christians. But we can't shy from death; nor from fighting a declared enemy. THAT'S COWARDICE.

Because, death isn't anything to deplore or call evil. Death is the nature of life in this world. That's why Jesus Christ accepted death on the cross; for the love of mankind.

I stated up there, this generation of Americans that has never suffered in their lives, is enthralled by Star Trek fantasies. Recall the commands of Capt. Kirk to all his crew; ''There's no killing allowed; no life-form must ever die at your hands (Despite having every weapon imaginable on board); not even to preserve our own lives!'' All the while ten bug-eyed monsters were about to devour the happy crew of the Starship Enterprise.

This is the crock all our children learned from TV! Can't kill a fly! It's not NICE! This is Gerry's perspective.

He/she thinks it's Christian, but it's pagan. It's the Hindu notion of religion; as the cows walk around chewing the cud, while starving human beings lay in the gutter. They call this Karma. The cow is sacred, and so are flies and every minute creature. That is insanity posing as faith. And it has been imported here since the heyday of the ''flower children''. Manhood is something to spit on, to these poor lost sheep. Soldiers are now the lowest form of life.

No wonder we're being tested. There is actually Armaggedon somewhere ahead; before Jesus comes again.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 14, 2004.

And this is the guy who calls ME a "fanatic"?? You just like AL Quada you see no difference between killing you enemies and being a "martyr". DYING for Christ and KILLING for Christ are not the same thing! there totally opposite!! surely even you can see this. I despair for you.

-- Gerry (gerryg44@aol.com), May 16, 2004.

C'mon Gerry, be a man. Don't listen to that silly old fool in the Vatican. He's never suffered in his life; he's just watched too much Star Trek. Don't come here with your "What would Jesus do?" and "Love your enemies" crap. That's for LOSERS. Jesus and those bishops, they all wear dresses instead of pants, what would they know about being a Real Man?

This is what REAL Catholic Men do, Gerry: LOVE ONLY THOSE WHO LOVE YOU. And HATE your enemies. Got it? Now get out there and kill one of those towel-heads who follow the Anti-Christ! Before he gets your sister! And while you're doing it don't forget to shout "God is great!"

-- Joker (joker@cybernet.com), May 16, 2004.

Oh my;
Gerry was doing so well. Only got dunked, not drowned.

Yes; it's not the same to lay down your life for Christ, Gerry, as fighting for justice; another way of laying down your life.

Christ isn't interested in justice, you presume. Jesus just likes to see Christian slaughter. And, you would allow your mother's eyes to be poked out, your sister's heart and soul to be broken on the rapist's bed. Because you figure men have to remain supine or else the Catholic faith is betrayed?

Is it worth that base cowardice, to protect Saddam Hussein and his regime? Do you crawl because you're a Catholic? Would you look the other way and disregard the Twin towers in New York City, the Pentagon; more than 3,000 victims; because you have a fetish? A masochistic ivory tower?

And in union with Joke Boy, you compare yourself to Jesus and the Pope. --A little presumptuous.

Sure. Why not? It's just typing on your keyboard. Takes no talent or desire for martyrdom. Just words. Anyway; Mother isn't really threatened. Sis isn't in danger.

You won't have to prove your manhood. Hallelujah! I meant what I said earlier. You convict yourself of being anti-American. You support global terrorism. The Pope doesn't, but YOU DO. You can't deny it anymore.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 17, 2004.

If only George had listened to his daddy:

“To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter- day hero… assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability.” George Bush Senior, in "A World Transformed", 1998.

-- Joker (joker@cybernet.com), May 17, 2004.

If only George had listened to his daddy:

“To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter- day hero...assigning young soldiers to hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability.” George Bush Senior, in "A World Transformed", 1998.

-- Joker (joker@cybernet.com), May 17, 2004.

Gee you have now lost you grip on reality. you say if you dont kill evil men, you must do nothing and encorage them. I assume you either dont red anything people say to you or you just delibertely saying stupid things to bait me. You been told plenty of ways to stop evil more efectively without war, but you think killing is the manly way. You think this prove your manhood. I meant what I said earlier. You think youre promoting america but you convict yourself of being anti- American. You make evry moslim hate america and support global terrorism. The Pope doesn't, but YOU DO. You can't deny it anymore.

-- Gerry (gerryg44@aol.com), May 17, 2004.

Explain, Gerry-- what: ''You been told plenty of ways to stop evil more efectively without war, but you think killing is the manly way.'' I never said KILLING is the only way. It's one way. PLENTY OF WAYS?

Show me, please all the ways. If you mean negotiation, show what good it did with Saddam Hussein. If you mean the UN, show what the UN has helped us do? If you mean leaflets, bribes, the Pope, diplomacy-- what was the result with Iraq?

Iraq was never interested in giving up any arms. Iraq was a killer-state. Saddam Hussein and his sons and regime were sadistic murderers. You have PLENTY of WAYS to do something about it? What a joke!

While terrorists are crashing airliners on New York City, the Pentagon, trying to hit the White House? And harboring & financing terrorists to destroy us?

WHAT PLENTY OF WAYS? You haven't even named ONE SINGLE WAY.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 17, 2004.

What plenty of ways? You woulnt seriously ask that if you red whats written in this previously from people who try to tell you but you dont read them, just look through them for what you can use for bait.

Well you wont red this either because you dont want to know but heres some more for other people who want to think of things other than killing.

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/article_2003_03_radio_scotland.shtml http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/111502/111502g.htm http://www.commondreams.org/views/032800-105.htm http://www.indcatholicnews.com/thinktank.html

-- Gerry (gerryg44@aol.com), May 17, 2004.

Keep your links and your sentiments. I asked you for ONE example, & not from anybody but you. And I'l tell you why you haven't given ONE way. It's because we have been doing it the way it had to be done.

There was no other way. And this way, a vile murderer has been captured and imprisoned. He would never have been defeated by ANY other way. That is certain, and God knows it. God defeated him by our arms.

YOU failed to answer, and again: You favor terrorism and dictatorship over victory. You favor Saddam Hussein over America.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 17, 2004.

"He would never have been defeated by ANY other way. That is certain, and God knows it."

Hey Bozo, seeing you're the expert on what God knows, tell Him to let the Pope and the bishops in on His thinking. It's not fair that God reveals to you alone what He REALLY thinks and lets them get it totally wrong. Or maybe you should just give them up as useless and start your own "Church of the Holy War".

-- Joker (joker@cybernet.com), May 17, 2004.

Since You aren't on any papal wave-length that we can see, you can't tell us just what the Pope is really thinking. Or God? I make the educated guess. You have none; you're uneducated.

But even you realise Saddam would still be there, plotting, murdering, supplying terrorists; had it not been for Bush and our coalition. You know this because it's plain as the warts on your mug.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 17, 2004.

I'm afraid I don't have sufficient "education" to see that when the Pope says one thing, he REALLY thinks exactly the opposite. And so does God. Perhaps God and the Pope REALLY think that abortion is OK too, despite what they APPEAR to SAY.

Just like even though the war APPEARS to have unleashed a massive new wave of terrorism, it REALLY has eliminated terrorism, murder and plotting. I'm glad you cleared that up Your Holiness, Pope of the Church of the Holy War. Or is that Big Brother of Orwell's 1984, where "war is peace, love is hate"?

-- Joker (joker@cybernet.com), May 17, 2004.

Please quote for me and the general public where the Pope has specifically condemned the US involvement in Iraq as categorically immoral. You won't find it. So why do you keep claiming that he has?

He's made only general comments on the issue - and in his letters, like a good philosopher he made "if X then Y" arguments which logically mean: "If not X then NOT Y".

Where does he say "Love for enemies means we ought to let them do whatever they want...while funding them and refusing to pass moral judgment on their actions even while they attempt to kill us"?

Where does "love for enemies" mean criminals ought not be caught by police, and men who form ad hoc armies and declare war on us, by stating that they consider themselves authorized to kill civilians as well as military people on sight, should not be resisted?

Even the Vatican has 100 Swiss Guards armed with swords, spears, 9mm Barretta pistols and FN automatic rifles. It's also guarded by several hundred Vatican Police (uniformed and plainclothes) packing 9mm pistols AND the Italian government guards all entrances with at least 1 squad car with 2 federal police armed with submachine guns.

Now tell me, doesn't this mean that the Vatican itself understands that armed force is sometimes needed to repel unjust attack? If a city-state of 106 acres and 2000 inhabitants needs this kind of fire- power...and that's all OK, then what about a country with 300 million people, 3600 of whom have been killed in the last decade by Muslim extremists who have declared war on us unilaterally, always claiming as part of their justification "the embargo of Iraq"?

The Pope's letter and discourses have always been general points which I agree with: war is a tragedy (well, duh). War is a defeat for humanity (well, duh). It would be better to negotiate (like what we just did in Fallujah, rather than level the city with our superior firepower). He also made the case that terrorism - the direct, intentional and INDISCRIMINATE use of violence against civilians is categorically immoral...and that my friend, Gerry, is what the US does NOT DO.

If the US employed indiscriminate use of force, then the invasion and occupation would have been immoral - but the US did NOT use indiscriminate force.

If the US had not been attacked by Iraq at all - directly and via proxy, then a unilateral attack would be immoral...but the US was attacked directly and via proxy.

If there were OBVIOUS alternatives to war - which you all supposedly believe there were, though no one, including all the cardinals have said anything specific which would have worked... then the war would be immoral.

But if we govern our moral calculus with facts, with historical truth, then the US invasion and occupation is moral and justified.

But I suspect that this is a political thing for Gerry and Joker. If Al Gore were President, If the UN said "Go for it" suddenly a US occupation and war would be super-OK and the terrorists wouldn't be called "resistence fighters".

After all, was the NATO intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo "a just invasion"? Neither NATO nor the US was attacked or even threatened by Serbia! And the US STILL HAS TROOPS IN THE BALKANS! We still occupy that region of the world...and no one seems to care. Of course...because that was done under Clinton.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004.

All correct, Joe.
We realise it won't change the Joker and Gerry's holier-than-thou judgments. Let them rant. I welcome their sarcasm and exaggerations. Even the outright lies they've said about me and my country's government.

I welcome that because it helps others see the extremes usual for fanatics. Truth isn't their aim. Only suffocating truth. They truly ARE, as Lenin stated, ''Useful Idiots,'' to a terrorist.

Our Holy Father, with all his apprehensions, never came close to accusing Bush, Blair or the coalition of any sin. He was NOT useful to terrorists. God would not allow it. Our Pope is a just man, and loves peace. He should; since from childhood he was forced into fear and hysteria with millions of other European innocents. He saw many killed mercilessly by tyrannical demons. That had to leave John Paul II very traumatized.

Another tyrant & demon, Saddam Hussein, is out of commission forever. Our brave men & women have de-fanged and de-clawed him. Iraq comes down from her horrible cross. Our holy Father starts to see this. In his heart John Paul II is giving endless thanks to God. His fears weren't realised. He didn't understand; so God showed him. God brought us victory over demons.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 18, 2004.

Just run that by me again buddy: "In his heart John Paul II is giving endless thanks to God. His fears weren't realised. He didn't understand; so God showed him. God brought us victory over demons."

Yeah, that's what I thought you said, Your Holy-War-ness. We can always rely on you to tell us what the Pope REALLY thinks, even though he says the opposite. No doubt The Pope will use his meeting with Bush to humbly apologize. His shame at his shocking error will cause him to abdicate and urge the Cardinals to elect as the next Pope someone who can see God's will much more clearly. Like Bush. Or you.

-- Joker (joker@cybernet.com), May 18, 2004.

Another tyrant & demon, Saddam Hussein, is out of commission forever. Our brave men & women have de-fanged and de-clawed him.

It was widely reported that he was working on his latest romance novel (his hobby) as the troops began invading Iraq. Saddam and Eugene seem to have that hobby in common.

-- Sheldon Schwartz (ss77970@imation.net), May 18, 2004.

You guys either need to stop making personal attacks, or drop the discussion.

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 18, 2004.

I really don''t object to the needling, Bill. It's the price one must pay for telling the truth. Only in my later years did I face one fact. Not all folks like us. --We once thought they had to. I am disabused; and now George W. Bush is; finally. You can be everybody's champion and darling. But there just have to be malcontents who would like you dead.

Joker thinks everybody likes him and wants him for their leader. Now we get another kibbitzer, adding his two cents; Schelley Schwartz. They dislike me. They feel so positive everybody has to like them. Don't ask me why; it's just a condition greenhorns have, before their fifties. They're sure of themselves and their opinion is the only one that matters. How could THEY possibly be unpopular? It's Eugene who deserves hatred. Maybe they're right. I leave that to God. So anyway, let them swing at me. They can't win.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 19, 2004.

What alternative to US foreign policy do you espouse? Joker, if you were made US President, all other things being equal ( divided country, divided Europe, divided Middle East, etc), what would you do to make the world a safer, nicer place?

Cardinals who call for "respect for the international community" have rarely if ever specified what exactly they mean! The Pope at least has specified what he means by "solidarity" as well as "modern weaponry" - but no where do we get something solid from these arm- chair pundits who think everything the US did since 2000 was stupid and everything Bush does in particular is evil.

You can't just whisk away Osama Bid Laden with magic or nice-talk. His letter to the US from 2002 is adamant: he will not cease his war on the USA until we: a) convert to Islam, b) pull out of the Middle East entirely, c) pay more for oil (he thinks we're stealing it even though it's our economy and inventions that makes the stuff valuable in the first place), d)and suffer payback for supporting the existence of Israel.

In other words, JOKER, he won't be satisfied until the US suffers thousands of more casualties, and converts to Islam.

So that's the side we're fighting with! The "other side" of Islam consists of largely dicatorships which are only lesser evils...what would YOU do? Bush is promoting democracy. The Pope has been preaching this for 25 years...

Obviously sending INTERPOL out to arrest terrorists isn't going to do anything...and catching them AFTER they blow people up is stupid, and irresponsible.

So what are you proposing we do? Hand all power to the UN - composed of mostly 3rd world countries whose governments are themselves dictatorships and whose bureaucrats are corrupt as seen in the oil- for-food debacle? The UN couldn't even stop genocide in Rwanda or Kosovo and you want THEM given more power?

It's sheer maddness. Every time someone solemnly invokes "the international community" I think of CNN showing hapless civilians getting gunned down in Croatia and Bosnia in 1992 and 1993 while the UN did nothing and the feckless Europeans did nothing...all while begging the US to stay put and not get involved in their back yard.

"The international community" is code for France, Germany and Russia. Neither of whom have much more in the way of military projection than the UK or Italy - which we already have on the ground in Afganistan and Iraq...

So invoking the UN to come save the day in Iraq or elsewhere is also stupidity. Face it: we are the world's only super-power. That's a fact. You might not like it, you might want to change it, but that's the fact. If we are attacked, then only we can come to our rescue - we can't expect 2nd and 3rd rate powers to spend their blood and treasure defending US! Or is it that you don't think we SHOULD defend ourselves? Just sit here taking our lumps I suppose?

It would be wonderful if some diplomat ever tried living with consequences of his or her "utopian" ideas of how to settle disputes: the UN pulls out the moment they're shot at! How can they enforce peace or punish evil regimes? In 50 years UN actions have only worked when the USA provided the lion's share of the firepower.

So what good is "the international community"? What point is there in claiming that all peace and brotherhood would suddenly break out should the US leave Iraq or "turn it over to the UN"?

We turned Somalia over to the UN and look where it is today: a 4th world country. We STAYED in occupied Japan, under martial law for 10 years and today it's a 1st world country.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), May 19, 2004.

Iraq is bad, but not as bad as some people think. See this column in today's USA Today written by someone on the ground in Iraq.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 19, 2004.

Before someone says we bombed a wedding today, read this:

May 19, 2004
Release Number: 04-05-46
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

COALITION FORCES RAID SUSPECTED FOREIGN FIGHTER SAFE HOUSE NEAR SYRIAN BORDER

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- At 3 a.m. May 18, Coalition forces conducted a military operation against a suspected foreign fighter safe house in the open desert, 85 km SW of Husaybah, and 25 km from the Syrian border.

During the operation, Coalition forces came under hostile fire and close air support was provided. Coalition forces on the ground recovered numerous weapons, 2 million Iraqi and Syrian dinar, foreign passports, and a SATCOM radio.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 19, 2004.

Cut the paranoia Mr Chavez. Nobody’s swinging at you or hating you. We’re just pointing out that you’re NOT “telling the truth”. You react with abuse. That’s only to be expected from someone who sees violence as the answer to all the world’s problems. I’m glad you’re growing in wisdom as you age. Maybe when you get to 84 you’ll be as wise as the Pope and won’t be so obsessed with what you assume is the inferior age and necessarily inferior arguments of your interlocutors. Not that it matters but seeing it’s so important to you, I am not a “teenager” nor will I ever see 50 again.

“The international community” is not a “code”, Joe. It means what it says, all countries and their inhabitants. “Action” is not synonymous with “firepower”. And I don’t recall seeing any US troops in the UN’s successful (if delayed) action in East Timor, nor in various other countries.

We are NOW “living with consequences of” Bush’s (and apparently your) "utopian ideas of how to settle disputes”. Until Bush adopted those ideas, the democratic countries were doing quite well in acting together to help promote democracy in former dictatorships. Now we’re going backwards on that front, the alliance between the democracies has been destroyed and terrorist organizations are flooded with new recruits. Thanks a lot, pal.

-- Joker (joker@cybernet.com), May 19, 2004.

Joe tells us that the Vatican's "2000 inhabitants" (actually about 800) include "100 Swiss Guards armed with swords, spears, 9mm Barretta pistols and FN automatic rifles", plus "several hundred Vatican Police (uniformed and plainclothes) packing 9mm pistols AND the Italian government guards all entrances with at least 1 squad car with 2 federal police armed with submachine guns."

Wow! That's a police state by any standards. When JP2 talks about disarmament he should put his own house in order.

In fact Joe, there are a total of about 140 guards in the Vatican (including those in funny uniforms, plus those in plain clothes). Only about 30-40 of them are normally on duty at any one time.

"Repel an unjust attack" is one thing. It's quite another to send 130,000 troops to the opposite end of the earth invade and occupy a country that had nothing to do with the attack, and in fact WAS the enemy of the attackers. Thanks to the invasion though, the attackers now have a lot of eager supporters there. Again, thanks a lot pal.

-- Joker (joker@cybernet.com), May 19, 2004.

I've told you the truth, Joker. You mean well, but you can't show any words of our Pope to condemn a just war. He spoke from sincere apprehension. He turned out to have clearly overestimated the danger of invading Iraq. Nonetheless, we love and respect John Paul II.

In retrospect he has little choice but to admit the U. S. & coalition have accomplished much, and in a short time.

Leaving out the prison scandal, which is an aberration, all our conduct of the war has turned out prudent and well-calculated to protect the civilian population of Iraq's cities. We never even planted a foreign flag on their soil. Our attacks took out Saddam and his hated regime. They should be grateful. We have lost men, regretably. But not on any scale to be ashamed of. The quagmire doesn't exist; either in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The government has apprehended or killed more than 60% of the terrorists originally hunted for; and since the 9-11 tragedy we haven't seen any other successful terrorist coup on our soil.

Not a bad report card to present John Paul II; although our aim isn't to satisfy him. It's to protect our national security and help the people of the middle east. More he could not ask.

And it doesn't matter what you think. Think what you please; don't badger me anymore. I'm very thankful to God for vindicating this country the way He has.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 20, 2004.

Hi Brian sorry for the long delay in reply ! Thanks for the link although I dont believe this report to be worth the paper (sic) it is written on and I have been unable to find offical reports supporting your link.

AS Im sure you are aware of recent subsequent govt commision reviews on the intelligence agencies role in the build up to war(both in the US and the UK) has vindicated my position re IRaq-OSama links and Iraqs WMD- and made an utter mockery of the position held by the republican clones on this board who have consistently held to such nonsense like blind dogmatic leemings in building their "just cause" for war.

Peace!

Dear Gene-long time between drinks I trust you are well! I wont presume to lecture you on CHristian behaviour but your words to me in reply upthread belie your consistent claims to be a man of goodwill and charity, whose intention is to serve God on this forum etc etc.

Your slanderous remarks to me re "You pledged not to overdo the drinking, didn't ya, Madman?" etc, highlight only your own lack of formal education in the arena of politics and your frustration at being unable to contribute meaningfully to any political discourse- beyond the level of a trailer park brawl.

AS for my poor grammar and spelling for which you delight in finding fault with,I apologise but with respect we are not all retired with nothing better to do. I know you take great care in your posts, you once told me you regarded each of them as "works of art" . "HA!" indeed!... such pride is rare even amongst the most self absorbed of men.

As for a robust argument in reply to my comments ??????????? WIshful thinking on my behalf eh. Yes Mr Chavez-the master of style over substance. Entertaining? I guess.

Cheers Gene.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 11, 2004.

Ciao, Kiwi Man,
Glad to see you have not yet gone totally round the bend. Add to your poor grammar and spelling a loss of syntax giving your writing quaint and surreal qualities. They help offset some of your balderdash; a pleasure to hear from you.

The clones I keep meeting here (U.S. posters) are mostly anti- Republican. Ironic you should think of me as a clone. In fact, I'm a Chavez. That's why I didn't identify myself here as an exotic bird. Chavez is a common enough name; and I choose to stick to it. Clones have nothing individual about them. Do they?

I did retire from the rat-race a few years ago. And, I keep insisting to myself I can write a book or a script. Which is one reason I have the PC. My word processor has some mysteries about it that do not unblock writer's block one bit. If I resort to alcohol maybe I'll become a Dylan Thomas. But no--

I keep on responding to posts like yours, While you take the poet's route, drunk as a lord. You need more than that, though, to be creative, Kiwi. You need a thought process. --Are you ever going to acquire one?

Let's see for instance, THINK over Iraq & the middle east. Work at it. Will Iraq now become stable and self-governing? Has liberty for Iraq any potential leading to change and development; or will those men keep flying around on large carpets, intent on cutting off our heads? That is a thought process.

Another is contemplation on byegone wars and great leaders. Some people in our forum insist on ignoring every one, with the exception of a Pope or two and Jesus. One fellow liked Mahatma Gandhi.

The Pope is a bishop. Every chess game has bishops. They are important. Chess keeps a person aware of certain dangers liable to strike very suddenly, Play the White, let's say. Always protect the White queen; as bishops do, knights do-- all the White knights, naturally.

But in this current conflict, many well- meaning Christians keep attacking White chessmen when they should be defending them; and their White queen and/or white knights, white bishops, rooks and poor white pawns like myself. One can't play the White (or Black) while attacking white pieces and exposing the White queen to danger, on account of not knowing who the enemy is.

I recalled to these people a time when Neville Chamberlain visited with Hitler in Munich. He came back with a paper, and waved it at his people, saying ''We shall have peace in our times.''

Yes; and that ''peace'' came close to destroying all of Europe and Great Britain. If it hadn't been for what's now called World War II. Europe COULD have chosen peace. A peace under the heels of the Nazi invaders. A peace without any Jewish Problem, because they had to be converted into lampshades.

War was inevitable, and we can give God thanks that men were willing to fight the Nazis. We also should give thanks for leaders like Winston Churchill. Not Gandhi, despite what some wise men say. Today we have Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld. Who's their counterpart, Neville Chamberlain? I don't think we can say it's our Holy Father. It wouldn't be fair.

We really have thousands trying now to play the role of appeaser, a Neville Chamberlain part. These are for the most part true clones. Little cookie-cutter cloned images of Mahatma Gandhi. On this world's chessboard they're White pieces determined to make us lose to the Black side. They never learned to play the game. They only obstruct their own side.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 11, 2004.

“Ciao, Kiwi Man, Glad to see you have not yet gone totally round the bend.”

Likewise amigo. “Add to your poor grammar and spelling a loss of syntax giving your writing quaint and surreal qualities.” A loss of syntax eh? Clearly English wasn’t your major either, perhaps your second language? In any event my dear old chap syntax is part of the art and science of grammar.

“They help offset some of your balderdash; a pleasure to hear from you.”

My dear old chap the use of a semicolon is not appropriate in this case - too strong and muscular. At least both of your independent clauses can stand alone however a semi-colon must never be used to connect an afterthought to a sentence (appositive/ subordinate clause).

“The clones I keep meeting here (U.S. posters) are mostly anti- Republican. Ironic you should think of me as a clone. In fact, I'm a Chavez. That's why I didn't identify myself here as an exotic bird. Chavez is a common enough name; and I choose to stick to it. Clones have nothing individual about them. Do they?”

This board is dominated by a constant flow of fundamentalist conservative political “thought”, more often than not of the banal cut and paste variety. You’re a unique character all right Mr Chavez, and one who unintentionally provides me with a constant source of amusement. In the words of actor William Holden from that great old western movie The Wild Bunch,“ I wouldn’t have it any other way” ;).

“I did retire from the rat-race a few years ago. And, I keep insisting to myself I can write a book or a script. Which is one reason I have the PC. My word processor has some mysteries about it that do not unblock writer's block one bit. If I resort to alcohol maybe I'll become a Dylan Thomas. But no—“

Coming to a book store near you,“ Hell is for other people” by Eugene C Chavez . (Note to self: file under comedy) Seriously, good luck on that one.

“I keep on responding to posts like yours, While you take the poet's route, drunk as a lord. You need more than that, though, to be creative, Kiwi. You need a thought process. --Are you ever going to acquire one?”

Touché! Nothing to respond to as usual, but on a related theme the idea that logic should be limited to strictly to propositions is not new, Aristotle also shared your view when he states “let us dismiss all other sorts of sentence but the proposition….the investigation of others belongs rather to rhetoric or poetics”. Central to Aristotelian logic is the principle that “every premise is of the form which says that some predicate either does or must or may apply to some subject”. It is this subject-predicate assumption that I have been recently studying and I would welcome your input and “thoughts”. I wait with interest.

The rest of your long-winded reply is a hilarious expose of a political and historical worldview of the uneducated; my former junior high school 12 year old students have a better grasp of history than this embarrassing diatribe. Riddled with lame clichés and absurd connections it’s a cringe worthy attempt from a warrior who has to win at all costs. Do you really expect me to respect your metaphorical chessboard “analysis”, a world of black and white that reflects your own simple understanding of the world around you? You’ve checkmated yourself old boy. Stick to what you do best, being a footstool for others. I think I hear your wife asking for a nice hot cup of tea, run along now. Hold this thought on your way to the kettle brother Gene, the salvation of YOUR soul is your first responsibilty.

Ciao ;)

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 12, 2004.

ED can you please erase my reply to Eugene he doesnt deserve my self rightous pompous garbage, Im just trying to get one up on him-as ever he manages to bring out the worst in me. Ive just read a humble apology he has made on another thread to others and I feel like a chump . No offence meant Gene, Hypocrisy being the tribute vice pays to virtue etc.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 12, 2004.

But Kiwi,
Let that diatribe remain. We can't deprive our friends of the joy you toiled all day to carve for us out of corks. It's divine, my dwarfish Lad. You hit upon the awful truth for once. i never finished prep school. This drivel you find lacking in the style you're accustomed to is almost all self- acquired. You could easily see it's deficient compared to the work of a New Zealand teenager just at a glance. There you are. I'm exposed.

And even if chessmen could somehow feel pain, and or sail across the sea to attack a sadistic chessman riding his flying oriental carpet; east is east and west is west. Stop with the operatic librettos, Chavez. Kiwi has been up late. You are giving him too much trouble. He can't concentrate with a headache.

Oh, Gosh. So sorry, Do you think another apostrophe would help relieve the pain, Dear?

I haven't much else to offer. You know, writer's block. I need inspiration, I suppose. Tomorrow if you feel fine and are so inclined, you ought to come again and help drag my sunken syntax up a level. I'll put your darling name into my latest opera libretto; how does this sound? Kiwi Te Kanawa in Italy. OK! Ciao, Wordsmith. You old Syntax Bandit.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 12, 2004.

Kiwi, don't be so modest. You said what we all wanted to say, especially your classic last paragraph. Not at all self-righteous or pompous, but the truth. May I only add a few of my own thoughts on a couple of Eugene's latest ejaculations:

"Another is contemplation on byegone wars and great leaders. Some people in our forum insist on ignoring every one, with the exception of a Pope or two and Jesus. One fellow liked Mahatma Gandhi. " Are not Jesus, Gandhi and the Popes mentioned above, great leaders? Is not contemplation of THEIR thoughts and attempting to follow THEM, better than contemplating wars and emulating generals?

"If it hadn't been for what's now called World War II. Europe COULD have chosen peace. A peace under the heels of the Nazi invaders."

Ah yes, WW2. The big one. Let's see. Germany and the USSR both invaded Poland and divided it between them. The Allies demanded that the Germans withdraw or else face war with them, but no such ultimatum was given to the USSR. The Germans stayed so the Allies made war for the supposed purpose of securing the independence of Poland. The result? Poland and most of Europe subjected for half a century to a dictatorship twice as terrible as the Nazis. This is "winning" a war! Shall I mention Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the devastating "conventional" saturation bombing of millions of innocent civilians in Dresden, Tokyo etc. I could go on and on but I feel sick about this "just" war. All the above condemned unreservedly by Pope Pius XII. But then a mere Pope doesn't matter to Eugene. If it's a warmaker's word versus a Pope, he takes the warmaker's side every time.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 13, 2004.

The great mountain labored and labored. Only to bring forth a mouse.

Poor Steve thinks I've settled completely on war as the answer to all things. War with no distress or unhappiness. Yes, he thinks Gene's a throwback to the old Prussian militarists and their brass bands.

But I hate the thought of a gruesome, never-ending conflict over mere inferred insults or slights. Any unjust call to arms.

Such wars are absolutely immoral. I don't think for one minute even JUST wars produce completely harmless and gratifying rewards to the winners. How could I? Just thinking about mother and dad, having their sons killed. It fills me with gloom. Of course the Pope thinks this way too. I have no words to comfort him or anyone who loses a husband or father.

You want it believed these matters are unimportant in my heart? I'm sorry, you're wrong. I only stand by what came before. You must defend your home and your people against an implacable enemy. You have the duty and the right to fight when a menace threatens all western society, your children included. You may try negotiation up to the last minute and make any concessions justice demands. NATURALLY! America must NOT kill innocent civilians or non-combatant bystanders, even when they detest us. But search and destroy enemy installations, opposing troops, bases, or what resistance there is? That is a responsibilty. War brings responsibilities.

Your need of using these demagogic remarks ''--But then a mere Pope doesn't matter to Eugene,'' --in order to quiet another point of view is mere obstinacy. You haven't thought of any sound argument against pursuit, capture, and if necessary destruction of an enemy who wants to kill you and thousands more like you --by force of arms.

You didn't and you can't label that an abuse of power or an unjust war. Abuses can occur; and all Americans must repudiate and punish and CORRECT whoever fails to act uprightly and with justice for all. But that hasn't been the subject of these discussions. We didn't say we approved of atrocities; nor were we condoning Dresden, Hiroshima, or other forms of overkill and/or bestial war. Nor was the political disposition of Eastern Europe in WWII a point of discussion. You bring them in as simple red herrings. And, you shamelessly imply that my whole dispute with you has been to uphold such things when it's not so at all. You have needed very deceitful devices against a simple truth: JUST WAR is not immoral. If you didn't already KNOW you'll fail without those artificial arguments you would stick to the subject.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 13, 2004.

I think Steve is on to something with respect to WW2. It is true that the motives for going to war ("the ends") were not achieved by 1945, but then, only because after finishing off the Nazis, the West wasn't too excited about taking on the Soviets...and thus we saw 10 years of charade about allies and free elections (amazingly all voting 100% for the soviets, go figure) to "settle" the situation.

But on a deeper level we have to face something besides making arm- chair judgements on history. Politics and the waging of war, is the art of what is possible. Had Catholics been calling the shots in the 1930's, there wouldn't have been a world war in the 1940's.

Had Catholics ruled on both sides, we could have settled disputes in a manner befitting our species and status as children of God.

However, the sad truth is...Catholics haven't ruled nations (Poland excepted) for a hundred years.

We can all wish things are different than they are and pine for better scenarios. But what to do with the scenario we've been dealt?

If you were FDR in 1940, faced with a Nazi takeover of Europe and Imperial Japan storming across China.... what would you do? Could peace have been achieved with the Third Reich and Imperial Japan without betraying hundreds of millions of people to their racist and genocidal political and military aims?

See it takes two to tango and two to wage war. It's not like the USA is sole actor on the world stage and everyone else are mute and inert victims! Other peoples have wills and use them, sometimes to our detriment, sometimes to our good. What do you do if someone or a whole lot of someones' declare war on you? How much peace can be expected?

Look at the Gay-rights debate: they want unfettered rights to do whatever they want. And social approval. And Government support, health care, free medicine, etc. AND access to school children. AND preferential treatment. AND fast-track domestic adoption (whereas heterosexuals have to go to Romania or Russia for babies).

Like the Nazis and Communists, their world-view is such that they believe whatever they want is absolutely good. To deny them this is thus automatically evil, and also insane, as they declare themselves to be the party of sincere conviction and sanity.

In the face of such an opposing party...how does one practice Gospel charity and promote "peace"? What does that peace look like? Is it simple surrender?

When are Catholics permitted to resist evil? If WW2 was filled with immoral events (bombing, etc) does this automatically vitiate every veteran? (no). If the outcome was less than satisfactory, given the original goals....does this make those victories defeats?

If Catholics may only fight evil in self defense of their homeland (aka, Poland) and can't invade other countries...what exactly was the moral reasoning of those Poles who died fighting in ITALY around Cassino?

These are questions which need answers. Just claiming that ww2 was a failure because bad things happened... or that it would have been better had war not come "so let's all be nice" won't cut it either because it begs the question of what to do when the other side shoots first!

If all Catholics actually rose up as one and took over the political regimes of the WEST and then obeyed the Pope, we could have avoided the world wars, cold war, and much of the problems facing humanity today...but we'd STILL have to worry about non-Christians hating us and attacking us and what to do about that.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 13, 2004.

Hi!

Totally with Joe on this. Let me add some tidbits.

Steve wrote: The Allies demanded that the Germans withdraw or else face war with them, but no such ultimatum was given to the USSR. The Germans stayed so the Allies made war for the supposed purpose of securing the independence of Poland

Check facts, the WWII timeline

March 15/16 - Nazis take Czechoslovakia.

March 28, 1939 - Spanish Civil war ends.

May 22, 1939 - Nazis sign 'Pact of Steel' with Italy.

Aug 23, 1939 - Nazis and Soviets sign Pact.

Aug 25, 1939 - Britain and Poland sign a Mutual Assistance Treaty.

Aug 31, 1939 - British fleet mobilizes; Civilian evacuations begin from London.

Sept 1, 1939 - Nazis invade Poland.

Sept 3, 1939 - Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declare war on Germany.

Sept 4, 1939 - British Royal Air Force attacks the German Navy.

Sept 5, 1939 - United States proclaims neutrality; German troops cross the Vistula River in Poland.

Sept 10, 1939 - Canada declares war on Germany; Battle of the Atlantic begins.

Sept 17, 1939 - Soviets invade Poland.

Sept 27, 1939 - Warsaw surrenders to Nazis; Reinhard Heydrich becomes the leader of new Reich Main Security Office (RSHA).

The US declared neutrality on Sept 5, 1939. Britain and France were left alone against Germany. After the Soviets invaded poland on Sept 17, the British and French were scared stupid, thus the "phony war".

Sept 29, 1939 - Nazis and Soviets divide up Poland.

In Oct - Nazis begin euthanasia on sick and disabled in Germany.

Nov 8, 1939 - Assassination attempt on Hitler fails.

Nov 30, 1939 - Soviets attack Finland.

Dec 14, 1939 - Soviet Union expelled from the League of Nations.

I have little to say. France and Britain were overmatched by Germany and Russia on Sept 17,1941. They had zero hope of beating those two. WWII & the Cold War organically linked, two evils separated and conquered. Divine providence or dumb luck - but on Sept 3, 1939, no man could have planned it that way.

WWII was no failure.

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 13, 2004.

help me out here?

-- Vincent (someone@helpme.here), July 13, 2004.

Excellent post, Vincent. You also throw light for us all on the great problems and contradictions facing world leaders during past conflicts. Even up to the eve of Pearl Harbor, public views of European disasters was clouded, and it was hard to dispute so many anti-war and isolationist groups in America. As popular an American as Lindbergh campaigned against any U.S. interventions in the ETO, while British defenders were driven into the channel at Dunkirk.

Leadership in difficult times is for strong men. Which is why I question up above the reluctance of many to learn from the great men in history. These were not all faultless or saints. But they fought the good fight. Without their hard decisions, love itself might not have survived into this millenium. Only further extermination of millions more men, women and children; and total slavery. We owe them all so much.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 13, 2004.

I think you’re missing my point guys. I didn’t say WW2 was “a failure” . My points are that there are no real “winners” and that even a “just” war is invariably unjust in its execution. Vincent there is nothing in your “timeline” that suggests my statement re Poland is not “facts”. Yes Britain and France could not fight both Germany and USSR at the same time. But they chose the wrong option. Hitler was a monster, but Stalin was far worse. Catholics in eastern Poland, Lithuania and other places greeted the Germans as liberators from the tyranny of the USSR. Britain and France should have, if anything, allied themselves to Germany against the USSR, something Hitler indicated he was quite willing to do.

Eugene, you continually accuse me of misrepresenting you. How else am I to interpret your statement that it’s wrong to follow “a pope or two” , Jesus and Gandhi, rather than war leaders? What you refer to nicely as “the political disposition of Eastern Europe in WWII” was not a “red herring” to hundreds of millions of Christians who were condemned for a lifetime to the most terrible persecutions you couldn’t even begin to imagine.

Joe, I’d like to agree that if Catholics ruled all countries wars wouldn’t happen, or at least would be less terrible and less frequent. But Catholic countries have fought many terrible wars against each other, both in Europe and in Latin America. One example: after the Chaco war Paraguay was left with so few young men that it was forced to legalize polygamy. I’m sure the Poles who died fighting in Italy in WW2 comforted themselves with the thought that their deaths would help bring freedom to their homeland. They were lucky not to have seen the future!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 13, 2004.

Mister Steve:
''What you refer to nicely as “the political disposition of Eastern Europe in WWII” was not a “red herring"--?

IT IS, applied to the argument at hand. You intentionally digress from the main topic. You digress to distract-- from the meager validity of your logic.

''Your statement that it’s wrong to follow “a pope or two” , Jesus and Gandhi--'' I haven't suggested that. I've stated correctly: You dismiss all except those positive authorities. They are positive for your particular theme; and all others which may not advance your agendas are distorted or ignored. There's much to be learned from past wars; mainly how just causes are served, and what great leaders have accomplished for our civilization. Not THROUGH warlike means exclusively,, By a JUST man's discernment of what God truly wills under special circumstances.

When I posited that God has brought down Saddam Hussein through forces that we brought to bear as servants of His Divine Will, you almost had a cow. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems you don't think God ever works with nations. You think He demands a world of helpless little boys and girls-- and violent means are not in His repertoire. You forgot the Old Testament.

But I haven't. I love the Sermon on the Mount. Peace IS preferrable. But death for the evil-doer hasn't yet disappeared from this world. God still commands. There will be wars and rumors of wars. Down to the Last Day.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 13, 2004.

For someone who accuses others of distortion, you're pretty good at it. Lindbergh actually campaigned for the US to fight WITH Germany AGAINST England. British defenders were NOT “driven into the channel at Dunkirk” . On the contrary. Britain sent virtually all its troops to France and Belgium expecting a WW1 type war. Germany quickly overran the Netherlands, Belgium and France, leaving a million lightly armed British troops surrounded by the whole might of the Wehrmacht. Hitler only had to say the word and virtually the entire British armed forces would be eliminated; he could have then invaded Britain almost unopposed and conquered it. But he did NOT want to impose "extermination and total slavery” on the British; as I said above, he hoped to make peace with the British and form an alliance with them to fight the USSR, and he ordered his troops to halt and allow the British to escape. (N.B. before you accuse me, I am NOT “defending” Hitler. Just pointing out that the world is not divided neatly into all-evil Black and pure, all-good White as you think.)

I agree “There's much to be learned from past wars; mainly” what NOT to do.

“When I posited that God has brought down Saddam Hussein through forces that we brought to bear as servants of His Divine Will, you almost had a cow.” I don’t remember you telling me that exactly, or me having a cow or any other animal. Maybe you are confusing me with Scott again? But you’re certainly wrong. How can you presume to know what is God’s Divine Will? Let alone have the audacity and chauvinism to claim that when your country wages war in its own interest it is an instrument of God’s will? What about when the US brought down democratic governments and installed brutal dictators? Was it carrying out God’s Divine Will then? God is much bigger than your little world of good guys and bad guys.

“You think He demands a world of helpless little boys and girls-- and violent means are not in His repertoire. You forgot the Old Testament.” No, you forgot it – “Vengeance is Mine, says the Lord.” And even more seriously, you forgot that for a Christian, the Old Testament only makes sense viewed in the light and the spirit of the New Testament. The whole New Testament; not your lame distortion of one line, "there will be wars" .

You probably don't even realize that with your "We make war as instruments of God's will" line, you are mindlessly repeating exactly what the mad mullahs of Al-Quaida say.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 14, 2004.

Steve, although I know alot about Mexico, my Paraguan history isn't very good. However...after the liberation of South America from the Spanish Empire, virtually every government wasn't run and controlled by nice, Mass going Catholic lay men, but by men who by and large were MASONS, and NOT good Catholics. Ergo, Paraguay's problems weren't the result of good Catholics fighting each other, but tin- horn dictators launching conquests of convenience and loosing their shirts.

Most of Mexico's problems were similar: non-Catholic or anti-Catholic leaders squandering their nation's wealth on military adventures and socialist/centralized command economic pipe-dreams (basically meaning, they'd command and the people would hand over their possessions).

So my argument stands: no Catholic countries have waged war in centuries. You have to go way back to France and Spain in the early 1700's to find nominally Catholic rulers...but then their wars weren't with each other as much as with German and English Protestants or Turks.

So my point: once all the West re-converts to Catholicism, we'll probably not see internal strife breaking out again. But we'll still have to deal with non-Christian enemies who want to wage war (or simply conquer us politically without war if we refuse to fight).

So what does theology tell us? We may resist unjust aggression...not in any way, but in SOME ways, proportionate, discriminate, with chance of success, sparing the innocent, etc.

But does this mean we can ONLY react to actual invasion of the homeland? The Poles fighting for the Allies in Italy weren't repulsing an invasion...they WERE THE INVADERS! And the Pope has praised them as patriots. So something is going on here.

My long-held and defended point is that Just war theory and Catholic history (praxis) has shown that offensive war has been legitimate and invasions to defeat an unjust aggressor where he's at rather than let him make the first move at a place and time of his choosing can be moral.

The battle of LePanto was a sea-battle waged by the West including the Papal State's flotilla in a gulf off the coast of Greece! We went out looking for the Turkish fleet, found it, and sank it!

The battle at the gates of Vienna saw combined Christian armies fighting the Turks - not all in defense of their homeland but in defense of "Europe" - and that too was approved by Popes and saints.

So obviously SOME wars in times past were morally licit.

What I want to know is why exactly the last one couldn't possibly be so? The US invaded, occupied, and then gave back Iraq in an amazingly bloodless way, very discriminate, very careful, and all the real civilian carnage has been created not by us but by terrorists! Yet we get the moral obrobrium from various voices and are brow beaten into thinking we're awful and illegitimate and immoral...while nothing much is mentioned about the suicide and car bombers targetting civilians and mosques!

I just don't get it sometimes. I'm beginning to think this isn't about theology at all but politics.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 14, 2004.

Steve fancies himself the only authority on world history now. He runs the whole show. I haven't named myself a history professor; and at the time the Allies went after Hitler I was a tot. So, forgive my unauthorized admiration for our country and her leaders in 1941. What do I know?

You assume you know what Hitler's orders and intentions were at the time of the Dunkirk evacuation; but it's not much more than hearsay. Go ahead, believe the so-called true strategy of the Germans. You're never wrong.

I know the New Testament is the Old covenant's fulfillment. But we learn from the prophets as well. (I hope you don't object, Steve.) There is a time for peace and there is a time for war.

No American has, nor should he, --enter another country for revenge. I never tried to say we should. Besides, your glib quote, ''Vengeance is mine, says the Lord,'' is a fitting explanation of what HE has done to Saddam Hussein, You cannot presume His Will was not done. I can surmise what it was; just as you keep on repeatedly doing. Though you palm off your bag of tricks as gospel truth.

God does what He will with whole nations, and he leads whole nations. We must all pray for His divine Will to be done, not independently judge what's against that Will-- taking our scruples for spiritual perfection, Another thing you've repeatedly done here.

Now, you never caught me saying I knew anything to perfection. I'm only human and I can be totally wrong. I need fraternal correction; all of us do, You, however, don't care for it.

The reality of justice in war is not my development. it's historically ascertainable. It's there to be seen. I base my certainty on other things, yet the one which ought to guide you is the fact no doctrine of the Catholic faith has been dead-set against all wars from apostolic times. If you were correct today, it would have been taught from the start by the Church. Actually, you're telling me there's a radical change in Catholic doctrine. I think therefore, you are only SOMEWHAT safe in your belief; you're for peace.

Not absolutely correct about all war. / / /

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 14, 2004.

Well, I don't know Steve, so I'm not going to slam him. He has an opinion which has some good points which we should all bear in mind.

I also think debate is healthy...and realize that on-line banter such as ours isn't going to be as well thought out as an editorial or essay so we all make asides and comments in our posts which perhaps go off topic, off on tangents, etc. and can be picked apart.

But in general, I think I know where he's coming from and don't entirely disagree. Perhaps what I'm looking for is to bring the discussion to a higher level...to go from the facts of history to criteria of judgment, some universally applicaple principle.

Maybe that's impossible given the very nature of prudence and prudential decisions as opposed to prinicipled ones.

For example: abortion is always, categorically, evil. It doesn't matter what the intent or circumstances are, the act is evil. But violence (as in self-defense or war) isn't always evil. Intent and circumstance does make a difference in the moral quality of the act.

Thus self-defense and war enters into the realm of prudence.

A civilian (lay Catholic) when confronted with an unjust deadly aggressor can choose various responses: die a martyrs' death by non- violent submission, flee, or fight back in a proportionate manner - disarming or disabling the aggressor.

Yet this same civilian's moral freedom is diminished when he is in charge of someone else, like a child or spouse who is threatened by the unjust deadly aggressor. In that circumstance, the civilian DOESN'T have the liberty to let them die martyrs' deaths (essentially standing by to let them die). He may still die in their place (if reasonably sure his death would spare their lives), but his primary duty is to their safty, thus his real choice is to either help them flee, or fight to defend them...again with proportion and discrimination.

AND of course in the realm of prudence, walls and warnings should take precedence over weapons. Prudent people don't go looking for trouble and avoid it when it comes their way!

But when we're dealing with civilians who are in charge not just of their immediate family's good, but of the "common good" and thus are "authorities" not just private persons, then the question of police or armed might comes into play when dealing with unjust, deadly aggressors who may be either criminals or invaders.

I think the Church has made it pretty clear that public authorities DON'T have the right to allow the common weal to be plundered as though the state was a person allowing violence on itself out of martyrdom ("witness" in greek).

They of course must pursue peace as much as possible - but not when attacked. Again, proportion and discrimination have to be part of their response. Passive defenses like walls and fences are obviously preferable as is diplomacy and negotiation...but when push comes to shove, and martyrdom and national "flight" aren't options... the public authority has to defend its common good with violent force.

In my reading of Cardinal Stafford and others, I don't think the sophistication of the above review is ever dealt with! It's almost as if their a priori is that war wouldn't happen if only the big bad West would behave itself! 9/11 - and all the other attacks before it as written off as anamolies, almost chemical reactions to some action the West provoked in the world.... and thus, violent responses are counterproductive.

Yet if other human beings for whatever reason are eagerly trying to be deadly aggressors against the USA and its allies (and they ARE), and have told us in no uncertain terms that THEY consider themselves to be in a state of war and consider civilians open game and also consider us corporately guilty not only of actions committed by people who happen to share our hemisphere but also committed 700 years ago by remote ancestors of ours... what are we to do in response? Call for "strong language" from feckless UN diplomats whose home countries are actively involved in commerce with these people?

Am I making sense to anyone?

The call was made for "peace" as though it could be had if only the USA didn't fight. If only the IDF didn't fight. But all throughout the 1990's the muslim extremists were fighting and killing people...and we hadn't declared war on them! Africa is full of mass graves of people killed by unjust, deadly aggressors even though the victims posed no threat to the aggressors! So what is the Cardinals claiming as their principle or criteria of judgment? No outside force (including the UN?) could MORALLY interviene militarily to stop the bloodshed of innocents by militarily taking down the oppressive regime?

See, the point of war isn't to kill the opposing army but to change the political machine which controls it! (cf. Sun Tzu and Clauswitz) In the Iraq war, the US didn't want to annihilate all 1 million Iraqi soldiers! It wanted them to surrender and not fight at all (and most didn't). It sought to change the regime, thus take away the political madmen who drove the whole nation to commit atrocities and mischief.

Merely disarming them (ala UN embargos) wouldn't solve the fundamental problem anymore than merely disarming a burglar or rapist would solve the problem. Disabling or arresting them is the only solution - short of Pauline conversion.

And the USA knows this. We teach this and have taught this in our military academies for 200 years. But it doesn't seem as though many of the current crop of ecclesiastics and theologians have paid much attention to these issues and instead presume that any use of military force is ipso facto immoral and thus any form of invasion is wrong.

That's what I can't understand. The UN can't possibly have "moral legitimacy" of its own right - even if the Vatican wishes that it was a moral force. Wishing something was better than it is doesn't make it so! In 1994 the UN didn't send troops to stop the genocide in Rwuanda... but does this mean then that intervention would have been illegal and hence, immoral? Or does it mean that the UN isn't the world's sole public authority vested with the public good but that any nation that had the resources (i.e. France, NATO, USA) to interviene but didn't is morally guilty of ommission?

To my knowledge none of these fundamental issues have been discussed by our leaders...and they are essential.

Let me conclude with this: I studied in Rome for 4 years - and was a seminarian for 11. I am a faithful Catholic layman and willingly would lay down my life for the faith - and to protect the life of any Cardinal and the Pope. So this discussion isn't about de fide. It's about the application of Catholic doctrine in prudential matters - and how it can best be articulated and best be applied.

Peace to all.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 14, 2004.

I like your reasoning, Joe. It's well-considered and never forced.

You speak from some authority: '' I studied in Rome for 4 years - and was a seminarian for 11 . . . a faithful Catholic layman willingly would lay down life for the faith . . . this discussion isn't about de fide. It's about the application of Catholic doctrine in prudential matters.''

Strangely, I have to think following 9-11, Bush upholds much the same belief. A protestant with discernment concurrent to our Catholic faith? What could be more amazing?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 14, 2004.

Hi Steve thank you for the compliment, Id like to think I speak the “truth” but the sad reality is I’m just as prejudiced as the next bloke.

Hi Gene, the “mad drunken dwarf poet” is at your service.

Strangely, I have to think following 9-11, Bush upholds much the same belief. A protestant with discernment concurrent to our Catholic faith? What could be more amazing?

Contracting a severe bout of dysentery?

Collecting weekly supermarket coupons?

Painting matchbox model cars?

Trying to bite my toenails?

Enough silliness,the list is infinite. Given the context of this discussion being the morality of the war in Iraq, the claim that “Bush holds much the same belief (as the Catholic Church)” is patently false. On June 18, 2004 The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops very wisely warned against such bunkum stating “The polarizing tendencies of election-year politics can lead to circumstances in which Catholic teaching and sacramental practice can be misused for political ends”

Hi Joe one can sympathise with your view of the United Nations but as you realise the Church differs very strongly with you in regard to this institution. I would however like to focus on the more specific matter at hand that you have devoted most of your post to being the “very nature of prudence and prudential decisions”.

As you are well aware I am a layman who has never been a seminarian nor undertaken any formal study of theology at any level and I would like to make this disclaimer in case I have misrepresented Catholic doctrine. I do however have real concerns with what I perceive to be a flawed understanding of prudential judgements.

Heres how I see it. The bishop, as a successor to the apostles, is our teacher, shepherd, and pastor. Deference in all but the most exceptional circumstances to the bishop’s view would seem proper for any Catholic. I believe that given the universal nature of the Churches opposition to this war then ecclesiastical faith (or pious assent) is necessary. Such judgements, as far as we understand them, have been given a supernatural moral virtue, requiring a supernatural obedience.

Prudence is a virtue that directs our action to what is right. The Catechism states that a person is prudent when he or she acts in conformity with an informed conscience. We must respect the experience of the Church in understanding such moral questions and appreciate that nations are not moral agents. I don’t know how many times I must repeat that simple truth. They are not governed by Catholic morality and have other interests, economic, strategic and geopolitical to consider.

The mere fact that the best approach to an issue may be a matter of prudential judgement does not mean that it is merely a matter of opinion. Not all opinions are equal and not all opinions are ethically or morally sound. The American government has made and continues to make immoral decisions. True and solid moral and ethical principles exist and we can not stray from these principles in the name of patriotism or nationalism. Casually disregarding the Church’s view as just another opinion as so many American Catholics do in regard to Iraq perpetuates the notion that morality is relative. Lets inform our selves then.

What have your Bishops said then?

Their statements are highly critical of "preemptive, unilateral use of military force...[because this] would create deeply troubling moral and legal precedents." Then this remarkable statement

"Based on the facts that are known, it is difficult to justify resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature or Iraq's involvement in the terrorist attacks of September 11. With the Holy See and many religious leaders throughout the world, we believe that resort to war would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for the use of military force.” Church leaders have not changed their position during the course of the war nor have the unfolding events of the invasion invalidated their position.

What has the Vatican Curia said?

Archbishop Renato Martino president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. contended that, contrary to what happened in 1991 with the invasion of Kuwait, on this occasion "there is no aggression and so this “preventive war” is, in itself, a war of aggression."

A unilateral war against Iraq, without the approval of the U.N. Security Council, would be a "crime against peace," says, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, Vatican secretary for relations with states.

What has the Pope said on war?

John Paul II's negative judgement about war as an instrument of policy echoes many earlier statements by twentieth century Popes:

“No, never again war, which destroys lives of innocent people, teaches how to kill, throws into upheaval even the lives of those who do the killing and leaves behind a trail of resentment and hatred, thus making it all the more difficult to find a just solution of the very problems which provoked the war.”

What has the Pope said on the war in Iraq? (Please take the time to read!)

"NO TO WAR"! War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity. International law, honest dialogue, solidarity between States, the noble exercise of diplomacy: these are methods worthy of individuals and nations in resolving their differences. I say this as I think of those who still place their trust in nuclear weapons and of the all-too-numerous conflicts which continue to hold hostage our brothers and sisters in humanity. At Christmas, Bethlehem reminded us of the unresolved crisis in the Middle East, where two peoples, Israeli and Palestinian, are called to live side-by-side, equally free and sovereign, in mutual respect. Without needing to repeat what I said to you last year on this occasion, I will simply add today, faced with the constant degeneration of the crisis in the Middle East, that the solution will never be imposed by recourse to terrorism or armed conflict, as if military victories could be the solution. And what are we to say of the threat of a war which could strike the people of Iraq, the land of the Prophets, a people already sorely tried by more than twelve years of embargo? War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations. As the Charter of the United Nations Organization and international law itself remind us, war cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations.”

Finally Joe I believe in your attempt to use examples of past “just wars” you have treated the just war doctrine as some sort of static dogma. The subjective grasp of men has increased my friend through prayerful reflection, theological study and research, practical experience and collective wisdom and your view of the boundaries of what constitutes a “just war” is centuries out of date. There has always been tension between the peaceful non violent teachings of Jesus and practical realities of the weaknesses of men.Nonetheless it is clear that the Church has a far more stringent view of the just war teaching than you realise. For a variety of reasons, which I am happy to discuss, official Church thinking has placed a diminished importance on just war teachings. There is a growing presumption against the use of force and an increased appeal to strategies of non- violence and negotiation. At the same time, the just war has not been abandoned but clealry an informed Catholic who obeys his conscience must come to the conclusion that this war in Iraq is unjust.

Peace!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 14, 2004.

Again Kiwi has said it better than I could. I hope what I have to add augments what he says rather than detracts from it.

Yes Joe you’re right, the recent rulers of many “Catholic” countries have often been non-Catholic or even anti-Catholic. But there are plenty of others which remained officially Catholic into the 20th and even the 21st century, and they fought wars too. But don't try to have your cake and eat it too. You regard rigidly secular rulers like Saddam as “muslim” merely because most of their population is (at least nominally) muslim, and regard them as guilty by association with outrages committed by others purportedly in the name of all muslims.

The Poles fighting for the Allies in Italy WERE repulsing an invasion. Their homeland in the centre of Europe had been occupied as had most of Europe. It would be absurd to say that once Poland was completely conquered they had no right to fight to free it, or that any counter invasion must begin and end in Poland itself.

No Pope of recent centuries, not even the most conservative, would possibly have endorsed a Lepanto type search and destroy mission against foreign ships just because they might one day be used to attack Christians. Pius XII considered the just war theory and reduced the possible legitimate cases for waging war from three (defence, avenging evil, and restoring violated rights) to just one: “defence against an injustice of the utmost gravity and which cannot be coped with by any other means” . Subsequent Popes have endorsed and amplified this. There is no room in modern Catholic teaching for war to be declared moral merely to remove a brutal dictator, or one who (allegedly) associates with and supports others who have attacked us, or because he may (as was supposedly thought) be developing weapons which could be a threat to us and others.

Yes, in one sense the invasion itself was “amazingly bloodless” considering its scale. But it’s not just a matter of comparing the lives lost in the invasion with the lives lost each year under Saddam. Not only have “the suicide and car bombers targetting civilians and mosques” increased enormously as a direct result of the invasion, but Catholics in all Moslem countries report increased persecution in reaction to the war; this is likely to last many years and will certainly not help with Christian missionary work, to say the least.

Eugene, I don’t think I’m an authority on world history. I’m sorry if I sometimes sound like a smart alec. I am interested in history though and especially to see how what “everybody knows” about history (and they use this to justify their actions today) is often not what really happened at all. Also people tend to see a determinism that because things turned out a certain way, there was only one alternative. I am NOT purporting to read Hitler’s mind. What I said about the potential German-British alliance is not disputed by any serious historian of the period. Britain came very close to accepting the German offer. You can read the Cabinet papers which have now been released, where PM Chamberlain in 1940 argued for a ceasefire but was narrowly defeated. He saw correctly that Britain and the Commonwealth, now alone, could not defeat Germany. Even when Germany invaded the USSR in summer 1941, there is evidence they hoped that Britain would at least take up a position of neutrality.

You insist you know the US is carrying out God’s will in Iraq – surely YOU are “independently judging” what is and is not God’s will. I never said categorically that it’s NOT God’s will, just that it’s incredibly arrogant of you to insist that it is.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 15, 2004.

Gentlemen, thanks for your responses.

I have always noted that the difference between the Church's response to Just war questions regarding the US war on Terror (battles in Afganistan and Iraq) and categorical teachings on the immorality of abortion and homosexuality is what makes me conclude that the quotes from cardinals and the holy father aren't Magisterial.

Here's why: arguments from authority or assertions of fact unsupported by reasons or proof are the weakest form of argumentation.

In the sexual morality issues of contraception, abortion, euthanasia, and use of sexuality the Church (cardinals, Pope, etc) roll out extensive arguments, syllogisms, scripture, tradition, councils, etc to show beyond a reasonable doubt that such activities are against the faith and morals of the Christian faith and thus are categorically evil and ought not be done.

But in the case of the US Gulf war 90-91, and the 2nd gulf war 2003- 2004 this has NOT been done. Neither the Bishops nor the Holy See have rolled out the reasoning behind their conclusions. Affirming something is NOT the same thing as proving it! This is a key and fundamental distinction.

Yes, the US government has done bad things. Guess what, so have many Bishops and the Holy See itself has made political moves (with respect to the Papal States) which weren't so smart especially in the 1800's. But none of these mistakes or moral failures robs either authority of the capacity to make true and good decisions.

So we have to look at the facts at hand and not wishful thinking.

The Vatican has high hopes for the UN. But the difference between the ideal and the real in that organization are stark and to deny this is maddness. The UN has NOT STOPPED A SINGLE WAR WITHOUT THE MIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES MILITARY. Whether you like it or not, the UN only works when the USA is providing the muscle. The sad story of Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo as well as Haiti, Rwuanda and Liberia should make this absolutely clear. Only when the US Marines showed up, operating under US command did hostilities cease.

So what does that mean? It means that to claim that the UN alone has some super-national moral status irrespective of facts on the ground is disingenuous. Maybe it would be nice or an ideal if the UN had such power and could effectively solve problems...but it doesn't. Acting as though it did and the US just scorned its help in Iraq is not helpful.

When the Pope speaks about the faith and morals we obedient Catholic must listen to him. Agreed. But when he talks about sports or the weather or political or military solutions...then he's like the rest of us: he can't use authority and assertion. He has to make his case.

The Church didn't just say "contraception is bad because it is!" Or Abortion is wrong because it is always a defeat for humanity" or Homosexual sex is immoral because Christian friendship and love points to horizons of better interpersonal flourishing and achievment".

No. Humanae Vitae, Evangelium Vitae and many recent Vatican essays have spelled out from scripture, tradition, saints, and solid philosophy why such activities are always immoral.

But when it comes to the recent war.... this didn't happen.

"NO TO WAR"! War is not always inevitable." Yes, agreed. But SOMETIMES it is. When the German army invaded Poland...war passed from being possible to being real. When the second plane slammed into the WTC, war was upon us whether we liked it or not.

"It is always a defeat for humanity." Yes. Agreed. But this assertion could be made about every individual sin too. Sin is a defeat. But what is the point? If armed resistence to evil was categorically wrong, then Pius XII's teaching about defensive war would be wrong. But this ISN'T what the Pope is saying is it?

"International law, honest dialogue, solidarity between States, the noble exercise of diplomacy: these are methods worthy of individuals and nations in resolving their differences."

Yes, if all were Catholics with properly formed consciences and acted according to right reason, the above would be perfectly obvious. But take this apart: if half the world doesn't respect "international law" and the UN has no police powers other than those given it by coalitions of nations (almost always including the US military as the backbone of peacekeepers....) then the moral persuasion of law alone is NOT SUFFICIENT. Neither is "honest dialogue" - it won't work with dictators! The Iraq war WAS a case of "solidarity among nations" in that the USA invaded along with 30 some other nations' troops - and after letting the whole world know about our intent a year in advance - as the consequence should diplomacy fail - which it did.

Even the cops try diplomacy first - but if the criminal doesn't cease and desist what happens? Even the Church tries diplomacy first with its own personnel...but even the Church admits that SOMETIMES this fails and ends up de-frocking a priest, excommunicating a bishop, removing people from their posts... in essence, resorting to physical force.

So OBVIOUSLY there is something prudential about when to wage war and when not to. War is not the only solutuon - but it is a solution. It isn't the best solution, but it does solve some problems. To assert the contrary without a shred of proof is to admit that the argument isn't one that admits reason and hence, isn't a magisterial one at all but a statement of opinion.

"I say this as I think of those who still place their trust in nuclear weapons and of the all-too-numerous conflicts which continue to hold hostage our brothers and sisters in humanity."

Let's see how many people place their trust in nuclear weapons: USA & Russia (who have NOT fought each other). UK, France, and China (also haven't fought each other). Israel (who hasn't used them - but whose threat to do so ended the 1973 war.) India and Pakistan have fought several conventional wars - but NONE since both sides acquired the bomb.

Thus, it certainly seems that the history of conflict shows that possession of atomic arms HAS reduced the temptation to resort to war to settle disputes because the assured mutual destruction of both sides was deemed intolerable.

Yes it would be just swell if they didn't exist and if men wheren't burdened with original sin. But they do and we are. So what can we do about this sorry state of affairs which will reduce war and increase the chance of peace? Diplomacy without military might has a pretty sad track record of maintaining or keeping the peace in this sinful world of ours...and I do note that the Vatican itself has high walls, 100 armed Swiss guards and 200 armed Vatican police, as well as heavily armed Italian government troops stationed outside every entrance and extraterritorial possession.

Switzerland has been at peace for 400 years...but just so happens to be the most heavily fortified and armed nation in Europe! So surely their faith in weaponry isn't misplaced. It's just not SOLELY in weapons.

"At Christmas, Bethlehem reminded us of the unresolved crisis in the Middle East, where two peoples, Israeli and Palestinian, are called to live side-by-side, equally free and sovereign, in mutual respect. Without needing to repeat what I said to you last year on this occasion, I will simply add today, faced with the constant degeneration of the crisis in the Middle East, that the solution will never be imposed by recourse to terrorism or armed conflict, as if military victories could be the solution."

Agreed: neither PLO terrorism or IDF military incursions will "solve" the problem. And indeed both political regimes at least keep trying to come to a diplomatic solution. Yet the problem of criminality and terrorism continues - and what can be done with words alone? Israel is building a wall - a non-lethal defensive barrier...and even THAT is claimed to be bad. So what point is our Holy Father making here?

He has stated the obvious: they ought to behave themselves and act like good Christians and shake hands and lay down their weapons. But as long as the absolute minority of PLO terrorists keep trying to kill innocent civilians, war will continue. Short of a massive conversion of hearts...what alternative course of action is available to the IDF? Surrender?

"And what are we to say of the threat of a war which could strike the people of Iraq, the land of the Prophets, a people already sorely tried by more than twelve years of embargo?"

Ahem. Which moral agency slapped the embargo on Iraq in the first place? THE UNITED NATIONS! So if the world's sole supernational moral agency's sole diplomatically imposed sanction to misbehavior is immoral....what ALTERNATIVE means of persuasion was left to move the Iraqi regime away from its genocidal and aggessive status?

Is it just me or hasn't anyone else noticed that Our HOly Father has pieced together a series of either obvious statements or platitudes which sound great but which aren't really do-able in the real world and thus, aren't really prescriptive of moral action? "War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations. As the Charter of the United Nations Organization and international law itself remind us, war cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations.”

Yeah! This is why the United States debated the whole issue for 7 years from 1996 to 2003, why we tried diplomacy, 14 resolutions, embargos, inspections, overflights, and "food for oil" programs, all to no avail.

But note, neither the Pope nor his cardinals have SPELLED OUT EXACTLY WHAT CONSTITUTES THE LAST OPTION AND WHAT CONDITIONS must be met by WHICH AUTHORITIES to decide on war. Vagueness is a tip off that something other than a rolling out of Magisterial teaching is going on here!

He also makes a distinction between the UN and "international law" - without going into detail as to what exactly "international law" is or what teeth it has to enforce itself. It appears that the UN itself has and can break "international law" - with respect to the Sudan and Rwuanda and other situations which it has refused to address....but alas, who judges "international law"?

So to conclude... by looking at the difference of response and particulars of argument I conclude that the Cardinals and Holy Father are giving us their opinion about geopolitics...but not alternative teachings, not "catholic" doctrine, and certainly not moral argumentation.

Affirming that X is bad without stating why exactly it is, is to NOT argue! When commenting on the deliberation of someone else in which a multitude of choices are before them - it is NOT helpful to just opine that B is not good - and then vaguely suggest they look at C or D as "better" - again without spelling out why this is so!

In other posts I mention my surmise about what's going on: theologians and prelates ASSUME that the "war" in question would be a replay of their childhood experiences of World War 2 urban warfare and strategic bombing....which it WASN'T. They assumed that the US Military's talk about "shock and awe" included ABC weapons and massive and indiscriminate use of conventional bombs such as the much balleyhooed "MOAB" which wasn't actually used. They assumed - but nowhere argued why this was so likely that ANY war would inevitably lead to massive civilian deaths, ecological disaster, famine, and a breakout of a "clash of civilizations".... in other words, they based much of their angst on supposedly foreseen and inevitable CONSEQUENCES which didn't actually pan out.

So I look at this and think: hmmmmm. weakest of arguments - or non- arguments, affirmations not supported by any Catholic tradition, scripture or Council. No syllogisms, no attempt to prove their assertions. Fears based on suppositions not fact... all calculated to DISTANCE the Catholic Church from the foreign policy decisions of the USA and think...brilliant! Because the Pope couldn't in conscience come out in support of war as this would indeed lead to the Muslims thinking this was a crusade and drive them into the arms of OBL!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 15, 2004.

Hi Kiwi.

No I am not proposing that Just War is a static doctrine - but that it is in fact, a doctrine! That is, it has a set of criteria and principles which can be used when dealing with historially contingent realities. But the only people actually using it have been lay theologians and military officers, not priests or bishops. The latter reference it, without going into detail. Another tip as to what is happening.

If it was right and true and good for Christians in Europe to defend themselves in the 1500's against the Turkish sea threat - and indeed the Church has a feast day (Sept. 15) dedicated to this MILITARY victory then we have to ask ourselves WHY? It must be for some universally knowable reasons...some application of some principles. If those conditions ever re-appear, then if it was right and good then, it would have to be right and good even now. To think otherwise is to think that morals are relative and can't translate across time.

And not just in the matter of war but in everything. One would have to argue that OK, fine the early Christians were against Contraception ,but we moderns have changed so much and the medicine and specifics have changed so we can do today what was forbidden back then...our doctrine has "evolved"....except that it doesn't!

Steve has walked right into my trap with respect to the Polish soldiers who died fighting the Germans IN ITALY in 1944, after their homeland was conquered in 1939.

"The Poles fighting for the Allies in Italy WERE repulsing an invasion." No, come on...they WERE INVADING ITALY, NOT GERMANY! But you are right in that by fighting far from home their intention was to liberate their homeland by weakening their aggressor...

"Their homeland in the centre of Europe had been occupied as had most of Europe. It would be absurd to say that once Poland was completely conquered they had no right to fight to free it, or that any counter invasion must begin and end in Poland itself."

EXACTLY, STEVE, exactly. They were going on the offensive - just as the USA is going on the offensive today. The Pope has praised their patriotism - dying for their cause and homeland on a battlefield far from their actual homeland! Just as USA soldiers are fighting and dying on battlefields far from home to liberate different countries (in their case, Italy, in our case Afganistan and Iraq) which would lead to the overthrow of the aggressor which was Germany and more precisely the Nazi party.

We are fighting today to liberate nations from a party of Islamofacists, theocrats and thugs. Fighting abroad to make our nation safe from their attacks on innocent civilians. Inasmuch as Iraq is the center of the Middle east, liberating that country from tyranny and fanatics WILL change the whole situation and lead to a draining of "the swamp" which everyone claims is the problem at the root of terrorism: poverty, dispair, tyrannical regimes unresponsive to human rights....a cause just as noble as that the Poles fought and died for.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 15, 2004.

Dear Joe,
As Steve said a while ago, ''Again Kiwi JOE said it better than I could. And I hope what I now have to add augments rather than detracts from it.'' Joe gave it his all, and wins hands down. I'm glad for his help because frankly, Kiwi had me treed. Rallying behind the Pope is is one way to seriously intimidate me. What could I have answered?

For that matter, what am I going to ''augment'' Joe's classic post WITH? Dang, I'm pushing ALL the buttons. Here; instead of a bang. My whimper:

We love and respect the Pope and our bishops. In almost all circumstances I agree God has commanded we rely on Christ's Vicar, and has given the bishop authority over us. That's hard to deny. I'm clarifying my approval because I will not have it said that I disobey these good men without a qualm. I know Joe will not have that supposed about him, either, His conscience is clear, nevertheless. So is mine. Because the war on terror is unique. It isn't the cliche we all knew, nor is it Armageddon around the corner. You & I and the bishops, the Pope-- could not have known what 9-11 revealed.

We are now into a global situation like never before heard of, much less understood. The Pope could not possibly understand, previously, why a strike at the the birthplace of Abraham was NOT aggression, He saw everything in hindsight; planes, bombs, shots fired; just Poland all over again. Instead we are confronted with enemies who gladly give their own lives just for the honor of carrying out nuclear, bio-chemical or bacteriological attacks on their perceived enemy, America.

Iraq was up to now complicit and enthusiastic about empowering such men (and even children) by means of its material wealth and co-operation. Not a few millions but whatever amount necessary to equip an army of stealthy martyrs. The world might question whether or not that would have really come to pass. Or question whether Bush and Cheney had ulterior motives for destroying Saddam. The world can always condemn.

But here in the U.S. we have been given that taste of terror everybody's denying existed. The next attack could have been so devastating we would see the four horsemen face to face next month, and Saddam would have likely been one of them.

That's the risk we cannot afford. We had to anticipate & halt the oil wealth of Iraq being spent researching and producing every sort of ugly weapon. The kinds that will never be arrayed against an army in the field. They'll be smuggled into America. Hauled in, spilled in; to the City, or a metropolitan water supply or our Capitol. If Saddam remained seated in Baghdad, all our cities, and, for that matter the Holy See itself would have had problems soon. Someone had to do something, and we couldn't count on the UN.

Since I'm so paranoid, then it's little wonder I dare question the foresight of our Catholic prelates. For all that I revere them. We just can't risk it, friends. We can't risk it, Steve.

Kiwi, --Some risks you can't accomodate in a dandy little Pandora's Box, Let's not do that.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 15, 2004.

The situation of a "war on terror" MAY be new in that a state (USA) is attacked by paramilitaries sponsored indirectly by other states (axis of evil) but not by these nations directly (called asymetrical warfare). I sure can't think of a similar case in history, perhaps because the very idea of nation, state, and non-governmental organizations (like Al Qaeda) are fairly new phenomena.

But the Catholic Just War theory still works - and has provided the light needed to US military commanders (the only ones in the world who study Catholic Just War theory by the way) to plan their actions in accord with the demands of objective ethics rather than sheer expediency.

The USA has not responded in a disproportionate way (no use of atomic, chemical, biological, or indiscriminate conventional arms).

Even with respect to the Taliban, we gave them ulimatums, fair warnings... we restricted all military operations to military targets - after giving even those the option to surrender.

We have discriminated between combatants and civilians, sparing whole towns and cities from urban warfare when we certainly could have leveled them (Fallujah).

We spared wildlife and infrastructure. Our "footprint" was as small as possible given the task.

We are going to eventually leave Iraq better off than we found it.

In short, we've followed the Catholic Just War theory to a T. The only reason civilians have died in Iraq since May 2003 is because non- Iraqi Arab terrorists and a handful of Baathist thugs have kept fighting...but their crimes aren't OUR FAULT BUT THEIRS! And indeed, according to Catholic Just War criteria, their cause is immoral because their means are disproportionate, indiscriminate, not the last resort, and have small chance of success! (morality works both ways folks...if we have to follow the rules, then so do they!)

When our officers or enlisted commit crimes, we investigate and the prosectute them. The other side gives them medals or honors! When we accidentally kill civilians, we investigate, prosecute and give monetary compensation...unlike ANY other government in history!

We spent $120 billion in Iraq - whereas other nation-states such as European or Eurasian empires in times past really did plunder and steal wealth from conquered states. So again, something new. We're not stealing their oil! We pay for it!

But people say that the Just War theory has evolved or that it is outmoded given new humanitarian advances... really? When and where and what are the arguments? Where are they fleshed out?

This is kind of like the claims that since modern prison systems are so advanced capital punishment is rarely if ever warranted...The obvious qualifying a priori is the existence of a fundamental change in the facts on the ground providing a true alternative to state executions of criminals....ergo, not ALL states have the means and thus, some could still execute criminals legitimately. But those states which are economically and socially advanced have the corresponding responsibilities.... makes sense to me!

If firing a warning shot is enough to stop a burglar then shooting him outright would be categorically immoral. If however you have good reason to suspect that a warning shot would result in him shooting back to kill...you have a prudential decision to make: shoot him first or risk the warning shot. If you can wound him then you should try to wound him only.

The USA has serious disputes with Canada and France...but the situation is so different that war is completely out of the question! Precisely because so many alternatives exist and these countries' regimes are so different, morality demands that international relations be strictly diplomatic.

There is a difference though when civilized nations are confronted by uncivilized ones who sponsor terror organizations (proxies) who carry out their foreign policy indirectly. If French speaking terrorists who all happen to be Parisan started flying planes into buildings in Rome and when caught kept talking about the glory of "Greater France" I don't suppose Italy would balk about making the connection between such people and perhaps well, France! Strangely though the USA isn't supposed to connect any dots in a similar way! We're supposed to keep assuming that since Iraq didn't officially declare war on us, that they couldn't possibly be in league with those terrorists who kept making the connection between their attacks and Iraq!

Given the very real facts on the ground there was only two alternatives: to let Iraq completely off the hook (allowing Saddam to continue his illegal arms build-up and continue aiding and abetting regional and international terrorists) responding only in the event they declare war AND invade the continental US...or invade and overthrown their regime thus forever solving the problem!

Option one would not give the USA any guarantees of peace and safety from terrorism other than Saddam's word for it. Option two DOES guarantee peace, at least with the Iraqi people.

The USA was actually attacked by Muslim terrorists who did have ties with several states in the Middle East. FACT.

Every single attack on the USA from 1993 forward was claimed, by these same terrorists to be motivated in part or in whole by the US embargo and no-fly zones over Iraq (called for by the UN and enforced by the only two countries capable of such policing: USA and UK). FACT.

Iraq did try to assassinate President Bush senior after the armistice ending Gulf War one (technically placing them back in a state of war). They did routinely shoot at our UN mandated flights, again, constituting acts of war.

Iraq did support regional terror groups with money, training, and support. Al Qaeda terrorists were known to have been harbored by the regime after their defeat in Afganistan - and indeed many were actually found on the battlefield fighting alongside the Saddam loyalists. FACTS.

Al Qaeda belongs to the Wahabi sect - theologically akin to the Taliban and Sunni Muslims found in Pakistan and Iraq. After 9/11 Pakistan officially repudiated ties to these groups.... but Iraq did not. Thus because Al Qaeda made it clear that they desired to acquire and use WMDs on the USA, and the only nations who had them in the region were either Pakistan (on our side) or Iran (theological enemies of the Wahabis) or Iraq, Libya, and Syria... guess who the USA would obviously need to point their military machine and diplomacy on?

Libya submitted to diplomatic pressure and gave up all their Chemical, biological, and nuclear materials. Pakistan shut down their nuclear smuggling operation... Iran handed over some Al Qaeda people...so obviously diplomacy worked and the US Marines weren't sent in... but from 2002 onward it increasingly looked like Iraq wasn't budging.

So given this whole chronology of events and facts on the ground...all the dots to be connected and all the resulting alternatives...tried and followed up on... in the specific case of Iraq (but not Libya, Pakistan, Iran, etc) war seemed like the only viable solution.

But here again, the facts of the case make all the difference in the world ...hence the prudential nature of these discussions rather than categorical, principled nature which would make Papal interventions the last word to be said.

If the Pope comes out tomorrow and spells out the Catholic reasoning for why he opines the way he did...then I will submit. (It's not like my opinion matters either way.) But insofar as He hasn't made any case...it's his opinion on contingent, prudential matters and is as good as mine.

I don't think this is a heterodox position. If it is, again, like Kiwi and others I submit to the authority of the Church - if it is actually laid out as "de fide" rather than mere assertions.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 15, 2004.

Hi Gents Ive read your responses, and Joe of course I disagree with you but havent time to reply at the moment. The golf course beckons today-and its a Friday night and Im feeling a little dry. Later then.

Peace!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 15, 2004.

Again you state the case admirably, Joe.
One important aspect not to be ignored or played down is the deaths we have been forced to accept in Iraq as well as other states in the middle east. Life and limb gone forever not just American; but Spanish, Jewish, Australian, British, Polish, Japanese, on and on ad nauseam. All of us know children were injured and killed. Iraqis will not easily forget.

What to tell the wives and kids of our dead soldiers, their parents? We know this is the dread Pope John Paul II enunciated. War leaves men traumatized and feeling guilty no matter who wins.

The world leaves a mark on even a saint. Who doesn't wish he/she could leave the world at the end of this life without regrets? It can't be done. No one comes out blameless or purifiied after a bloody war.

But, Our Lord definitely knew that in the last days we would have wars and rumors of wars. This is that field He saw in the parable; where wheat and tares are all allowed to mature. Tares look exactly like wheat. Only in a final inspection are they whisked out of the harvest and carried off to be burnt.

Our spiritual trial will come when we are judged as either ''wheat'' or ''tare''. Only Jesus Christ can tell. He can't be deceived. This leaves us all liable for the tragedies of the war on terror.

Is it my place to separate the wheat from the tares, the weeds? I try. I honestly try. But only because I trust absolutely in the infinite Justice of Almighty God do I trust in my country today. An imperfect government, to be sure. But up against the powers of Satan at this juncture. We have been the strong fighting for the weak and oppressed against evil men. (No one can say they're not evil men.) Now God will judge what happened. I haven't been very worried to this day, about the words of foolish men. Let it be, I trust in God.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 15, 2004.

The golf course beckons today-and its a Friday night and Im feeling a little dry. Later then.

To debate a beaten to death subject or go play golf and have a few cocktails. Tough choice. I would say that I'm envious, but that would be a sin. :-)

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), July 15, 2004.

You’re right Brian, it’s been beaten to death, (Joe seems to want to smother it to death with his mile-long posts) and obviously none of us is going to convince those of the opposite view that the war was just/unjust. But I will respond merely for the sake of not letting stand some statements which are clearly wrong.

“The UN has NOT STOPPED A SINGLE WAR WITHOUT THE MIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES MILITARY.”

The UN has stopped many wars in many other (and more preferable) ways than by sending in troops. And UN troops sent in to Cyprus, East Timor, Lebanon etc. did not include Americans. Just because it wasn’t on the TV news because no US troops were involved, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

You interpret the Popes’ continual support for the UN as saying that the UN is morally perfect. They’re not saying that; just that it is the most appropriate forum to involve in international disputes. Just as, if there’s a dispute between 2 or more US States the federal govt should step in. But not because it’s morally perfect! :-)

The Pope was talking about the morals of war not “political or military solutions” . He doesn’t claim to be an expert in the latter.

“When the German army invaded Poland...war passed from being possible to being real.” Why? When they invaded Czechoslovakia the year before war did not result.

"honest dialogue" - it won't work with dictators” - it has worked many times in the past. You don't have to be democratic to have a dialogue, or to be persuaded that violence is not in your best interest.

“the USA invaded along with 30 some other nations' troops” sorry Joe that’s a lie. There were 3(three) other nations taking part in the invasion, two of them in very minor roles indeed. Don’t confuse this with the 30 nations helping clean up the resulting mess after the cessation of major hostilities was declared.

“Israel (who hasn't used them [nukes] - but whose threat to do so ended the 1973 war.) “ No. The 1973 war ended because Egypt and Syria called a halt when Israel threatened to capture their major cities. Israel in fact at that time claimed (falsely as we now know) that it was not even trying to develop nuclear weapons.

“it certainly seems that the history of conflict shows that possession of atomic arms HAS reduced the temptation to resort to war to settle disputes because the assured mutual destruction of both sides was deemed intolerable.” Then why all the panic about Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Al-Quaida possibly getting nuclear weapons? According to your logic, when EVERYONE has nukes, there will be NO wars.

“the Cardinals and Holy Father are giving us their opinion about geopolitics” Not at all. They only mention “politics” when they coincide with moral considerations.

“They {Poles in WW2} were going on the offensive - just as the USA is going on the offensive today.”

Yes EXACTLY the same! except for 2 tiny differences: 1. Al-Quaida has not invaded and conquered the entire USA and all countries surrounding it. 2. Iraq is not Al-Quaida. Saddam was a thug, yes, but certainly not an “islamofascist” or a “theocrat”. All the Iraqi islamofascists and theocrats were either killed by Saddam or fled into exile, until saddam was overthrown. Now they’re back.

Eugene, it’s pretty disconcerting the way you swear allegiance to the Pope and the bishops then in the same breath you insist they’re so stupid that they haven’t learnt anything since 1945.

“When we accidentally kill civilians, we investigate, prosecute and give monetary compensation...unlike ANY other government in history!” Come on Joe, your chauvinist rhetoric is overcoming your reason. You seriously can’t think of anyone else who has done this?

"We spent $120 billion in Iraq - whereas other nation-states such as European or Eurasian empires in times past really did plunder and steal wealth from conquered states. So again, something new. We're not stealing their oil! We pay for it!" Same thing, slightly different method. Install a “transitional administration” which “legally” confiscates their national industries and gives them to US companies connected with Bush and Cheney. But technically it’s not actually STEALING them – oh no! When and if Iraq is ever allowed to take back (not “buy”) its formerly Iraqi-owned industries and the profits US corporations made from them, you might be able to argue the US is not plundering.

“The USA was actually attacked by Muslim terrorists who did have ties with several states in the Middle East. FACT. “ These (tenuous) “ties” were far stronger with several other countries than with Iraq. In your zeal to grab every possible half-justification for the war on Iraq, you’ve never stopped to think why Iraq was singled out.

“Al Qaeda terrorists were known to have been harbored by the regime after their defeat in Afganistan - and indeed many were actually found on the battlefield fighting alongside the Saddam loyalists. FACTS.” No, that is quite false, and I think you know it Joe. Come on, you haven’t stooped to this before.

“Al Qaeda belongs to the Wahabi sect - theologically akin to the Taliban and Sunni Muslims found in Pakistan and Iraq.” Now you’re really showing you’re desperate. The Wahhabis are a small splinter group whom most Moslems didn’t even consider to be real Moslems until they gained control of the Moslem holy land of Hejaz in the late 1920s and they had to acknowledge them so they could continue pilgrimages to Mecca. The Sunnis comprise over 90% of all Moslems. Iraq is in fact one of only two countries where the Sunnis are NOT the vast majority of Moslems.

“Life and limb gone forever not just American; but Spanish, Jewish, Australian,” Not to be picky Eugene but the Jews killed were ALSO Americans, and there have been no Australians killed yet. "Is it my place to separate the wheat from the tares, the weeds? I try. I honestly try. But only because I trust absolutely in the infinite Justice of Almighty God do I trust in my country today. An imperfect government, to be sure. But up against the powers of Satan”

You’ve missed the point of the parable. It’s NOT your place to weed out the tares and burn them. God, not you, will judge and take His vengeance on them. God, not you or the US govt, will decide who is in the service of Satan. Again you put into your own mouth the words of the mad mullahs you despise (and who you claim represent all muslims): that in fighting their enemy they are fighting Satan.

Joe, when the Pope and bishops give a lot of arguments, scripture references etc to illustrate the truth of what they are teaching, they do this to help us to understand and give full intellectual assent to the teaching if we have trouble with it. The teaching itself does not DEPEND on these arguments, but on the authority of the teachers. If someone has trouble intellectually understanding and accepting that contraception is wrong, he should read Humanae Vitae and all the supporting documents. But all that a Catholic HAS to know is that the Pope has declared it to be wrong, not any supporting arguments.

You also are reversing the onus of proof. You demand that the Pope and bishops prove to your intellectual satisfaction through logical syllogisms and arguments from scripture, tradition and previous papal and conciliar declarations, that the war was immoral. They don’t need to. The onus is on those who claim a war is moral to prove that it is moral. The just war theory does not start from a position that all wars are moral unless proved otherwise. On the contrary it starts with the axiom that all wars are IMMORAL unless proved to be moral in a particular case.

Morality does not change. But a particular activity can be moral in one time or place and a similar activity can be immoral in another time or place because the circumstances are different. In the economic system existing in the middle ages the Church held that it was immoral to charge interest on a loan. Now this is the whole basis of our economic system and the church does not object. Why? Because circumstances have changed, just as they have in regard to war. This is NOT to say that morality is relative. But applying the same morality to different situations gives different results. Comparing Lepanto to the US-Iraq war is comparing apples to oranges.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 15, 2004.

Steve, I admit that I was wrong on some of my assertions: you are right, the UN has kept some wars from breaking out in Cyprus, etc.

As for the Pope making the case from scripture and other Catholic documents... please forward to my email the ACTUAL texts you know of which he actually quotes or cites in his dozen or so addresses regarding the war. I have searched high and low for them and have (I think) virtually every public document he's written or spoken on the subject in Spanish, Italian, and English.

From this I hear him say war is bad (well, duh). Diplomacy is better (well duh). War should only be the last resort... again, duh. He warned the US about feared consequences and against using indiscriminate force, and the feared harm to "international law". I agree with all these things. But what I don't see him ACTUALLY SAY is that "therefore" the USA's invasion is categorically immoral. Cardinals have inferred this and the Media has put this spin on his few and vague words... but his words alone don't make that case.

Do you think I or Bush think War is great and wonderful? No. And neither is using a shotgun to deter a would-be burglar or rapist. Violence is NOT and should not be anyone's first option! But given fallen humanity, and given the demands of justice and the protection of the innocent, sometimes - in specific circumstances as spelled out by Catholic Just War theory, violence can be morally acceptible.

Otherwise, please explain the whole of the Old Testament - including God's annihilation of the Egyptian army at the Red Sea. That was violent. So was the Flood. People died. Obviously though, there was a difference between people getting killed for their sins and people dying from natural disasters. Our Lord spoke of this with respect to the people killed by the falling tower and the Gallieans whose blood was "mixed with their sacrifices" (i.e. killed by the Romans). And he prophecied that "this will happen to you unless you repent!"

The Pope has denied being a pacificist. He has praised Poles who fought and died in the Warsaw uprising and in Italy fighting the Germans. Obviously then there are circumstances in which it is morally permissable to fight. The proverb says "there is a time for war and a time for peace..."

You conclude that while times and circumstances change, morality does not. Bravo. My point exactly. The principles and criteria for moral judgment are what count - and make prudential decisions possible in new circumstances.

So with respect to LePanto. The particular circumstances are one thing but what essentially happened? Irrespective of time period, technology and tactics, a Combined fleet of Christian ships set out on a seek and destroy mission. They found the combined Turkish fleet at harbor in Lepanto, fought them and liberated some 30,000 Christians who were chained to their oars.

The essentials are this: it was an pre-emptive offensive attack to prevent a Turkish assault on the whole region.

Polish troops in Italy... their homeland already occupied, they were fighting the occupier in a foreign land along with scores of other nations' troops also fighting in a foreign land to right the wrong of Nazi Germany.

Ideally all sides should have declared peace, and behaved like good Christians. Maybe had the Kulterkamf not been as successful as it was in weakening the Church in Germany, the whole mess wouldn't have happened. But it did.

What do you propose the Polish and Allied troops ought to have done in 1943? Surrender? What would the moral thing have been to do? Declare an armistice, cease hostilities with Nazi Germany, and begin negotiations?

War wasn't inevitable in Czech because the Germans negotiated with the world powers to take the border regions - they had a huge local German population to draw on, and they didn't go in shooting. But in Poland they DID start shooting. Once that happened, war became real.

If OBL and Saddam just confined themselves to firery rhetoric (ala North Korea and Iran) that wouldn't be "acts of war". And thus we can all agree that war with Iran and North Korea (and China) is NOT inevitable. Ditto between China and Taiwan. But throughout the 1990's Iraq was taking pot shots at our planes, they did try to kill a former president, they were caught breaking agreements with the UN, etc. and the Kohbar towers, 2 US Embassy bombings, USS Cole...all those attacks on US territory - by professed terrorists who used the US presence in Saudi Arabia (there to enforce the no-fly zones over Iraq mandated by UN diplomatic "pressure) as their excuse.

I'm not being far-fetched to make a link between Iraq and the terrorists if they themselves make the link! OBL's own letter of 1998 mentions Iraq!

You make a good point about nuclear proliferation. In My opinion it would have been better had WWI and WW2 not taken place...if the a- bomb had never been invented. But it all happened so what to do now that the genie is out of the bottle?

The best we can hope for is to restrict the technology and hardware as best as we can - first through the UN of course, and treaties and diplomacy. But should that fail...then we have to work to lessen tensions where possible. Look what the US has done with Iran: we're not rattling sabers with them. Look what we're doing with North Korea: no carrier battle groups off their shores, we're actually pulling out our troops and engaging in stalling tactics through 6 way diplomacy. Geographically this makes sense: Iran and North Korea are boxed in ethnically and ideologically. Different situation, different response. I don't think war is the only option!

I repeat: I DONT THINK WAR IS THE ONLY OPTION OR THE FIRST OR SECOND OPTION.

Steve... Al Qaeda operatives were found in Iraq. Last year I spoke with Marines fresh back from the fight who caught them all over the place. The dead give away was the fact that they aren't ethnically Iraqi, their training was in terror/guerilla tactics and they had the literature of their boss with them. What more proof do you need? Membership cards?

Good things have come of our liberations in Afganistan and Iraq. The unjust aggressors in both places are gone and democratic regimes which respect far more human rights and international law are now in place. The means used in achieving these ends were as close to Catholic Just War criteria as can be - and the only opposition we hear is open ended affirmations about generalities, not specifics.

I think the Pope was thus purposefully vague and general as he could not - and I didn't want him to - come out in favor of war since he is responsible for the lives of 1 billion Catholics, many of whom live in muslim lands. Bush was responsible for the USA. The CCC admits that in the end it is up to those with responsibility for the common good threatened to make the prudential call ad bellum.

The Pope and bishops didn't think diplomacy had been exhausted....but sure didn't offer any specific solutions, and sure didn't show any reasons or arguments to suppose continued dialogue would change anything. So... they were vague. They knew the USA would win and just were taking care to not globalize the war.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 16, 2004.

From OpinionJournal. Just a little something to remind our conspiracy buffs that claim that the whole war was fought just to make evil US companies richer (that's bad enough - who wants to help the US economy to grow or create US jobs???) by stealing Iraqi oil - after spending 120 billion to liberate the whole country. Well...it seems as though the worst company of all - the real evil one that you know, serves our troops and employs hundreds of thousands of Americans (again, the horror!) has actually LOST MONEY.

Of course facts don't matter when it comes to comforting myths designed to undermine morale and remove all legitimacy from a liberation and overthrow of a fascist regime.

"There was this big war in Iraq, and then it turned out there were no weapons of mass destruction, so why exactly did we fight it? Well, cui bono? Halliburton, we keep hearing. But Hallliburton posted net losses in both the fourth quarter of 2003 and the first quarter of 2004. The Financial Times reports, however, that someone is raking in bucks thanks to the war:

Red ink is away [sic] of life at political magazines such as The Nation, the New York-based weekly forum for the American left. But Victor Navasky, its publisher, recently had good news for his loyal investors: The Nation made a profit last year. . . . In recent years, its pages have included some of the harshest criticism of President George W. Bush to appear in the US press.

Not all anti-Bush magazines are doing well, the FT notes. "The New Republic, the left-of-centre weekly, has seen circulation drop nearly 30 per cent in the Bush years--proof, say some critics, that its decision to support the war in Iraq was unpopular with readers."

In January 2002, long before Iraq's liberation, we wondered if The Nation was really what it appeared to be. Noting a series of suspiciously moronic blunders by Nationites, we asked: "Is it possible that The Nation, that venerable left-wing magazine, has been infiltrated by right-wing moles who are acting like idiots in an effort to discredit the left?" The Nation's opposition to Iraq's liberation made us suspicious as well. What self-respecting leftist would side with a fascist dictator like Saddam Hussein?

Now that the magazine has made a tidy profit off the war it "opposed," our little conspiracy theory no longer sounds so nutty, does it?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 16, 2004.

Morality does not change. But a particular activity can be moral in one time or place and a similar activity can be immoral in another time or place because the circumstances are different.Joe:,br>I never find your posts too lengthy to understand, keep them up. Again let me say, you win hands down. Unfortunately some never shut up until they croak.

Notice our critic never returned with a reason why Lepanto was a precedent to our present culture clash with Islam? Too hot to handle. He may return, owing to my cheer, to grab the chestnuts out of the fire like he has with your Polish trops in Italy instance. ''Oh, Iraq didn't invade the U.S. Oh, Lepanto was different.''

Yes; this is so. I recall, correct me otherwise, the Blessed Virgin Mary was invoked for her help in that battle. Not Saint James, necessarily. Steve will want that intercession sent to his blasphemy file.

Right after I said that our war against terror is unique, therefore cannot be judged as severely as past wars, he claims: ''Morality does not change. But a particular activity can be moral in one time or place (emphasis mine) and a similar activity can be immoral in another time or place because the circumstances are different.'' Was he actually cribbing from my notes? Really a blunder. I made that observation to show how our bishops and the Pope might not be aware of the new perspective. At least, not fully informed.

But Steve wants that clause in his own favor. Typically self-absorbed.

Morality hasn't changed. A just war is not unchristian or immoral. Just war has happened in the distant past, the recent past, and today in the war against Islamic extremists.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 16, 2004.

I don't think Steve is 'self-absorbed'. Nor do I think Kiwi is a nutcase or deserves any ad hominems. They have opinions, they've articulated them, have reasons - at least enough to satisfy themselves for believing what they do. AND as far as I know both are good Catholics.

This discussion isn't personal for me. Besides my opinion about this carries no weight at all! If I'm wrong, no harm done. If I'm right, only you guys will know.

If the Pope comes out specifically admitting knowledge of all the details at hand and still condemns the US for it, then I'll obey - if there's anything to be obeyed or done.

But this isn't Humane Vitae II. I've read the encyclicals - well laid out arguments with copious footnotes. That's the standard operating proceedure when dealing with major moral problems. Although many bishops and the Pope issued statements or made brief allusions to the situation, nothing systematic, nothing exhaustive has been done. Maybe I'm just not reading the right sources.

I'm willing to learn and be proven wrong and change my tune and tone.

As a Catholic I want all people to come to know the truth and find salvation in Jesus Christ. So personally I wish no evil or harm to come to anyone.

But as an American I am aware that a sizable number of foreigners have declared war on my nation and have put Americans (not New Zealanders, not Canadians) on notice that we are fair game for deadly attack. They won't be killing me for being a good Catholic (so no chance of being a martyr) they'll be killing me just for being an American.

So what to do? I've never hurt anyone. I see Muslims all the time and wish them well, and treat them fairly. But we "the people" have to take some prudential measures - which may include violence - with respect to the terrorists.

I agree that diplomacy and peaceful negotiation is always preferable to war and violence. I see these being used with respect to Libya, Iran, and North Korea... and I see that warfare is always the anomaly, the exception, and always preceeded by months if not years of warning. To claim that the Bush administration or Americans in general are war-mongers would be erroneous.

Whether we like it or not, we're #1 - and that has responsibilites.

Right now the UN is demanding that the Sudan cease killing hundreds of thousands of its own people - but no nation on earth is capable of sending troops to effectively stop the carnage - except the USA.

We are currently negotiating, sending diplomats, urging respect for human rights, etc. But the innocent civilians keep dying. What's going to happen to when we are judged by God? We COULD stop the persecution...but aren't. Our power comes with responsibility.

So long as other truly viable options are open to the world, those options will be persued. But eventually troops may have to be sent in. Will such invasions be only legitimate if the UN mandates it? How much of a majority of UN nations does it take to make some action "moral" and "legal"? And does this number rise from natural rights thinking or positive (mutual agreements) law?

EU and most other nations DON'T have military power to project, so they aren't morally responsible for NOT sending troops to protect foreigners or cease hostilities. We DO have the capacity - so if we don't send them, we need to argue that there are morally legitimate reasons for not immediately sending troops! Catch-22!

Lots of questions. I don't have all the answers.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 16, 2004.

Dear Joe:
We are both serving the truth, I figure. If Steve & Kiwi want an example of NOT AT ALL self- absorbed, let them read your last post. I find it humbling. Yet, my ad hominems (to Steve and Anti- and Scott) serve as the other half of our pincer, to puncture the supercilious attitudes of 3 undisguised antagonists who DON'T serve the truth, IMO.

I play the dozen with my Pal Kiwi. He knows that. When I zing, he zings again; we're not doing it maliciously. This, notwithstanding the obvious malice in Kiwi's heart against Bush, our armed forces, and anybody who trusts them. I give him a little leeway because 1.) He's not an American, and, 2.) He is the donkey I like to pin the tail on. Kiwi suffers it so cheerfully. It's really a let-up for me to shoot barbs back & forth with somebody less snobbish than the other two bags of hot air. Both of them are totally mirthless, I'm afraid.

(Sorry, I know that rubs you wrong. Pray for me; I'll always be grateful,)

Ciao, God bless you. On with the good work!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 16, 2004.

On top of having a demon, being irrelevant, and being an apologist for Saddam, etc. my latest sin is I’m “Mirthless” ! Gee I haven’t noticed any “mirth” from you Eugene, unless it was a cruel laugh at someone else’s expense. I think I've got as good a sense of humor as much as the next guy, but discussing war and being made the subject of your allegations above doesn’t inspire me to “mirth”. As it is when I made a little joke at my own expense you saw it as just another opportunity to twist the knife. By “seamless garment” I mean what I say on all topics here is the fruit of the same reflections on life and the Church’s teachings. I’m just saying you should give my posts on war the same consideration you do to those on other subjects which don’t conflict with your political opinions. “St James the Moor-killer” is just as offensive in Spanish as in English. Your “pincer” is nowhere near grabbing its target.

Oh and Al-Quaida’s sister organization Jemaa Islamiah killed quite a few New Zealanders in Bali. NZ didn’t make war on a third party though. Interesting that you claim that cut Kiwi some slack because he’s not American. You have told other non-Americans like Ed and Peter K to butt out because it’s none of their business and that they couldn’t possibly understand because they’ve never (you think) suffered anything like the US did on 9/11.

Joe, while I thank you for not descending to the gratuitous and patently unjustified personal attacks which Eugene prefers, you do have the same tendency to argue against what I did NOT say. In particular, realising that your argument for the war on Iraq is on soft ground, you both keep not-so-subtly trying to shift it to an argument about war against Al-Quaida, or war in general, or whether it's right to do ANYTHING about Al-Quaida. Neither I nor Kiwi has ever suggested that war per se, or efforts to stop Al-Quaida by war or other means, are wrong. We are talking about Iraq. And yes I and the rest of the world would like something a little more substantial than just hearsay from your unnamed US marine fiends for your claim that Al-Quaida set up bases in Iraq at Saddam’s invitation and that they co-operated on military operations.

And you seem to have totally missed my point that the Pope does not need to “make the case” against the war by arguments, scriptural footnotes etc. It is up to those claiming the war was moral to “make the case” that it is. The Pope told the US not to go to war. When Bush went to meet him last month he reminded him of this (see transcript of address). That was all he had to do. He wasn’t being “vague” at all. He stated his position and everyone knew it.

It’s hard to believe you have hauled out the argument “But God killed people in the Old Testament, if God did it it’s OK for us to kill”. Analagous to the abortionists’ argument “30% of fetuses die naturally in the womb, so God is the greatest abortionist and we’re just doing what He does!”

One point I didn’t mention about Lepanto is that the Turkish fleet was massed for an imminent attack, so for the Christians it was as much defense as offense.

The Germans had an agreement to occupy the Sudetenland border region. After they did this they then invaded and occupied all of Czechoslovakia, by force, without agreement, but no-one declared war on them.

“the Kohbar towers, 2 US Embassy bombings, USS Cole...all those attacks on US territory” – By Al-Quaida, not by Iraq! I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this.

“professed terrorists who used the US presence in Saudi Arabia (there to enforce the no-fly zones over Iraq mandated by UN diplomatic "pressure) as their excuse.” Terrorists use lots of excuses. We’re not compelled to agree with them. They use Palestine as an excuse even more often. And in case you haven’t noticed, the US troops are gone from Saudi Arabia and Al-Quaida attacks have INCREASED. They also use the excuse that they’re supposedly fighting on behalf of all muslims. But we haven’t declared war on all muslims (I hope). Just because “they themselves make the link” doesn’t mean we have fall for or use the same propaganda!

I’m not a “conspiracy buff” . I was just answering your hyperbolic claim that the US lost millions in Iraq for no profit at all, out of sheer generosity to Iraqis.

Eugene, if it was “defensive” for the Spanish Christians to repel “invaders” who had lived there for 800 years, logically it would also have been “defensive” to kill and expel the muslim “invaders” who had lived in the whole of North Africa and the Middle East for 800 years. Reminds me of Napoleon who in his memoirs solemnly claimed that all the wars he fought were “defensive”!

Now I think I’ll take Brian’s advice.You two are putting up the same tired and threadbare arguments which I and many others have refuted many times in this and other threads. So unless someone comes up with something new, it’s good-bye and God bless.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 16, 2004.

Joe says you aren't self-absorbed, Steve. Yet, all you do is return to your personal claim that war can't be just and it matters not whether Saddam deserved everything he gets. You seem to be an apologist for his declared sovereignty. As long as you brook no dissent against that attitude and concede not one point to any other view, I shall see you for a self-absorbed fanatic. You haven't listened to the truth.

You really wanted to prove me a mere racist, to quiet any dissent against your false scruples. I told you very emphatically that was bearing false witness, Look into your soul, find your justification for that offense. --Not to please me; to come to terms with God. I don't matter.

My motives are explained already. Others will read these pages. Some are probably impressionable. They might believe you, and my duty as a Christian and an American is to challenge whoever who denigrates my country. A country that is sacrificing so much for peace in the world. For myself, I have no axe to grind with you. Go ahead & label me, I'm not self-absorbed.

You have been unsuccessful showing us why the war in Iraq was immoral. You can't accept defeat, because you can still post. But you never proved a just war was unjust.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 17, 2004.

Steve,
Hezbollah has killed more than 300 American citizens and we know Saddam directly funded and supplied Hezbollah. If you want a direct link to terrorism, there it is.

"Iraq continues to be a safehaven, transit point, or operational node for groups and individuals who direct violence against the United States, Israel, and other allies. Iraq has a long history of supporting terrorism. During the last four decades, it has altered its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It continues to harbor and sustain a number of smaller anti-Israel terrorist groups and to actively encourage violence against Israel. Regarding the Iraq- al Qaeda relationship, reporting from sources of varying credibility points to a number of contacts, incidents of training, and discussions of Iraqi safehaven for Osama bin Laden and his organization dating from the early 1990s." (from the CIA report published Jan 2003 titled 'Iraqi Support for Terrorism')

from the Senate report: From the recent Senate report

From 1996 to 2003, the IIS [Iraqi Intelligence Service] focused its terrorist activities on western interests, particularly against the U.S. and Israel. The CIA summarized nearly 50 intelligence reports as examples, using language directly from the intelligence reports. Ten intelligence reports, [redacted] from multiple sources, indicated IIS "casing" operations against Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty in Prague began in 1998 and continued into early 2003. The CIA assessed, based on the Prague casings and a variety of other reporting, that throughout 2002, the IIS was becoming increasingly aggressive in planning attacks against U.S. interests. The CIA provided eight reports to support this assessment.

Then CIA director George Tenet testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee about the relationship in a closed session on September 17, 2002.
There is evidence that Iraq provided al Qaeda with various kinds of training--combat, bomb-making and [chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear] CBRN. Although Saddam did not endorse al Qaeda's overall agenda and was suspicious of Islamist movements in general, he was apparently not averse, under certain circumstances, to enhancing bin Laden's operational capabilities. As with much of the information on the overall relationship, details on training are [redacted] from sources of varying reliability.

So Saddam was open to enhancing bin Laden's operational capabilities. There is evidence he may have done so. That seems significant.

Even Clinton agreed in our taking out of Saddam, his only objection seems to be that he thinks he could have talked the UN into helping us. (typical Clinton)

take care,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 17, 2004.

"just war theory"

-a 'Just War' is not theory -the Bible contains many... One simply has to accept that it is -debate is foolish as is voting for Kerry...

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), July 17, 2004.

Thanks Steve.

I'm learning alot from this discussion so thanks for your patience.

I see where I've presumed something instead of making myself clear (er). So thanks.

Correct me if I'm wrong: you have allowed that war in theory and war on Al Qaeda specifically could be (COULD BE) appropriate, right? In which case, you do allow that circumstances could exist which require nations to mount offensive campaigns - such as have occured historically with praise from the Church? This is your position right?

So, insofar as the Turkish fleet was an imminent threat, the combined Christian navies could morally set sail, seek it out and destroy it, morally. Right?

And you see the Pope's condemnation of "war" to be not with respect to Al Qaeda but with Iraq - which, in your opinion posed no threat to us and had no links with Iraq.

Is this right? And if the Pope believes that Iraq posed no threat to the USA - and thus was illegally and immorally invaded, everything in the argument hinges on the existence or not of a threat doesn't it?

If so, I see how maddening it must be to read me conflate the two completely separate, apples (Afganistan) and oranges (Iraq), as though they were really peas in a pod (to mix metaphors).

However unconvincing my arguments may be to you, and however much you desire me to add links and proofs for every single assertion of mine (a fair request if you'll oblige me too), perhaps you should see where I'm coming from: I don't see 2 wholly separate wars with their own justifications. I see 2 theaters of operation in 1 war!

For those who insist (as you do) that there are NO links whatsoever, no strategic or tactical linkages between the international terror group "Al Qaeda" and sundry national terror supporting states like Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran... then it appears that the USA has fought 2 wars: one with Al Qaeda (In Afganistan) and one with Iraq - a completely different war, completely different reasons.

In this case, I suppose World War 2 was really 2 separate wars since apart from a treaty linking them, there was no real military link between Japan and Germany ideologically, racially, militarily... Japan attacked us while Germany didn't and here we go to war with both...seems like the USA does tend to take out multiple nations at once whenever we loose the dogs of war.

If that's not an appropriate analogy because both were states then at least it's appropriate insofar as 2 separate powers existed which while theoretically antagonistic (both were racist) nevertheless had a common enemy in the USA.

If Al Qaeda didn't exist or didn't pose an international problem then I think it's safe to say that Saddam & sons would still be in power because as bad as they were - they had no means by which to deliver their weapons (of course they were working on IRBMs which no one knew about until Dr Kay discovered them post-war).

Given MAD and the superiority of American arms, and sure knowledge that an ICBM launched from Iraq would be replied to in kind...it's probably safe to say that without a proxy arm of shadowy terrorists, Iraq would be merely one more dictatorship harming no one but itself.

Thus as throughout the 1990's we assumed that Iraq was "in a box" - certainly a regional threat, but no direct threat to the United States, and hence not something worth invading to neutralize.

It is the mix of international terror groups AND state sponsors, suppliers, supporters of them (like Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc.) that led the USA to invade Afganistan and then Iraq while diplomatically putting the screws on Libya and North Korea.

Had 9/11 not happened the USA would not have immediately negotiated basing rights in Ubekistan, Turkistan, and Pakistan, increased military support for the Northern Alliance and sent in 5,000 SOF troops to overthrow the Taliban. As bad as the Taliban were, they really only threatened Afganistan itself. AGAIN, no threat to the USA, and thus, no need for us to invade.

The only reason we invaded a land-locked Afganistan was in response to an attack on us not by the regime of the Taliban, but by their sponsor, Al Qaeda.

And in my mind - although you don't accept the link - that's the same reason we invaded Iraq: they had links to this same terror organization.

By stubbornly refusing to acknowledge any linkage whatsoever between the international terrorists and state enemies of the USA you obviously back yourself into a position whereby it is morally abhorent for the USA to just out of the blue invade a sovereign nation "for no apparent reason" other than that we can.

So our invasion of Iraq is about as morally defensible as an invasion of Belize right?

I don't think you or Kiwi or the Pope are arguing that neither regime was bad or immoral in their own right. I know that all of you are just saying that, absent a link, there wasn't sufficient justification for war and since war is so bad it ought only be choosen as a last resort.

It all makes perfect sense to me. But there was and is a link between Iraq and international terror organizations - Hezbollah, Al-Ansar, and Al Qaeda.

Here are some links for your perusal: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378f mxyz.asp?pg=2

"Case Closed From the November 24, 2003 issue: The U.S. government's secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. by Stephen F. Hayes 11/24/2003, Volume 009, Issue 11 Increase Font Size Printer-Friendly

Email a Friend Respond to this article

Editor's Note, 1/27/04: In today's Washington Post, Dana Milbank reported that "Vice President Cheney . . . in an interview this month with the Rocky Mountain News, recommended as the 'best source of information' an article in The Weekly Standard magazine detailing a relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda based on leaked classified information."

Here's the Stephen F. Hayes article to which the vice president was referring" (see link as I don't want to post 2 pages here).

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/28/1048653833092.html? oneclick=true "Al-Qaeda fighting with Iraqis, British claim March 28 2003, 9:41 AM

"Near Basra, Iraq: British military interrogators claim captured Iraqi soldiers have told them that al-Qaeda terrorists are fighting on the side of Saddam Hussein's forces against allied troops near Basra.

At least a dozen members of Osama bin Laden's network are in the town of Az Zubayr where they are coordinating grenade and gun attacks on coalition positions, according to the Iraqi prisoners of war.

It was believed that last night (Thursday) British forces were preparing a military strike on the base where the al-Qaeda unit was understood to be holed up..."(goes on for a page).

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 19, 2004.

The Iraq -- Al Qaeda Connections By Richard Miniter Published 09/25/2003 Every day it seems another American soldier is killed in Iraq. These grim statistics have become a favorite of network news anchors and political chat show hosts. Nevermind that they mix deaths from accidents with actual battlefield casualties; or that the average is actually closer to one American death for every two days; or that enemy deaths far outnumber ours. What matters is the overall impression of mounting, pointless deaths.

That is why is important to remember why we fight in Iraq -- and who we fight. Indeed, many of those sniping at U.S. troops are al Qaeda terrorists operating inside Iraq. And many of bin Laden's men were in Iraq prior to the liberation. A wealth of evidence on the public record -- from government reports and congressional testimony to news accounts from major newspapers -- attests to longstanding ties between bin Laden and Saddam going back to 1994.

Those who try to whitewash Saddam's record don't dispute this evidence; they just ignore it. So let's review the evidence, all of it on the public record for months or years:

* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.

* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.

* Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.

* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.

* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.

* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane's Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane's reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man.

(Why are all of those meetings significant? The London Observer reports that FBI investigators cite a captured al Qaeda field manual in Afghanistan, which "emphasizes the value of conducting discussions about pending terrorist attacks face to face, rather than by electronic means.")

* As recently as 2001, Iraq's embassy in Pakistan was used as a "liaison" between the Iraqi dictator and al Qaeda, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan -- who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre," London's Independent reports.

* An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden's fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives -- on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: 'You'll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden's group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.'"

* In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam's son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

*The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims to have been Dr. Zawahiri's bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time and was present at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989.

* Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates "converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there," Mr. Powell told the United Nations in February 2003. From their Baghdad base, the secretary said, they supervised the movement of men, materiel and money for al Qaeda's global network.

* In 2001, an al Qaeda member "bragged that the situation in Iraq was 'good,'" according to intelligence made public by Mr. Powell.

* That same year, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq.

* Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Mr. Powell told the United Nations. His specialty was poisons. Wounded in fighting with U.S. forces, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi's Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002 murder of Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for International Development, in Amman, Jordan. The captured assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from Zarqawi's cell in Iraq, Mr. Powell said. His accomplice escaped to Iraq.

*Zarqawi met with military chief of al Qaeda, Mohammed Ibrahim Makwai (aka Saif al-Adel) in Iran in February 2003, according to intelligence sources cited by the Washington Post.

* Mohammad Atef, the head of al Qaeda's military wing until the U.S. killed him in Afghanistan in November 2001, told a senior al Qaeda member now in U.S. custody that the terror network needed labs outside of Afghanistan to manufacture chemical weapons, Mr. Powell said. "Where did they go, where did they look?" said the secretary. "They went to Iraq."

* Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq by bin Laden to purchase poison gases several times between 1997 and 2000. He called his relationship with Saddam's regime "successful," Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May, 2000. He later told his story to American intelligence and a reporter for the New Yorker magazine.

* Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According to a London's Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit "youth to train for the jihad" at a "headquarters for international holy warrior network" to be established in Baghdad.

* Mullah Melan Krekar, ran a terror group (the Ansar al-Islam) linked to both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Mr. Krekar admitted to a Kurdish newspaper that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan and other senior al Qaeda officials. His acknowledged meetings with bin Laden go back to 1988. When he organized Ansar al Islam in 2001 to conduct suicide attacks on Americans, "three bin Laden operatives showed up with a gift of $300,000 'to undertake jihad,'" Newsday reported. Mr. Krekar is now in custody in the Netherlands. His group operated in portion of northern Iraq loyal to Saddam Hussein -- and attacked independent Kurdish groups hostile to Saddam. A spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan told a United Press International correspondent that Mr. Krekar's group was funded by "Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad."

* After October 2001, hundreds of al Qaeda fighters are believed to have holed up in the Ansar al-Islam's strongholds inside northern Iraq.

Some skeptics dismiss the emerging evidence of a longstanding link between Iraq and al Qaeda by contending that Saddam ran a secular dictatorship hated by Islamists like bin Laden.

In fact, there are plenty of "Stalin-Roosevelt" partnerships between international terrorists and Muslim dictators. Saddam and bin Laden had common enemies, common purposes and interlocking needs. They shared a powerful hate for America and the Saudi royal family. They both saw the Gulf War as a turning point. Saddam suffered a crushing defeat which he had repeatedly vowed to avenge. Bin Laden regards the U.S. as guilty of war crimes against Iraqis and believes that non- Muslims shouldn't have military bases on the holy sands of Arabia. Al Qaeda's avowed goal for the past ten years has been the removal of American forces from Saudi Arabia, where they stood in harm's way solely to contain Saddam.

The most compelling reason for bin Laden to work with Saddam is money. Al Qaeda operatives have testified in federal courts that the terror network was always desperate for cash. Senior employees fought bitterly about the $100 difference in pay between Egyptian and Saudis (the Egyptians made more). One al Qaeda member, who was connected to the 1998 embassy bombings, told a U.S. federal court how bitter he was that bin Laden could not pay for his pregnant wife to see a doctor.

Bin Laden's personal wealth alone simply is not enough to support a profligate global organization. Besides, bin Laden's fortune is probably not as large as some imagine. Informed estimates put bin Laden's pre-Sept. 11, 2001 wealth at perhaps $30 million. $30 million is the budget of a small school district, not a global terror conglomerate. Meanwhile, Forbes estimated Saddam's personal fortune at $2 billion.

So a common enemy, a shared goal and powerful need for cash seem to have forged an alliance between Saddam and bin Laden. CIA Director George Tenet recently told the Senate Intelligence Committee: "Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb making to al Qaeda. It also provided training in poisons and gasses to two al Qaeda associates; one of these [al Qaeda] associates characterized the relationship as successful. Mr. Chairman, this information is based on a solid foundation of intelligence. It comes to us from credible and reliable sources. Much of it is corroborated by multiple sources."

The Iraqis, who had the Third World's largest poison-gas operations prior to the Gulf War I, have perfected the technique of making hydrogen-cyanide gas, which the Nazis called Zyklon-B. In the hands of al Qaeda, this would be a fearsome weapon in an enclosed space -- like a suburban mall or subway station.

Mr. Miniter is a senior fellow at the Center for the New Europe and author of "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror" (Regnery) which is now on the New York Times' bestseller list.

Of course, for those who have invested so much moral authority in there being absolutely NO link between terrorism and Iraq, the above won't matter and since Mr. Miniter isn't "an official source" he's words will be said to hold as much weight as mine...but then, if he worked for an official source - like the White House, he'd be called a partisan hack who isn't trustworthy. And if he worked for Al Qaeda itself his linkages would be called "propaganda" and thus, not true.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 19, 2004.

Oh my, Mercy. What have we done to deserve this? Nearly 14,000 words in four days! I haven’t the time to read this avalanche yet alone deal with all the whoppers undoubtedly past off as "factoids". Its enough to suffocate all but the most manic. That Gene and Joe remain, almost alone, testifies to this truth (each desperately urging the other on, further and further from reality). j/k

You’ve beaten our own Bishops! You’ve beaten our own Holy Church! You’ve even beaten our Holy Father!

Just who do they think they are, daring to call an American war immoral and unjust! Fools!

You’ve "won" all right Gene, if only in your own mind. Bask in the glory Sir of a magnificant own goal.

Peace!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 19, 2004.

As we noticed once before. Mighty mountain in immense labor gives birth to a mouse.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 19, 2004.

I'll ignore Eugene's personal abuse and address the new(ish) material from Joe:

The Taliban had much more than “links” to Al-qaida. They were essentially two parts of the same organization. If the Taliban did not rule Afghanistan, Al-quaida would not exist, or would be a tiny organization that was not much of a threat. Yes Afghanistan and Iraq ARE apples and oranges. Tales of diplomatic “links”, and theories that “they must be friends because they’re both our enemies” will never come anywhere near making Saddam’s Iraq essentially IDENTICAL with Al-Quaida as the Taliban’s Afghanistan was (and still is in the areas they have regained control).

I never said the invasion of iraq was for “no apparent” reason. There are several apparent reasons. Along with the pope, the bishops and just about everybody else, I said that none of these reasons could justify the war as moral according to Catholic moral principles. Iraq had not attacked us, nor was it about to.

Yes WW2 was really two separate wars, but as I said we didn’t start fighting Germany because of Pearl Harbor. It was Germany who declared war on US, in fulfilment of the treaty it had signed with Japan. And yes it is disturbing that the US has a nasty habit, once its blood is up from one war, to immediately start another war.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 21, 2004.

Oh come on Steve: Germany didn't attack us, but we declared war on them anyway. Was the European theater of World War 2 just? Or should we have just left Hitler alone?

You asked for proof that links existed. I gave them. Now you discount them entirely with a rhetorical wave of the hand?

That Turkish FLEET HADN'T ATTACKED EUROPE EITHER GUYS. But it was going to, so 6 months in advance the Pope began asking the kings of Europe to commit ships. Spain, France, Venice, and the Papal States sent ships.... they sailed, searched the Adriatic, and then found the fleet at LePanto, where they destroyed it. But that was OK...why?

Now surely you aren't going to claim that morality has changed in 500 years? Or that certain principles no longer hold?

Kiwi why change the subject from facts back to attitude and "who do you think you are?" language as if that mattered rather than my arguments!? If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. But my opinion isn't based on attitude and FEELINGS but on principles and facts.

Look - we all agree that war may sometimes be moral. So then, the decision to wage war is thus a prudential one: It hinges on means of waging war, a nation's intentions, and the circumstances (facts) of the matter.

This is the classic Catholic moral calculus of act, intent, circumstances needed prior to making any ethical judgment.

The Pope and bishops have focused their statements on questions of intent and fears about consequences, as well as misgivings about the USA's intended strategy...as well as about the facts at hand. Without a grasp on the actual facts on the ground, no one can reasonably make an ethical judgment - and if judgments ARE cast, then although the office has authority, the judgment may not.

For example: Bishops are our legitimate moral authorities. But if they make a prudential judgment based on false information, we laymen have the right to appeal. If they tell us point blank to do something which we know is immoral or illegal, again we as Baptized Catholics have a right to not obey such an order.

If the point of discussion is a religious one (altar girls) or rubrics (standing for communion) we ought to obey, as these things fall totally under their perview.

But if they tell us to favor a given economic theory, a sports team, or a political party, yes, they're bishops, and yes they have authority, but NO their partisanship doesn't mean we all have to obey them.

So obviously their argument or judgment is based on what they know given the very contingent reality!

They were clearly, demonstrably WRONG about the FEARED consequences of a war with Iraq. They were clearly, demonstrably WRONG about the USA's strategy and tactics, as well as the Iraqi regime's innocence until proven guilty (no one mentions the killing fields. I guess they don't matter?)

Neither of you can refute my facts. So you change the subject! ha! Admit it.

Now that we can't claim there was NO link between Iraq and Al Qaeda we suddenly claim that Iraq wasn't a threat to the USA????

Iraq tried to kill President Bush 41 in 1992. Iraq shot at our planes throughout the 1990's. Iraq broke every part of the armistice agreement that ended hostilities from Gulf War 1.

But for you, none of this constitutes an act of war? Saddam clearly was commanding his forces to attack the USA by ALL MEANS AVAILABLE. Conventional weapons weren't sufficient. He was working on WMDs, had all the industrial means and know-how in place to produce them: fact.

Iraq had SCUDS and was working on IRBMS - fact. (against all agreements with the UN).

Iraq had serious links to Al Qaeda - which did attack our mainland after attacking our embassies and warships.

Iraq had many extensive contacts with Al Qaeda operatives, provided sanctuary, support, training, etc. to them, including some involved in 9/11...and that doesn't matter to you?

You apparently think that because Iraq didn't technically declare war on the USA that we can't defend ourselves and can't overthrow their regime, thus ending all future problems.

Well, OK, you disagree. Prudential decisions have many possible alternative courses of action. But some are better than others and some are worse.

The Bishops and Pope think further diplomacy would have been better. Fine. But the war is over, and we won, and things turned out OK - given the circumstances and feared consequences, we're doing far better than anyone thought possible.

You also don't seem capable of accepting that states can and do use proxies to engage in foreign policy and aggression.

Everything in this argument hinges on INFORMATION. I have repeatedly shown that neither the Pope nor the bishops mention any specifics in their statements - thus use the weakest of arguments, and hence weren't using the fullness of Catholic moral authority as they do when dealing with categorically evil issues such as abortion.

Thus, they gave themselves an "out" diplomatically: keeping the Church out of the war business and not playing into OBL's rhetoric that this is a crusade.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 21, 2004.

Going back to the original question, I would say the loss of liberty for myself and my children is worse than war. But war is nasty enough that it should not be started lightly. And I do not care whose theology gives an answer that slavery is better than war.

For instance, the American Civil war was a horrendous thing. Nasty, butual and long. Sherman's campaign was one of the worst. Yet it started the nation on the path of liberating the black people. I say it was worth it.

I usually do not get into such a loong section of posts, but that is my say.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), July 23, 2004.

“Oh come on Steve: Germany didn't attack us, but we declared war on them anyway.” No, as I said it was Germany who declared war on us first. And their submarines began attacking US ships before a single US soldier crossed the Atlantic.

“Was the European theater of World War 2 just? Or should we have just left Hitler alone?” No to both. They are not mutually exclusive.

“You asked for proof that links existed. I gave them. Now you discount them entirely with a rhetorical wave of the hand?”

Poor Joe, you’d convinced yourself that if you could plug just one hole in your argument, you’d have a leakproof case for a just war. Sorry but there are many, many holes in your argument. There is nothing “rhetorical” about the fact that Iraq is not Al-Quaida. It’s a plain fact. Just war theory does not allow a war on a third party based on “links” to the party which attacked you. And if you’re going to base the “casus belli” on these “links”, it would require Bush to have said to Saddam before the war “cut your links to Al- Quaida or we’ll invade you”. But funnily enough his ultimatum made all sorts of OTHER demands instead.

As I said, the attack on the Turkish fleet at Lepanto was OK because they were massing for an IMMINENT attack on Christian countries. Also note the Christian forces only attacked strictly military targets. Yes I celebrate the Feast of Our Lady of Victories; I used to worship in a church of that name. As I said above, morality and its principles do not change.

Bush had every chance to feed the Pope the “correct” information and to make the case for the morality of his war. If you’re claiming the Pope spoke based on “false information” you can only blame Bush for supplying it to him. The Pope and bishops certainly never proclaimed “the Iraqi regime’s innocence” so I’ll thank you for not calling them “WRONG” when they said nothing of the sort.

I am disgusted by your charge that the Pope and bishops “gave themselves an "out" diplomatically: keeping the Church out of the war business” ; that they secretly were rooting for Bush to invade Iraq while publicly saying the opposite.

Sean, every other nation managed to rid itself of slavery without fighting a horrendous war. We could have too.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 23, 2004.

"every other nation managed to rid itself of slavery without fighting a horrendous war. We could have too."

-but...

-you begin with the premise that we had to adopt slavery in the first place? We could have avoided adopting slavery...

-but then again we could have avoided it all... We could all have been and continue to be saintly beings...

but alas, we are only human -sinners all -our fall from grace was long ago -there is really only what can we do now -not what could we have done... The war happened -it already happened... does the war past or does the war potential yet uncertain justify voting for a president that supports abortion now and forever with certainty?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), July 23, 2004.

"every other nation managed to rid itself of slavery without fighting a horrendous war.

Don't kid yourself, slavery is alive and well in this world.

for some stories, click here.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), July 23, 2004.

For all its extreme horror, death and distruction, I think the Am. Civil war was right. Not as holy as its fighters thought it was, not a just war (I am not sure that I believe in a just war in practice), but as a way to move the nation in the right direction, yes, it was needed.

It did not immeditally lead to the freedom expected. It did establish that the nation will be one or none. But in the long run it lead in the right path.

To say that its roots could have been pulled up a centuary earlier, well that is nice. It did not happen, and by its time war or breakup were the only alternitives.

War is too nasty a thing to ever be holy. But sometime it is needed. I would fight for my freedom and more so for the freedom of my kids. (and personally, I see the Patriot act, especially P2, as an act of slavery, but that is IMO.).

I am inspired by a song from a friend of mine(Leslie Fish, you will not have heard of her). In this fantasy song she asks Mars, greek god of war, to cease war. Mars said: there are 5 reasons for war, but I will have war cease. And it does. And sometime later one person owns the world, and everyone in it. And so she goes back and asks for a reversal. Ok, it is fantasy. But for me it made its point: there are some causes that sometime need war as a process to get them.

On another idea, from a wargamer who wrote 'How To Stop War', is only by being tough and ready to fight a war, and ready in national spirit as well as national armory, can you get the other person to not to consider you as a target. Once you get there, the other problem is to not start un-needed wars.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.

Yes Bill and Daniel. I am aware that slavery still exists, and that some countries never had it in the first place. But for simplicity’s sake I was comparing the US to the other Christian countries which had it and got rid of it in the same century we fought that terrible war.

“by its time war or breakup were the only alternatives.” (Sean)

You actually think that for the US to divide into 2 countries would be WORSE than all the horrors of the civil war? Do you really think the Confederacy, if it still existed, would still have slavery in 2004? Of course it’s all speculation, but if the Confederacy had survived it would have abandoned slavery before much longer(by 1860 slavery had already become a much less significant factor in Southern society than it had been a generation earlier), - and probably the two countries would have joined together again once slavery was no longer an issue.

Daniel, in this thread we (or at least I) are not arguing about who to vote for, but about the morality of war. I don’t think that just because a war is (or appears to be) in the past, that we can just forget about whether it was moral.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 25, 2004.

Poor Steve:
''. . . the fact that Iraq is not Al-Quaida. It’s a plain fact.

''Just war theory does not allow a war on a third party based on links to the party which attacked you.''

Who said so? And, pray, what is ''just war theory'' --- ? ? ? ''If you’re going to base the “casus belli” on these links, it would require Bush to have said to Saddam before the war “cut your links to Al- Quaida or we’ll invade you”.

--Not necessarily. Only to please YOUR scruples.

''But funnily enough his ultimatum made all sorts of OTHER demands instead. Not ''funnily''. You are here funnily presuming to be judge and jury over world powers. As I suggested before; you are a devil's advocate versus the liberators of Afghanistan and Iraq, An Islamophile for dubious reasons, and a foolish apologist for the Saddam Hussein regime. No matter how speciously you gloss over it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 26, 2004.

Steve, For a bit of informed speculation, try Harry Turtledove's alternate history Civil war novels. The writer is a historian. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), July 26, 2004.

Hi Steve. I didn't call you "poor" so let's not take Eugene's ad hominem line here. You're not poor in my eyes: you're a faithful Catholic (as far as I know), you are conscientious, you want to do the right thing and are informing yourself of the Church's teaching.

We disagree about what's just or not in US foreign policy. You read a Papal statement and highlight certain things, as well as READ INTO IT things he didn't say... and that's fine for you. I read those texts and carefully note what the Pope DIDN'T SAY as well as how he didn't say it. (A paragraph in a statement doesn't carry the same Magisterial weight as a Papal bull, letter, encyclical, or constitution).

I'm trying to make distinctions and definitions here. If we disagree we don't have to feel bad or have attitude.

Just and Unjust War

I believe that many wars are unjust. Probably most in history. But a few were just - the 1st Crusade was just, but not the 4th. The battle of LePanto was just. As was the attempt of Venice to reinforce Constantinople in 1453 (it failed).

Joan of Arc was a military leader - she fought battles under Divine inspiration! So obviously the English conquest of Northern France was something that God considered to be so disasterous that only armed resistance would suffice.

The crusade before the gates of Vienna in the 1500's was just - as was the reconquest of Spain from 800 to 1492.

The Pole's fought the USSR in 1920 and beat them - that was a just war. (The Pope's dad fought).

IMHO World War 1 was totally unjust. As was the war of Japan against Korea, China and the Allied powers. Hitler and Stalin's war against Poland was unjust.

But what about the US response in WW2? Could we have fought a defensive war only in the Pacific? Could we have stopped hostilities after Midway or Leyt Gulf destroyed the Japanese navy? At what time did our war go from defensive to offensive? Doolittle's raid on Tokyo in 1942?

Was it possible to get less than unconditional surrender from the Axis powers without leaving open as a distinct possibility unending war? I believe in SOME CIRCUMSTANCES once hostilities begin, the only just means to restore Tranquilitas ordinis (Peace) is for one side to win!

YES, unjust events occured as they do in all wars (*as well as during peacetime). But just as mistakes or sins don't totally deprive a nation of moral standing in peacetime, surely they don't deprive a nation of moral standing in time of war!

A cause can be noble while 1% of combatants act innobly.

OK down to responses:

Yes, Germany declared war on the USA first. But up to that time they had avoided attacking us. They DID attack convoys of ships going to resupply Britain... entering the war zone, all ships are "fair game". Those US Destroyers weren't just minding their own business!

So my point being this: the US waged war with Hitler's Germany despite the FACT that Germany wasn't an IMMINENT THREAT TO MAINLAND USA! Even had the German's beaten Russia and England they'd not have been a direct threat to the continental US until 1947 (*at which time their A-3 ICBM rockets would have been able to hit New York from bases in Spain.) But minus nuclear weapons the German navy wouldn't have been big enough to seriously threaten the US Mainland.

Thus by the type of arguments being bandied about against the US justification for invading Iraq, the US' liberation of Europe by means of invasion and annihilation of the Nazi Regime would have been categorically unjust, which no one seriously claims (especially in the Catholic Church).

Thus, in my thinking, since Popes and Cardinals have praised WW2 veterans and their cause (which included OFFENSIVE campaigns and involved the invasion and overthrow of the Nazi regime) there must be some principle involved which justifies offenses and regime change IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES. Wouldn't you agree?

I never said Al Qaeda and Iraq were the same thing. Al Qaeda and the Taliban weren't the same thing either. Both Taliban and Iraq were STATES with serious links to the terrorists. Both regimes USED AL QAEDA as a PROXY to attack their internal and external enemies.

Thus, you can't expect to truly weed out Al Qaeda without destroying their state sponsors. Fighting just the insurgents without the state supporting them is what doomed the US in Vietnam: the fiction that the VC weren't supported by the NVA is what kept us at war for so long when we could have just invaded the North and wiped it out in 6 months.

War between the States:

The history of the world shows that mutually antagonistic states don't maintain peace for very long. A CSA wouldn't have lived in perpetual harmony with a USA had hostilities not broken out in 1861. Not over something as fundamental as racist based slavery (as opposed to economic slavery wherein the person owned is still considered human).

War is caused by socialized sin... "the wages of sin is death", or as Mother Theresa put it "If you want Peace, oppose abortion". The sin of abortion is creating a gulf between the people of life and the people who worship death. Perhaps this will eventually spill over into adult on adult violence. There anti-Pro-life violence is already outnumbering the total number of so-called pro-lifers who've harmed abortionists.

I don't think given the fundamental nature of abortion that you could have a united States if some states were pro-life and others pro- abortion. It's an either/or proposition. Similarly you couldn't have had a Nazi Germany long co-exist with a Stalinist Russia or a non- racist Europe. The type of sin at the root of those political regimes was such that it divided people and set them at fundamental odds with each other.

So long as both parties share a more fundamental belief in some higher value (such as the rule of law, a value of basic respect, etc) then physical strife DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO COME FROM VERBAL OR IDEOLOGICAL STRIFE. But once those fundamental values themselves are questioned or doubted or disbelieved in... then history shows us that the moral persuasion from resorting to violence is also removed.

It's a sad state of affairs. We should all pray for peace and live peaceful lives - with our friends, neighbors, fellow men.... but whereas the individual Christian must refrain from violence the state sometimes can't.

Sometimes war is inevitable - as it was in LePanto, as it was in the years leading up to the 1st Crusade. When the CIRCUMSTANCES are such that there is no peace, it is folly to claim that there is! (cf. Proverbs).

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 26, 2004.

Dear Joe:
You name me at the beginning of your post. You might think you will be compared more favorably if you disapprove of my ad hominem approach. But I was just mimicking the words of Jokesie:

''Poor Joe, you’d convinced yourself that if you could plug just one hole in your argument, you’d have a leakproof case,'' So, I led off with, ''Poor Steve.'' It was the fitting thing to do. You see, I actually READ all these posts.

When You come to the debate with row after row of reasoned arguments and meet only another contemptuous wise-crack (''the hole in your argument''), what recourse have you against that? I answer in kind. Not to humiliate, but to get the wise-guy to back off. He won't answer even ONE reasonable question. You just help him to ignore yours by posting five or more arguments at one post. That only offers him the chance to side-step hard questions. You walk a tight-rope and he doesn't even work hard at an answer.

Nevertheless, Steve is wrong about wars never being just. We all acknowledge that. I suspect he wouldn't care what is just or unjust; he only comes here to bash the United States and our leaders. These are people with no respect at all for reason. It's candle-light vigils they consider reasonable; not life and death questions.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 26, 2004.

(Sigh) I guess you're right. I do pack way too many points per post, and this does allow people to pick and choose which they'll respond to. It happens on other threads and I should probably just post once and leave it at that.

Peace

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 26, 2004.

Sorry Joe I wasn’t meaning to descend to Eugene’s ignorant ad hominem attitude, when I said “Poor Joe” it was meant as tongue in cheek sympathy, and I certainly wasn’t being ”contemptuous” when I mentioned the hole in your argument. I suspect Eugene wouldn't care what is just or unjust; he only comes here to bash anyone who dares question his political leaders. He has no respect at all for reason. You’d better hope Eugene doesn’t read about the Nazis attacking the USA from bases in Franco’s Spain. He thinks Franco was a good guy!!

I do appreciate that you are presenting fact-based arguments instead of Eugene’s wild irrational assertions and abuse. As I said above I am responding only to points which address a new facet of the topic, as most of the points you and Eugene mention have been thoroughly refuted here and elsewhere. If I have inadvertently overlooked one of your points which you feel needs further addressing, please point it out.

I basically agree with your list of which wars were just and unjust (contrary to Eugene’s bizarre accusation, I did not say ALL wars were unjust) though in WW2 it was much more than 1% of the combatants who acted innobly.

No you didn’t say Iraq and Al-Qaida are the same thing. But since the argument rests on the war being a response to an imminent or already existing attack, the Afghan war can only be justified by positing the Taliban as essentially identical to Al-Quaida which was unquestionably based there. No such argument is available re Iraq.

Everybody knew that the Viet Cong were supplied by North Vietnam. That’s why the US dropped more bombs on North Vietnam than were dropped by all sides in the whole of WW2. The reason we didn’t invade and overthrow North Vietnam is that it risked nuclear war with the USSR.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 26, 2004.

Once again Steve oversteps. The deterrent factor about Vietnam was not the USSR, but Communist China, just as it had been before in North Korea. A small point; but you cannot teach Steve, He's teacher-proof. He has to add, worthlessly:

'' --Most of the points you and Eugene mention have been thoroughly refuted here and elsewhere.''

He never refuted a thing. He argued to his own satisfaction. Argued, but not thoroughly. He was unable to keep anybody's attention, Steve.

He is reduced to telling us I'm irrational and abusive because he has no answers to the important questions I asked him. I posed the argument he has regretted the downfall of Saddam Hussein. Steve accepted it. Saddam had every right to remain dictator of Iraq; says Steve. Too bad for Bush.

But he makes that out as an abuse. He won't explain his sympathy for the false prophet Mohammed. It just seems Christian to him, that's all. To him there is no false prophet. Only bigotry against a good religion, an excellent faith. Even when that faith incites fanatics to commit wholesale murders and atrocitiies.

Steve says I made irrational assertions about --What? Him? About just war? About our citizens being slaughtered on 9- 11?

Was it irrational of me? Did I make that all up?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 26, 2004.

Once again Eugene displays his blissful ignorance. “The deterrent factor about Vietnam was not the USSR, but Communist China”. Yes of course Eugene, that’s why as soon as North Vietnam had conquered the South they then fought a war against Communist China, which had always been their bitter enemy. A small point (to him, since it was only Asians being killed); but you cannot teach Eugene.

“He was unable to keep anybody's attention, Steve.” I seem to have kept Eugene’s attention for an extremely long time, despite him declaring me irrelevant and swearing several times he would no longer reply to me. But he just can't keep his big foul mouth shut.

“I posed the argument he has regretted the downfall of Saddam Hussein. Steve accepted it. Saddam had every right to remain dictator of Iraq; says Steve.” 100% pure and simple lies.

When I point out your irrationality and abuse you only become more irrational and abusive. Now I will return to my policy of responding only to new rational material and I will ignore any further lies, irrational nonsense, and abuse from Eugene.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 27, 2004.

Looks like Joe Wilson is now officially discredited as well: Kerry Dumps Joe Wilson From Campaign Team

Last week, the presidential campaign of Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) very publicly distanced itself from former National Security Advisor Samuel "Sandy" Berger after it became known that Berger was under investigation for removing highly classified documents from the National Archives. Talon News reported that Kerry's anti-terror policy was removed from the candidate's web site immediately following Berger's dismissal as a campaign advisor.

But in the last few days, another advisor has apparently been jettisoned from the Kerry campaign. All traces of former Ambassador Joe Wilson, the central figure in the controversy of faulty intelligence about Iraq and uranium has disappeared from the Kerry web site. Wilson had appeared on a web site www.restorehonesty.com where he restated his criticism of the Bush administration. The link now goes directly to the main page of www.johnkerry.com and no reference to Wilson can be found on the entire site.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 27, 2004.

Steve, the just war criteria doesn't mandate that an attack be imminent but that war is the last option. Indeed Bush was clear that Iraq WASN'T AN IMMINENT THREAT but that we couldn't wait until such time as it was because it could be too late.

Afganistan wasn't a threat to the integrity of the USA either (neither was Nazi Germany). But to wait and see while the terrorists regrouped and planned their next attack or for Hitler's navy and airforce to establish forward bases, would have been utter folly.

Now clearly many people didn't accept Bush's reasoning and prefered that he wait until Saddam had field tested nukes, or armed terrorists with germs or something. Apparently 9/11 was a complete anamoly for them.

But LePanto wasn't an imminent threat either. Sure the Turks had a huge fleet but it wasn't built in a day or a year. Why did the combined navies of Christendom have to decide to fight then and there?

Seriously, we HAVE to ask ourselves these questions about battles and wars in the past that WERE just and find what principles are involved so we can learn how to apply just war criteria in the present and future.

In my opinion, LePanto was just and the threat wasn't imminent, just possible. The fleet wasn't off the coast of Rome or Naples or Venice! It was far away, off the coast of Greece. But it was all in one place...and Christendom didn't have the luxury of trying more diplomacy or waiting for the Turks to make the first move.

Ditto with the USA with respect to Iraq and its role in the nexus between terrorism and state supporters.

Now you may beg to differ as others have but to claim that the war in Iraq was UNJUST because the threat wasn't imminent is to beg the question, especially when NO ONE IN FAVOR OF THE WAR CLAIMED AT ANY TIME THAT THE THREAT WAS IMMINENT! On 9/10 there was no apparent threat to the USA - no fleet steaming off the coast, no armies massing on the border. This is what asymetrical warfare looks like and it's not pretty.

In this situation - wherein enemies attack first without warning, preemption is the only way to go because "reaction" would be too late. (This is one reason why infantry companies send out "patrols" - to initiate contact with the enemy so they can be found and destroyed or captured.)

That's the lesson of LePanto: Christendom couldn't wait until that fleet set sail because then it'd be too late to save any city along the coast from invasion. You accept the reasoning of the Church for the battle of LePanto. What I don't get is your insistence that the war in Iraq is any different.

Both are cases of combined allied forces destroying an enemy who threatens them and liberating captives. Both battles (LePanto, Bagdad) involved stunning military victories and re-directed the "turks" energies elsewhere - from further plotting of conquest to running for their lives. Both brought a spell of peace to the world.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 27, 2004.

Excellent post, Joe,
I would like to see Steve call it 100% lies. You are, after all a quieter opponent of his nagging; he can't call you a liar.

But me? Hey, Steve ''caught me'' swearing several times I would no longer reply. He stated ''But he just can't keep his big foul mouth, etc.,'' He then calls ME abusive.

When was I found here swearing? (Is Steve the liar?) Is my language on the forum ''foul mouthed''--? ? ? Isn't this abusive? No, he's being polite and rational.

My device for getting a straight answer from Steve was: ''I posed the argument he has regretted the downfall of Saddam Hussein. Steve accepted it. Saddam had every right to remain dictator of Iraq; says Steve.'' His powers of reasoning don't realize the rhetorical nature of my post. He thinks that was just ''100% pure and simple lies.''

And, he still never gives us a straight answer. Was Iraq worth invading, as events turned out? Steve won't go there. He only wants to pontificate. If you oppose him, that's abusive. If you disagree with him, it makes you racist and a liar. If you support America, that makes you ignorant and unworthy of his respect. Because Steve considers himself the only authority.

Has he bothered to read the good contributions you're making in this thread? It's a possibility. He fishes out notes to contradict. But so far he has never acknowledged any truth to your great posts. He doesn't CARE what you think.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 27, 2004.

Hmm, irrational as ever. I tell Joe I appreciate his reasoned arguments and that I agree with most of what he says, and this mendacious clown solemnly informs Joe that I “never acknowledged any truth” to his posts and that I don’t CARE what he thinks! He doesn’t seem to read ANYTHING, not even his own previous posts, just as soon as he sees someone’s against a Bush policy he slams into the keyboard shooting off the first nutty thought that comes into his head.

“You accept the reasoning of the Church for the battle of LePanto. What I don't get is your insistence that the war in Iraq is any different.” (Joe) It’s not just my insistence, it’s the Pope's, the bishops', and most of the world's. What I don’t get is your rejection of the Church on this issue.

“NO ONE IN FAVOR OF THE WAR CLAIMED AT ANY TIME THAT THE THREAT WAS IMMINENT!” Sorry Joe but they certainly did. Remember how we were solemnly told that Saddam had WMDs that he would have ready to use on us at 45 minutes’ notice?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 28, 2004.

Tony Blair told his people about the 45 minute use of WMDs, not Bush. Besides, he was right. Those artillery shells COULD have been used in 45 minutes. The only thing he was wrong about was the numbers deployed to the front lines - as it is, it now appears that the Iraqi top command didn't give these weapons to their front line divisions.

As for LePanto, I'M THE ONLY ONE ON THE WEB - LOOK FOR YOURSELF- WHO EVER MENTIONED THIS BATTLE IN CONNECTION WITH THE WAR! Not the Pope, not the bishops, not anyone.

No one on the anti-war side of things has proposed a reasoned syllogism explaining why the US invasion was categorically evil or unjust. They AFFIRMED that it was in their opinion not a good thing or not a wise thing, or not a prudent thing...but that's far from a Magisterial condemnation of something as intrinisically evil - which was the spin.

Again, gentlemen, I've read as much of the Pope's words as I can find on the internet. In English, Spanish and Italian. I've over 1 MB of discourses, and letters from a 12 year period. I've got the full texts of bishops and cardinals (not just partial sound bites)... and at no time has any church official hauled out the battle of LePanto or mentioned it in conjuction with the Church's moral reasoning.

I'm not calling you a liar. I don't believe you are and I don't believe that helps matters. Like I keep saying, we're all good Catholics trying to inform and form and follow our consciences. And our opinions either way have little to do with the actual events - so all this is an intellectual exercise. You're not a saint for being against the war and I'm not a sinner for being "for" the war because neither of us have any control over the events - unlike our control over our own lives as private individuals (where MOST moral issues are dealt with).

Peace

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), July 28, 2004.