POPE CRITICAL OF WAR DURING BUSH'S VATICAN VISIT

June 4 (AP) -- As thousands marched through Rome massed behind a large banner stating "No War - No Bush", Pope John Paul II today called on President Bush to seek a rapid return of sovereignty to Iraq, deplored the abuse of Iraqi prisoners and urged a "fuller and deeper understanding between the United States of America and Europe."

In a meeting with Bush, who presented the pope with the presidential Medal of Freedom, the pontiff, who opposed the invasion of Iraq, spoke of "grave unrest" in Iraq and the Middle East.

"Mr. President, your visit to Rome takes place at a moment of great concern for the continuing situation of grave unrest in the Middle East, both in Iraq and in the Holy Land," he said.

"You are very familiar with the unequivocal position of the Holy See in this regard, expressed in numerous documents, through direct and indirect contacts, and in the many diplomatic efforts which have been made."

Bush, who is actively courting the Catholic vote, has met twice before with the pontiff.

-- Antonio (TonyO@Roman.Forum), June 04, 2004

Answers

bumpissimo

-- Antonio (TonyO@Roman.Forum), June 04, 2004.

Another attempt from the left to smear the President. Why do you cut and paste? Why not include the entire address? And where did the Pope menition the abuse of prisoners? Why didn't you include where the Pope complimented the President on the humanitarian effoerts of the U.S. Here is the Pope's address from CNN> ROME, Italy -- Following is the text of Pope John Paul II's address to U.S. President George W. Bush at the Vatican Friday, courtesy of the Vatican's Web site:

Mr. President, I offer a warm welcome to you and to Mrs. Bush, and to the distinguished delegation accompanying you. I also extend a cordial and affectionate greeting to all the people of the United States whom you represent. I thank you for wishing to meet with me again, in spite of the difficulties presented by your own many commitments during this present visit to Europe and Italy, and by my own departure tomorrow morning for a meeting with young people in Switzerland.

You are visiting Italy to commemorate the sixtieth anniversary of the liberation of Rome and to honor the memory of the many American soldiers who gave their lives for their country and for the freedom of the peoples of Europe. I join you in recalling the sacrifice of those valiant dead and in asking the Lord that the mistakes of the past, which gave rise to appalling tragedies, may never again be repeated. Today I too think back with great emotion on the many Polish soldiers who died for the freedom of Europe.

Our thoughts also turn today to the twenty years in which the Holy See and the United States have enjoyed formal diplomatic relations, established in 1984 under President Reagan. These relations have promoted mutual understanding on great issues of common interest and practical cooperation in different areas. I send my regards to President Reagan and to Mrs. Reagan, who is so attentive to him in his illness. I would also like to express my esteem for all the representatives of the United States to the Holy See, together with my appreciation for the competence, sensitivity and great commitment with which they have favored the development of our relations.

Mr. President, your visit to Rome takes place at a moment of great concern for the continuing situation of grave unrest in the Middle East, both in Iraq and in the Holy Land. You are very familiar with the unequivocal position of the Holy See in this regard, expressed in numerous documents, through direct and indirect contacts, and in the many diplomatic efforts which have been made since you visited me, first at Castelgandolfo on 23 July 2001, and again in this Apostolic Palace on 28 May 2002.

It is the evident desire of everyone that this situation now be normalized as quickly as possible with the active participation of the international community and, in particular, the United Nations organization, in order to ensure a speedy return of Iraq's sovereignty, in conditions of security for all its people. The recent appointment of a head of state in Iraq and the formation of an interim Iraqi government are an encouraging step towards the attainment of this goal. May a similar hope for peace also be rekindled in the Holy Land and lead to new negotiations, dictated by a sincere and determined commitment to dialogue, between the government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

The threat of international terrorism remains a source of constant concern. It has seriously affected normal and peaceful relations between states and peoples since the tragic date of 11 September 2001, which I have not hesitated to call "a dark day in the history of humanity." In the past few weeks other deplorable events have come to light which have troubled the civic and religious conscience of all, and made more difficult a serene and resolute commitment to shared human values: in the absence of such a commitment neither war nor terrorism will ever be overcome. May God grant strength and success to all those who do not cease to hope and work for understanding between peoples, in respect for the security and rights of all nations and of every man and woman.

At the same time, Mr. President, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the great commitment of your government and of your nation's numerous humanitarian agencies, particularly those of Catholic inspiration, to overcoming the increasingly intolerable conditions in various African countries, where the suffering caused by fratricidal conflicts, pandemic illnesses and a degrading poverty can no longer be overlooked.

I also continue to follow with great appreciation your commitment to the promotion of moral values in American society, particularly with regard to respect for life and the family.

A fuller and deeper understanding between the United States of America and Europe will surely play a decisive role in resolving the great problems which I have mentioned, as well as so many others confronted by humanity today. May your visit, Mr. President, give new and powerful impetus to such cooperation.

Mr. President, as you carry out your lofty mission of service to your nation and to world peace, I assure you of my prayers and cordially invoke upon you God's blessings of wisdom, strength and peace.

May God bestow peace and freedom upon all mankind!

-- roger (ro@yahoo.com), June 04, 2004.

"Mr. President, your visit to Rome takes place at a moment of great concern for the continuing situation of grave unrest in the Middle East, both in Iraq and in the Holy Land," he said.

", expressed in numerous documents, through direct and indirect contacts, and in the many diplomatic efforts which have been made."

Hmmmmm... "You are very familiar with the unequivocal position of the Holy See in this regard..."

And I thought the Pope had no opinion on the war in Iraq? I hope Bush is aware of the Holy See's opinion, unlike some in this forum who think the Church is neutral on this issue!!!

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 04, 2004.

Let's agree to disagree. Our Holy Father is concerned and says so. He hasn't said that only his opinions count in the world. (If you can take us to where he said so, let's go.)

A serious concern and a point of view, of themselves are not binding on the consciences of everybody who is warned.

We are first told Pope Pius XII didn't speak enough of the evils of Nazi Germany; that he was Hitler's Pope.

Now, we're told Iraq is to be hands off, by another Pope? Is John Paul II Saddam's Pope? NO. He expressed a private opinion, not an ex cathedra teaching.

And whatever he might have spoken to Bush yesterday, it was not a condemnation of this war. Bush was not begging for pardon, nor was he ''squirming.''

It's the many who are appalled at the use of force against a monstruous dictator who continue to squirm and cry crocodile tears now. Well after the predictions of the left (which the Pope also feared) have NOT come to pass. What HAS been seen clearly is the removal of a cancerous tumor from the brain of the middle east; Saddam Hussein. The operation was successful. No one can complain the war was for oil, or for U.S. colonization or crusade. Not even was the flag of our liberating country raised in Iraq. If the Pope, God bless him, would have seen our flag flying over the Iraqis, he would be justified in judging us all guilty of injustice. But he hasn't.

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

Eugene, you better re-read the Holy Father's words:

"You are very familiar with the unequivocal position of the Holy See in this regard, expressed in numerous documents, through direct and indirect contacts, and in the many diplomatic efforts which have been made."

He said "the Holy See"! He didn't say "my opinion". Eugene, what is the Holy See?

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 04, 2004.

Ed,

You sound like a flaming leftist, attempting to smear our illustrious leader. The Pope should have been more folksy and hospitable to George and Laura after they traveled all that way to meet with him. In his heart of hearts, I'm certain the man is a hawk. He won't admit it because he wants to appear to follow the teachings of Christ. Let us not forget that God himself flip flopped when it came to violence, first saying "an eye for an eye" and later "turn the other cheek". Catholics are free to choose which version suits their fancy. I prefer "an eye for an eye". That said, the Vatican visit today was a smashing success, just like the war.

In Christ,

Antonio

-- Antonio (TonyO@Roman.Forum), June 04, 2004.

An amateur comedian has preceded me, Ed. He's crazy.

The Holy See is merely another term for the Pope, Ed. No one is denying he warned Bush not to start a war.

But Bush didn't start it. The skyjackers of al Qaeda did it on Sept 11th 2001. They only missed destroying the Pentagon by a few yards. That is a declaration of war, even if we dismissed their atrocity in New York City. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor we entered the war where? In Germany. Iraq is culpable in all al Qaeda actions against America and the west. Iraq must share the blame with al Qaeda. Just as Germany shared the blame with her ally, Japan.

Once more I'll call you back to the words of Jesus Christ: ''There will be wars and rumors of war.'' If our world were already Paradise, there wouldn't be war anymore. That's what Jesus was foretelling. We are in the world, a dangerous place. Good men have to defend themselves and make a better world. Pray and have faith in God's Divine Will. What He permits to happen is a mystery; and war is one of the things He foretold. Just wars and unjust ones. We fight a just war.

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

The Pope has long praised the Polish soldiers who fought (against Germans) and died "for freedom" in World War II. And my read on his address is to say "well, yeah!" or "well duh!" to his urging the US to quickly normalize the situation (as if we aren't trying to do so as fast as humanly possible, and indeed succeeding quicker than most critics thought possible a year ago).

No one needs to rebuke us about a dozen or so Iraqi convicts and thugs getting tortured is wrong...we've been beating ourselves silly for months over this...all while the outraged Italian mobs are absolutely SILENT about tragedies worse than Abu Garhib in dozens of African countries as well as human slavery in Europe.

I also note that the Pope praises Bush for his work to protect the family and morality in the USA (ahem...moral causes the peace-niks are conspiciously absent in ).

Of course the US is trying to solve what it can in the Holy Land...but then, we don't own or occupy that piece of the world so there's not a whole lot we can do...and Israel, though an ally has always been independent and capable of acting on its own...so it's not like everything the Jews do is directly the USA's problem. After all, it isn't the Jews or Americans who are sending Palestinians to their deaths by suicide bombs and racist hate mongering.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 04, 2004.

sorry to reiterate, but i wanted to emphasize eugene's words, below:

...the predictions of the left (which the Pope also feared) have NOT come to pass. What HAS been seen clearly is the removal of a cancerous tumor from the brain of the middle east...No one can complain the war was for oil, or for U.S. colonization or crusade. Not even was the flag of our liberating country raised in Iraq. If the Pope...would have seen our flag flying over the Iraqis, he would be justified in judging us all guilty of injustice. But he hasn't...

very well put. the same people who are so concerned with civilian casualties dont seem to raise a stink at the carnage in africa, the opression of the poor in India, etc.; they are the same ones who were so fond of leonid and gorbachev. just ANYTHING that is counter to the US will give them a sense of purpose.

-- jas (jas_r_22@hotmail.com), June 04, 2004.

We can forgive it when foreign protest is aimed at Bush. It wouldn't be politically correct in socialist states to admire a man like Bush. They will hang him in effigy on the eve of a D-Day Memorial service. To honor the United States, of course.

It's our own American brethren who should cover their faces and keep quiet. They ought to realize how effeminate their objections are, to decent people. They'll bash George W. as if he were of no account.

But if a Catholic were to subject Barney Frank or Ted Kennedy to these indignities, he/she would be accused of ''teaching hate'' / Their bunch have been consistently reprehensible for decades; as Kerry has been. But don't dare pursue them. They all give women ''choice'',

What about our Holy Father? Is HE in favor of women's ''right to choose''---? ? ? Hasn't he scolded any of that leftist group of hypocrites? Are they perceived as ''squirming'' at what John Paul II says?

Oh, Come on, Chavez. Let's not go to extremes!

--

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

Saying Iraq needed a regime change because of wmd, sidestepping the U.N., then not finding any wmd after the overthrow is kind of like replacing your car's starter when the battery is the problem, then saying the car would have eventually needed a starter anyway. But what else is a president to do? W. would probably rather be remembered for a miscalculation than as a pushover. Anyone remember the flack President Clinton took for sending a cruise missile after Saddam for planning to assassinate George Sr.?

-- mark a (stillasking@middle.age), June 04, 2004.

Antonio, I quote the Pope, what he said literally, and that makes me a “leftist”. You on the other hand can read the Pope’s mind and immediately can determine that he’s a hawk! LOL! That’s certainly a word I’ve never heard used before to describe our Holy Father. That’s quite a talent you have - reading minds, tell me Antonio, what am I thinking now...

By the way, I am a member of the Conservative Party of Canada. I am not a "leftist". I just don’t like it when a country unilaterally declares war on another country under the pretense of wanting to make it a better place to live for its citizens.

You have a whole new take on Catholicism: 1. God does flip flops. 2. Catholics now have a choice of one of two versions of God’s law - whichever suits their fancy. Amazing!

Antonio, you call the war a “smashing success”. You’re definition of success is a far cry from mine. Let’s recap for a moment to see what kind of “success” Mr Bush has accomplished so far:

1. No weapons of mass destruction have been found. You will recall this was the first reason of choice for declaring war on the sovereign nation of Iraq.

2. Since the beginning of the war with Iraq, enrollment in Al Qaeda has soared to 18,000 in 60 countries - the very reason some claim Bush declared war on Iraq in the first place remember (see Eugene’s comment re: 9/11) - to fight and eradicate terrorism - to seek out and destroy Al Qaeda? And you call this success?

3. Under Bush’s watch the Abu Ghraib incident may serve to promote hatred of all Americans by the Arab world to a pitch never before witnessed - no small accomplishment, I must say.

4. The U.S. in unilaterally declaring war in Iraq have alienated many countries in the free world, countries which to this point had shared common values of morality and decency with America. Important strategic relations with countries like Canada, France, Germany, etc. have been strained to the limit. Bush will perhaps win over some leaders with his Texas charm on his current trip, but it will take years to win over some populations I can assure you. America is hated like never before in some of what used to be, the friendliest places.

5. America had a booming, bustling, vibrant, improving economy before the war started. Bush has been spending 8 billion dollars a month since he declared “Mission Accomplished” over a year ago. Do you know what happens when you spend 8 billion dollars a month for a year and have nothing to show for it? How long do you think America can afford this before it affects the American economy and subsequently the world economy? Don’t you remember how Vietnam fuelled world inflation?

6. The good news gets better. What post-war plans for Iraq did Bush have in place when he started all of this? None. That’s quite obvious now to all who pick up a newspaper and read it. Let’s let the 25,000,000 Iraqis fend for themselves! It’s the American way!

So in summary, you’d call this a success would you? Forgive me if I don’t happen to agree with you.

Eugene, I won’t argue with you about what the term “Holy See” means. I will refer you to the definition as provided by the Catholic Encyclopaedia here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07424b.htm - The Holy See is the Pope, the Hierarchy of the Church, in other words, The Roman Curia - the body responsible for, among other things, the teaching of the faith.

Eugene, did you say Bush didn’t start the war in Iraq, the skyjackers on 9/11 did? Excuse me? Well now, that’s interesting. That’s official reason #3 we’ve heard recently, here in the forum. First, it was Weapons of Mass Destruction. Then it was to “bring democracy” to Iraq. Now it’s the Saudi skyjackers on 9/11that caused America to go to war with Iraq. Amazing!

Let me tell you how much influence 9/11 had on George Bush’s decision to wage war with Iraq - zero, zilch, nada, squat! Bush’s former Treasury Secretary O’Neill, who was also a permanent member of Bush’s National Security Council, has stated that only 10 days into the infant Bush Presidency, Saddam was clearly number 1 on Bush’s hit list. He’s stated that any and all discussions were never a question of if Saddam would go down, but rather how and when. Plans for a “post-Saddam Iraq” were drawn up in January and February of 2001 a full 6 months prior to 9/11. I am not saying this, one of Bush’s very own cabinet members is. Even O’Neill acknowledged that the pre-emptive action Bush took against Iraq was really stretching the limit in terms of whether the war was ethical or not and he was in Bush’s inner cabinet! Any attempt at linking 9/11 to the reasons for waging war with Iraq is groping for straws at best.

Joe, I agree, what’s the big deal about torturing a dozen or so Iraqi prisoners? Everybody does it. It’s part of the “just war”. What’s a few Iraqis when democracy hangs in the balance?

Bush has done good things to protect, preserve and restore the family unit to its former glory in America, but how does that justify pre-emptive action on a sovereign nation without world support based on flimsy and faulty intelligence? Your logic here escapes me.

Joe, you say America doesn’t own Israel? Are you serious? America influences Israel in everything it does. While America may not have a deed of land to any parcel in the middle east, every leader in the world looks to America for a solution in the middle east. Any leader in the world who knows what is going on will tell you that without U.S. involvement in the middle east there can be no solution. American influence in the middle east is so deep there can be no solution without her involvement.

Jas, I agree with you that were America to display aggression against other countries who persecute their people more than the Iraqis have like Sudan, North Korea, China, etc. or if they showed compassionate concern for other countries and peoples in dire need of help from famine or disease, like the countries in Africa who are ravaged with aids and starvation, then I might be more inclined to believe in their declared noble motives for waging war on Iraq.

America just doesn’t get it. You can’t declare war on a sovereign nation just because you don’t like them. It just doesn’t work. Hitler tried it and it just didn’t work. You can’t impose your values and principles on peoples of other cultures and ethic backgrounds and claim you are doing it in the name of morality and decency. I know this will come as a shock to most Americans, but - some people just don’t want to live like you do!

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 04, 2004.

I agree to a 95% with you Ed.

My 5%: I approved of the invasion to unseat Saddam, but wanted an Iraqi government like the way the USA did in Afghanistan. USA troops out after 1 year or less. After all, the Saddam backers were mostly at Bagddad, Fallouja, and Tikrit. There was no need to mess with the Shia's....

Mr. Bush created an occupation to make profits out of the oil.

For that I blame Vice-President Cheney. He has a lot to gainfrom the occupation. The Man should go.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), June 04, 2004.

Well now, that’s interesting. That’s official reason #3 we’ve heard recently, here in the forum. First, it was Weapons of Mass Destruction. Then it was to “bring democracy” to Iraq. Now it’s the Saudi skyjackers on 9/11that caused America to go to war with Iraq. Amazing!

You left out one of the most important Official Reasons. "Saddam was a Bad Guy" should be inserted in the list just after "WMD" and before "Liberation".

FYI,

Antonio

-- Antonio (TonyO@Roman.Forum), June 04, 2004.

Some of you need to read the whole address by the Holy Father that I posted on another thread. Simply falling in line with the liberal media and trying to make the Pope say something he didn't or to ignore what he did say so as to emphasise your own political agenda is unChristian.

In Christ, Bill

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

Here's the link: HOLY FATHER'S ADDRESS TO PRES. BUSH - text

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

Ed:
My preface said right away we can agree to disagree.
You have absolutely nothing correct with which to dispute my words in the matter. Nothing nada ninguna cosa.

What you posit is your own considered opinion. That's all the Holy See held; and it's not enough. You feel justified, fine. It's not relevant at all. Opinions are you know what.

Our country's gov't didn't ''act unilaterally''. We aren't just one; we are a raft of willing members of the coalition. Just because you are beholden to a world body (UNO) of dubious enough authority to give or not give a license to disarm the regime of known lawbreaker Saddam Hussein, is no skin off Americans' noses. You'll have only the comfort of belief in your principles. Good for you.

Furthermore, as I stated above; the UNSC declared Saddam in material breech with Resolution 1441; which called for his immediate disarmament by any means necessary. This was the authority upheld by Bush & the coalition.

You wipe the bottom of your empty barrel in counting off several dubious reasons why the U.S. destroyed the regime of Saddam Hussein.

I named the true reason. Whether or not you accept it, a declaration of war was served us; not Canada, the U.S., on 9-11. Henceforth, we were at war with, as Bush put it clearly: those rogue states which harbor, aid/abet, supply or finance al Qaeda's global terrorist activity. We were not dependent on others to judge what course we would choose. Yet Bush made the required diplomatic efforts for a year before giving Saddam an ultimatum. This was NOT simply invasion for invasion's sake. It is a just war against declared enemies of our country.

There is morbid humor in the idea you denounce the fall of such beasts as Saddam & his supporters, under the pretext of some *sanctity* you call his sovereignty. Truly, as Lenin said; your type can be only useful idiots as you affect Saddam and the like. They laugh at guys like you, Ed. Saddam had NO lawful sovereignty at all. God destroyed him, and we were His servants.

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

Ed, The Pope has asked the president to give Iraq soverenty again, guess what, that is the plan, and we are on schedule. A lot of people in Europe didn't believe the US would, why? Because in the past, prior to our current President, we often didn't keep our word.

I still don't put much trust in the UN, it is not a world government as the Pope would like, instead it is a buch of states after their own self interest and using the UN as a vehicle to bribe each other.

bill

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

More insight on the morning is here:

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm? recnum=30003

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

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor we entered the war where? In Germany. Iraq is culpable in all al Qaeda actions against America and the west. Iraq must share the blame with al Qaeda. Just as Germany shared the blame with her ally, Japan.

All I add is GOD HELP CANADA if the U.S. ever gets attacked by Mexico!!!

-- Antonio (TonyO@Roman.Forum), June 05, 2004.

Yeah-- You're so funny. Har-har.

Keep your day job.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 05, 2004.

Roger you ask "where did the Pope menition the abuse of prisoners?"

You didn't read what you yourself posted. What did you think the Holy Father meant by: "In the past few weeks other deplorable events have come to light which have troubled the civic and religious conscience of all, and made more difficult a serene and resolute commitment to shared human values: in the absence of such a commitment neither war nor terrorism will ever be overcome. May God grant strength and success to all those who do not cease to hope and work for understanding between peoples, in respect for the security and rights of all nations and of every man and woman." ?

Eugene asked "When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor we entered the war where? In Germany."

No, we entered the war on Japan. Then Germany formally declared war on the USA. I suppose "No thanks" MAY have been an option. The USA made it clear that it was fighting Germany, NOT because of any imagined connexion to Pearl Harbor, but to liberate the countries Germany had invaded.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 07, 2004.

Yes, Steve: the US war in Europe was a war of liberation. We saw ourselves coming to Europe's aid.

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 07, 2004.

Eugene realize the Germany had broken a number of those packs just before Pearl Harbor. Germany decided to fight us because they underestimated us.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), June 07, 2004.

So you admit Eugene, that the USA fought Germany as a result of what the Germans did, not any decision by the USA to blame Germany for Pearl Harbor. But Saddam and Al-Quaeda hadn’t signed any Axis Alliance or anything like it. In fact if Osama had dared to set foot in Saddam’s Iraq his head would have left his body faster than Eugene can come out with a non-sequitur.

“Our country must be given the credit for preventing a futre conflagration” (Eugene)

Catholic teaching gives absolutely no room for justifying a war merely because it may have prevented a larger war in future (even if this could be known for certain). And certainly not for the purpose of securing our oil supply.

Libya?? Now you’re really getting desperate. Gaddafi rolled over years ago when he handed over the Lockerbie bombers.

“100 million” ? Arithmetic’s not your strong point is it? Even if taking as correct all your absurd assumptions (that the Afghan war and Gaddafi’s softer line are somehow part of the Iraq war, that the wars were merely to “liberate” populations, etc. etc.). Populations are Afghanistan 22 million, Iraq 23 million, Libya 5 million. Total 50 million.

As for your idea that Saddam in 2003 had more global power than Hitler did in 1941-2, words fail me. How can I argue against someone who (I assume) actually believes this nonsense?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 07, 2004.

Libya?? Now you’re really getting desperate. Gaddafi rolled over years ago when he handed over the Lockerbie bombers.

He held firm that he had no banned weapons until the Iraq war, then he fessed up. Libya has long been in American sights over its acquisition of WMD. In June of 2003, John Bolton, the under- secretary of state for arms control and international security, warned that the regime was exploiting the suspension of United Nations sanctions after the Lockerbie trial.

So, no, Gaddafi did not 'roll over', as you put it, when he handed in the terrorists. Instead he was playing a gambit.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), June 07, 2004.

P.S. -
All right, Steve. Fifty millions liberated by the grace of God. (I hope you didn't object.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 07, 2004.

Bill, I didn’t mean that handing over the Lockerbie bombers was the end-point of Gaddafi’s journey. But the evidence shows he would have continued along it regardless of what happened in Iraq.

“''Your idea that Saddam in 2003 had more global power than Hitler did in 1941-2, words fail me.'' (I HOPE.) Once more you lie.” (Eugene)

It’s a worry when you can’t even remember what you said a few hours ago:

“Germany had immense military power in WW II; but not global power, up to the ending of hostilites. There was nuclear power being developed; and maybe biological warfare as well. But it was hardly under the direct control of a tyrant with unlimited money and oil. Oil is what drives ships, aviation and armed convoys. Iraq has oil to spare, and, money as well. Iraq posed as great a threat, then, in today's circumstances, as Hitler had in 1938-45. Anyone who denies it is a fool.”

Try to make sure the old brain is in gear before hitting the keyboard again Eugene. If you must be illogical, at least try not to contradict yourself.

As jas has said, "sorry to reiterate, but i wanted to emphasize eugene's words, below:

“...the predictions of the left (which the Pope also feared) have NOT come to pass. What HAS been seen clearly is the removal of a cancerous tumor from the brain of the middle east...No one can complain the war was for oil, or for U.S. colonization or crusade. Not even was the flag of our liberating country raised in Iraq. If the Pope...would have seen our flag flying over the Iraqis, he would be justified in judging us all guilty of injustice. But he hasn't...”

"What HAS been seen clearly" is a massive fillip to the growth of the "cancerous tumor" of Al-Quaeda into Iraq. Eugene AGAIN contradicts himself in his increasingly desperate attempts to justify the unjustifiable. He has just been telling us the war WAS to secure the USA’s vital oil supplies, and that it WAS a crusade by Christians against the evil Muslims. And the FLAG?! Give me a break. It’s OK to do anything to a country as long as you don’t display a piece of colored nylon? No doubt the main reason for not displaying the US flag is because it would make it easier for the millions of Iraqis whom the invasion has driven to hate the USA, to see which buildings to bomb.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 08, 2004.

-- (italics@off.com), June 08, 2004.

Bill, I didn’t mean that handing over the Lockerbie bombers was the end-point of Gaddafi’s journey. But the evidence shows he would have continued along it regardless of what happened in Iraq.

No, the evidence shows that he was actually making progress on developing WMDs after handing over the terrorists and having the UN lift the sanctions on him. It wasn't until the US & Briton did some good espionage work outing some of his WMD developments about the same time as the Iraq liberation that showed him he could indeed be next that he decided to change his ways on WMDs.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 08, 2004.

Steve:
For some reason you feel I'm ''desperately'' trying to save face here because you are so clearly right about Iraq. But it needs little effort, up till now-- to debunk all you've been saying. I would be interested in seeing what you can paste together here; what it is that's self-contradictory:

''Make sure that old brain is in gear hitting the keyboard again, Eugene. If you must be illogical, at least try not to contradict yourself.''

Was something illogical? Did Eugene contradict himself, or did he contradict your old brain? How about producing this stuff? Don't be shy; I can take it. You haven't been making so much progress anyway. At least have some fun on your way to total irrelevance.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 08, 2004.