The war in Iraq

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I was brought up Catholic and really became Catholic in my 20's I believe in the church and the teachings, however I am perplexed right now. I know that war is not the answer, but if we did try all diplomacy and there is so much cruelty in Iraq as recorded and we sat back and did nothing is that also the answer. I know from our church history we did take the back door approach to Hitler and ignored the on goings in Germany and later apologized. I feel right now I am on the fence and this is the first time that my heart can't find the truth. I do not like war, but I also have been taught to set back and watch what I believe to be the treatment of the Irag people unjustly is not right either. How do you put this in persepective how do your jugle the social justice issues in iraq.

-- Denise Levesque (dlevesque@cfl.rr.com), March 24, 2003

Answers

Yeah.

I'd like to know about this too. This kind of ties in with St. Joan of Arc. It was ok for her to fight against England for her France. The French were in pretty bad shape too. So, I guess the U.S. will have to ask for forgiveness after all of this war stuff is over. I guess that sometimes we simply cannot avoid the sin of war because we just can't understand letting people suffer without our help--war.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.


It is unjust to force your ideology or religion on another nation or person. That is how the Islamic nations operate. We have now stooped to their level. This is seen as an attack on Islam. We can now expect worse terrorism on American soil than if we had never started this war. Those who live by the sword also die by it, as Jesus said.

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), March 24, 2003.

Hi Mike.

"It is unjust to force your ideology or religion on another nation or person."

I thought the U.S. was cleaning up the "weapons of mass destruction" and allowing Iraq to form a new government of their own design. I kind of consider Hussein a "weapon of mass destruction". I don't believe that the U.S. ever said anything about instituting Christianity or The U.S. Constitution in Iraq. Did they?

It would be nice if Americans could go in and imperialize Iraq, but that just isn't our style, now is it?

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.


Read the bible. God is on our side with this one. First of all Iraq is a major enemy of Irael. This war has to do with protecting Irael as well. And when we protect God's people God looks out for us. The Catholic Church politically would commit suicide if it publically said they were for the war. In matters like this you need to think about it yourself and analyze the facts, then come to your own conclusion. There is too much politics involved with this war so you need to form your own opinion.

Oracle

-- Ries Oracle (RiesOracle@hotmail.com), March 24, 2003.


"The Catholic Church politically would commit suicide if it publically said they were for the war"

come, come.

even those Catholics that chose to dismiss the Pope's opinion that the war is unjust do not make this accusation. what exactly is in it for the Pope to go against the US government?

he has made clear, as has the US (save for the characteristic Bush- ism at the outset, but which he quickly corrected) and others, that this is not a Christian Crusade. the Pope may also be determined to see off the false hysteria that rose around Pius XII during WWII.

bear in mind that JPII has a consistent record of saying no to war.

if you think that the Pope is putting Catholic just war doctrine second, and politics first, then that is a very serious allegation that you no doubt will be able to prove.

the way to answer this is to get to some just war sources an work through the analysis. of course, whatever your conclusion, please be advised that the Pope's analysis is the correct one.

-- Ribbon (priribbon@locnet.com), March 25, 2003.



I’ve been wanting to comment on this subject for a long time. My feelings are mixed. I am a Canadian citizen and while I support my government for the stand they have finally taken, I cannot support them for the way in which their stance came about. Our government sat on the fence on this issue for over a year waiting to see which way the political winds would blow. When it seemed apparent Tony Blair (Prime Minister of the United Kingdom) would lose even the support of his own party in the impending vote, and when public opposition in Canada against the impending war was growing in leaps and bounds, then and only then, did our Prime Minister express his reluctance to assist our American ally. For this and for any other isolated demonstrations/outbursts against my American friends, as a Canadian, I sincerely apologise. Many years of liberal-dominated foreign policy in Canada have reduced us to insignificant bystanders on the world political stage. This, from a country which only 50 short years ago had the third largest navy in the world.

In the course of American history I believe this war is unprecedented in that, never in the past has America gone to war without at least one of three conditions being evident: 1.) The United States was under direct attack (I have not seen any concrete evidence that Sadaam Hussein was involved with Sept. 11 directly. One might better argue for an attack on Saudi Arabia, since 17 out of 21 terrorists linked to 9/11 were Saudis). 2.) An ally of the United States was under direct attack. 3.) There was a clear, general consensus of world opinion that war was the only final and therefore inevitable, solution available. To me, none of these conditions were evident when America attacked Iraq and therefore justified the action they took.

What was the hurry in the United States (and it's allies) declaring war on Iraq? I realise that Sadaam was in violation of some 18 resolutions over the past 12 years; but I don’t believe an attack on the United States was imminent or that they were in immediate danger of any sort from him. Time was on their side. What would have been the harm of extending the deadline for Sadaam to comply with U.N. resolution 1441 by 30-90 days? This would have appeased 99 percent of the world community. Obviously there are some who could and would never be satisfied short of a world commitment not to use force under any circumstances. It seems to me, had coalition forces done this, one more unexplored avenue would have been examined. The problem apparnetly was in George Bush rushing to action and sending 220,000 troups to the Middle East and then having them sit around for weeks at phenominal cost. Hence the very unrealistic U.S.- desired deadline of March 17 (some 10 days more).

George Bush seems to have little support outside of the United States for his rush to action. Fifteen million people in 60 major cities around the world protested impending war with Iraq at the beginning of March on one day. These sorts of numbers ought not to be ignored by those who are in a position of power to make decisions. Americans seem to be standing solidly behind Bush, but in viewing the news reports that come from the United States, I question whether the American people are being presented all of the facts in a fair and equitable manner. CNN, a supposedly unbiased “world” news organisation, continually refers to the Iraqis as the “enemy” and to the American troops as “we”. Coalition forces, albeit quite smaller in number, are rarely given credit for their effort. Does anyone know that Australia has sent 2000 troops to help in the conflict? Australians bleed real blood too, I am told. American broadcasts have not been reporting the civilian casualties to date. Other world news agencies have reported that in the first 5 days of fighting, some 85 civilians have been killed (some 20 more in number than combatants from both sides).

And what is with the pressure being put on those Americans who disagree with their government's position in this war? Those who protest are being chastised as unpatriotic and unsupportive of American troops who are now in harm’s way. The American government has masterfully used the greatest tool they possibly can in this instance - American patriotism, to bring the rank and file of the American public into line with their foreign policy in this matter. What has not wanting to be involved with this war got to do with not supporting the troops that are merely doing what they have been told to do? Nothing! Yet this is heard time and time again by those who represent the American government, and those who support them, as a means of putting a favourable patriotic spin on their actions.

The Holy Father would like us to settle this conflict in other ways. I don’t believe he is convinced, nor am I, that all political peaceful avenues have been explored. While I have always supported my American friends in most of what they have done in the past, I cannot justify their rush to action in this instance. I am conservative in my political persuasion by nature and I support George Bush in most of what he has done to date. I see him to be a kind, compassionate, no-nonsense type of Christian but I am very puzzled as to what is driving him in this particular cause. It seems to have gotten very personal with him. Could it be that 9/11 has had an inordinate amount of influence and effect on him?

The world coalition in Afghanistan seems to have quickly forgotten its promise of help to restore that country to prosperity and freedom. Oh, there have been token gestures from countries particularly the United States, since the war subsided; but real progress in Afghanistan is slow and sporadic at best. The same spin that was put on Afghanistan when some of the goals were not realised (eg. apprehension of UBL and his band of terrorists), is now being utilised in Iraq; that is, that coalition forces went into Afghanistan to rid the country of oppression - the Taliban. Women can now shed their burqas, politicians proudly proclaim! Who among us hasn’t heard this argument in the past year? Now, in Iraq, the new beat heard on the war drums is “we’ve come to liberate the people of Iraq!” Excuse me? Since when did this become an objective in going to war with Iraq? Who appointed America and the United Kingdom and their allies liberators of Iraq? If this is a valid argument, why have they not freed other countries who have dictatorships round the world before this, like Cuba? While freedom is a desirable anticipated after-effect of the war with Iraq, it certainly wasn’t grounds for invading her in the first place.

And what if no weapons of mass destruction are found? Are the powers- that-be above planting a few to ensure public opinion remains solidly behind them? Addtionally no doubt, if no WMD are found, the argument of liberating Iraq will be heard more frequently. Some might ask, who will be next on Mr. Bush’s list? I hear Pakistan now has nuclear capability or is very near to having it. In addition we are told, many Al-Qaeda have gone to hiding in Pakistan. If Pakistan does not perform according to American demands in the future, are they next? What about Syria and Iran and North Korea? The list is endless. As per American foreign policy, who is allowed to have weapons of mass destruction and who is not? Can anyone enlighten me on this? Is Russia permitted to keep theirs, particularly since they have been so careless about the way in which they are guarded and maintained?

What would have been the problem in providing another 90 days to Sadaam to comply? Granted, based on past history, he probably wouldn’t have complied anyway but in the least, we could have answered all those critics who say we did not explore all possible solutions to avoid armed conflict. Hopefully, someone can enlighten me.

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 25, 2003.


Ed - I also am Canadian and feel the same way as yourself regarding the fence sitting. We have sadly depended on the U.S.A. for over forty years now which began 1957 and the " stepping " down over the issue of aeronautics development.

We had the most developed aeroplane " The Arrow " then along with a strong dollar and very bright future. Deifenbacher let it all go down the drain as he was a Royalist and candy-assed when it came to dealing with the U.S.A.

OOOOOHHHH Canada

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 25, 2003.


Right on Jean! Right on! You've said more in three lines than I said in three pages!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 25, 2003.


I found a great deal of intelligent, responsible and above all CATHOLIC information (on both sides of the war) at this web site:

http://www.catholicjustwar.org

-- Christine L. :-) (
christine_lehman@hotmail.com), March 25, 2003.


I appreciate your all your answers, but I still am torn about the one issue. take the diplomacy out of it. Is it right for us to sit back and watch Iraq themselves kill innocent individuals, just because we are killing during a war. This is my dilemma. to sit back, forget about the political issues?

-- denise (dlevesque@cfl.rr.com), March 25, 2003.


Denise, we should never get complacent over the killing of innocent people. We have to strive in every way we can to make things better. We can pray when it seems all other hope is lost. But we musn't act on our own. To do so can lead to chaos and anarchy.

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 25, 2003.

Denise - I feel your asking a very important question on basic morals and responsiveness of an adult human being. The USA has taen on the facade of being the Divine Moralist on many world platforms.

Vietnam was lesson not learned for them. This current issue has opened a new venue of hate/greed released under the guise of Christianity.

Bush I feel is as dangerous only presenting a different venue of standards. The USA has not become fully cognizant of Authority and Total Control Methodologies and the psychological differences.

When you look at the method of " control " of the laity in the church you must decide which it is for that has been the formation of your own mind in these matters.

Follow your heart and feelings not what you are told.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 25, 2003.


Ed,

I think you are right on. Our nation was temporarily insane when it invaded Iraq. And still is. Bush could repent at anytime... don't expect it though. How would he win the next election? That floored me when the news read the invasion was termed, "Operation Iraqi Freedom!" What happened to disarmament? And you are right about, who's next, North Korea, Saudi Arabia or any of the other Islamic or Communist nations, how do they view us and we view them in light of this new preemptive strike notion. I'm afraid there is no enlightening to be done, it is dark.

Sincerely

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), March 25, 2003.


So the Canadians at this site are confused and sitting on the fence? You think the Americans are not being told the whole story and have made a rash judgement? So, let's check the story we are told in Canada. Iraqi people have been used and abused by this madman for years. The food and medicine for oil program, although a good idea, fails to ensure that the really needy get the help. Instead, it is a well known fact that Saddam feeds and gives the most help to his own army and their families and the people he favors and let the rest of the country be damned. This has created a country of underfed and malnourished children for years. This man has no "soul" and feels no remorse at his actions ie. killing of 5000 Kurds with chemical weapons. He has no social conscience only whatever he chooses to do. This man has threatened the safety of every man, woman and child in the free world by his choice of weaponry and his association with the terrorists of the world. In 1991, I questioned why the US didn't just send in a specialty team and blow him away. The answer I got was that this was murder. Really? So insteaad the world waits and he executes those against him and lets the children of his country starve and we just wait. For what? Sins are not just of commission but of ommisssion too. I figure those ones are ours--those of us who stood by and let this madman have his way for years. And then we have the ones who wash their hands of the mess and hide behind the UN--Jean Chretien comes to mind. I really hope if the day comes that Canada is attacked with an act of terror that the French come running right over to our defense because the USA would have every reason to sit by and give us the same kind of help that we just gave them. My fondest hope is that in that first "decapitation" attack, Saddam and all his kind were in that buliding and are now in the next life and done ruining Iraq's in this one. There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven.---a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build---a time to be silent and a time to speak---- --a time for war and a time for peace. Ellen

-- Ellen K. Hornby (dkh@canada.com), March 26, 2003.

Ellen, I agree with you that Sadaam is not a very nice person. But the “Coalition” forces did not declare was on Iraq because he was starving his people. If they don’t find weapons of mass destruction soon you’ll no doubt be hearing about all the atrocities committed under his regime more and more, and what liberation has meant to the people of Iraq. And what of all the other dictators who have abused and murdered their people for their own gain? Why haven’t coalition forces declared war on them? The United States might better clean up their own neighbourhood of these despots first. They could start with Cuba, and move through Central and South America, then they could spread throughout the world freeing millions from tyranny as they went along. They could call this campaign “Operation World Freedom”. Who appointed a few countries to be liberators for the world? They did themselves. That’s the problem I have with all of this.

The Americans from the outset claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They claimed they had proof and would show the world. On three separate occasions they shared this proof with others. Most who saw what the Americans had to show for proof were unconvinced. Some countries were not shown any proof but yet, were asked to commit their soldiers to this great cause. If the Americans knew the Iraqis to have WMD's then why didn’t they give this proof to the U.N. inspectors and let them expose the regime for all the world to see? Why didn’t they give them the coordinates where all these stockpiles supposedly existed and let the inspectors go directly to them rather than wasting time with chasing down dead-ends?

Governments will oftentimes tell you what you want to hear. To give you an example of more manipulation by the news media, yesterday it was disclosed on an American news network that the cleanup and rebuilding of the infrastructure in Iraq would be massive. The Americans were committing in excess of “$400 million dollars” to this “humanitarian” effort. This amount would be used for “immediate” relief to supply food, shelter, medicine, etc. and that more funds would be appropriated for the long-term reconstruction. Well coincidentally, I happened to change channel to a Canadian broadcast and they happened to be discussing the financial implications that the war would cost the U.S. A reporter stationed in Washington disclosed that the U.S. has committed $537 million dollars for immediate aid to the people of Iraq. This was in keeping with what the American network had disclosed. The reporter went on to say however, that America’s commitment in total is $1.7 billion dollars toward the overall cleanup and rebuilding. Oddly enough this amount is the same amount that the U.S. has in frozen assets in accounts of Sadaam Hussein and his regime. It is also an amount the United Nations has declared is far too low to have any real long-lasting effect in terms of the overall improvement of Iraq given the anticipated destruction that will take place. But even more telling was the next bit of information the reporter offered. He said that although $1.7 billion dollars has been committed to Iraq for humanitarian aid and reconstruction, the American government’s commitment in the coming year to four other countries: Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Turkey totals $7 billion dollars. These countries were not attacked and destroyed completely through war, and yet the average amount of aid to each of these countries surpasses that of Iraq’s! It’s this kind of information that seems to be withheld over and over again on U.S. networks when discussing the American position and justifying its presence in Iraq without a world consensus.

I could be sold very easily on helping in the war with Iraq. I am all for ridding the world of weapons that can annihilate the masses. But please, show me the proof before you ask me to put my ass on the line, or my son’s or daughter’s ass! The United States is Canada’s largest trading partner. Canada will no doubt pay a heavy price for its stance. We will not be far behind France and the other no-shows when it comes to economic and diplomatic retribution for our opposition. The U.S. Ambassador to Canada has already said as much by emphatically stating that America is shocked at the stance Canada has taken. We owe our freedom, stability and peace to our Southern neighbours. There's no question about that. The Ambassador was quick to remind us that were Canada under attack, the U.S. wouldn’t be sitting on any fence for a year, nor even questioning what it was they had to do. They would have provided their full support immediately.

George Bush hasn't convinced the world that his cause is an honourable one and that is the problem. His policies in this area to my mind, are inconsistent. He treats countries with WMD's differently. He treats countries that harbour terrorists differently. I would just like to know what the rules are, and that there is a level playing field for all countries who commit their troops to harm’s way while cleaning up and freeing the world of tyranny and oppression .

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 26, 2003.



This anti-war attitude is tantamount to a group of cowardice men standing by and watching a child or woman be violated!

We have thousands of heroes over there in that country facing pure and unadulterated evil -- the face of Satan -- an evil which is a stench in the nostrils of God, and makes our skin crawl. It must be faced head-on. We cannot go on ad infinitum appeasing this evil and pretending it's just going to go away.

We have let it go on too long already, and if we don't stop it now, this murderous thug and his worshiping followers will fester like the necrotic cancer they are until they metasticize the entire mideast and the rest of the free world.

No guts, no glory!

Gail

P.S. I dare say, these anti-war protesters would feel quite differently if they had a government like Saddam, if they lived in abject fear every moment of their lives, if their children were being used a guinea pigs in their leaders "scientific projects". But, no, they live in comfort and relative security -- SECURITY THAT WAS BOUGHT AT A EXTRAORDINARY PRICE -- and they have the unmitigated gall to spit in the face of the heroic, and hand their allegiance over to the Evil One!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 26, 2003.


Would the John Waymes here feel quite the same if it were their son.brother or husband dodging shells,bullets, gas, bacteria, and who knows what else. When your only son comes home in a flag draped casket will you say "well we saved those people from a despot, and it was well worth the price" I bet you wouldldn't. It's easy to send someone else's kid over, isn' it?

-- cupid (love@sursum corda.com), March 26, 2003.

What Are We Fighting For? From: Fr. Moderator: A report has come to TRADITIO that in an effort to appease the religious intolerance of other countries, American soldiers are being forced to leave their religion at home as they depart to fight for our liberties. The Rutherford Institute reports that American troops deployed to the Middle East have been ordered not to wear religious jewelry, sing hymns, or express their faith publicly in other ways.

This order is an unfortunate case of history repeating itself. As one reporter noted, "In the Gulf War a decade ago, the U.S. military went out of its way to stop soldiers from wearing religious symbols of faith or singing hymns, so as not to offend Muslims." I personally have spoken to U.S. military who have confirmed this story. Even in the U.S. military encampments, religious services could not be announced over the loudspeaker. Code words had to be used, like: "The billiards tournament will begin in Tent 3-A at 10:00."

We often say when we engage in these military actions that we are helping to spread liberties around the world. Yet it seems that the government (whether Republican or Democratic) is all too eager to abridge in the name of "tolerance" the very rights that we are fighting for. Well, doesn't "tolerance" depend upon whose ox is being gored? And in this case the government is sticking it to its own citizens.

Here's an item I just picked up to add to cupid's letter. I suppose I'm also a peacenick, (at least for this particular war)

-- Ed Richards (lozt@yahoo.com), March 26, 2003.


Cupid, don't be so short-sighted PLEASE! If left in, he and his maniac sons will be 20 times the threat they are now. Give 'em another 10 years, then not only our children but our grandchildren will have to deal with him.

This man is a threat to the WORLD, not just his own people and that really is the point. You can't just hide your head in the sand and say it ain't so.

The propaganda machine that these protestors are feeding, is being used by the enemy -- these violent "peace demonstraters" are tools in his hand, and without a doubt he is using it to his advantage, which ironically will PROLONG this thing, not shorten it.

Sometimes, you've just GOT to do the hard thing.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 26, 2003.


Gail I think you said "You've got to do something... The emphasis seems tao be on the "You" ...Would you send your child in so cavalier a manner?

-- cupid (love@sursumcorda.com), March 26, 2003.

Cupid, It is pure agony to see our troops battling this insane dictator of Baghdad. Good God in heaven, no one should have a cavalier attitude about sending our boys into this! If my sons were in the military I would be scared to death, to be sure. But the fact remains that the military exists for a reason, Cupid, that reason is war, not to fly around overhead shooting everyone with "love arrows". The question is, "Is this a worthy cause?"

You say he should stay, I say he should go.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 26, 2003.


Hey calm down you two , clealry you havent been reding the real "news". LOL

BUSH BRAVELY LEADES The THIRD INFANTRY INTO BATTLE AP

IRAQ-KUWAIT BORDER—As the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division began its ground assault on Iraq Monday, President Bush marched alongside the front-line soldiers, bravely putting his own life on the line for his country by personally participating in the attack.

img src="http://www.theonion.com/onion3911/bush_bravely_leads.html"

Above: A weary Bush marches through enemy territory near the Iraq-Kuwait border.

"Bush is the real deal, and when he talks about fighting for freedom, he means it," said Pvt. Tom Scharpling, 21. "He'd never ask one of us grunts to take any risks for our country that he wasn't willing to take himself."

According to reports from the front, many of the soldiers were initially suspicious of the president, doubtful that an Ivy Leaguer who once used powerful family connections to avoid service in Vietnam had what it took to face enemy fire head-on. However, Bush— or, as his fellow soldiers nicknamed him in a spirit of battlefield camaraderie, 'Big Tex'—quickly overcame the platoon's reluctance to having a "fancy-pants Yalie" in its ranks. "Bush is the best soldier I've ever had the honor of fighting alongside," said Pvt. Jon Benjamin, 23. "I'd take a bullet for that man, because I know he'd take one for me if he had to."

Proving himself a worthy foot soldier, Bush has earned the respect of his fellow front-line combatants with acts of courage and heroism that one soldier called "a truly inspiring example of one man's commitment to the cause of liberty." "Just yesterday, George stormed an Iraqi machine-gun nest when our sergeant took one in the belly," Pvt. Scott "Lumpy" Fellers, 20, told reporters. "We were pinned down, cut off from our division, and it looked like curtains for us all. Thankfully, George was there. He ran through heavy artillery fire and lobbed a grenade right into their bunker. If it hadn't been for him, God knows how many of us would've been coming home in body bags."

"It's not just any president who would risk his life like the nation's men in uniform do," Fellers added. "God bless him and everything he stands for."

Bush's courage, sources say, was evident from the earliest stages of the war's planning. Though the Pentagon initially wanted an air war with minimal ground combat, Bush quickly dismissed this strategy, insisting that the only way a true and lasting victory could be achieved was to go in and fight—dune by dune, village by village— until Iraq was finally free.

White House sources say Bush's decision to place his own life on the line for his country met with resistance from top military leaders. "The Joint Chiefs of Staff kept telling him, 'Mr. President, we beg you—stay here in Washington, where it's safe.' But George was having none of it," said Maj. Gen. Buford Blount, commander of the 3rd Infantry. "He was adamant that if our boys overseas were going to risk their lives for liberty, he was going to do the same. And, by God, he proved himself a man of his word." The president has only been in battle for less than a week, but he has already proven himself more than willing to put himself in the line of fire.

"The president carried me through an enemy minefield after my arm had been blown off by a mortar shell, blazing away with his pistol as he delivered me to safety," Pvt. Chris Adair said. "Then, after he'd gotten me to a medic, he went all the way back through that same minefield—carrying a 40-pound bag of ice the whole way—to retrieve my severed arm so the doctors could sew it back on. Now, thanks to President Bush, I'll still be able to play piano for the church choir back home in Appleton, just like I promised Grandma. He is truly an American hero."

Adair's comments were echoed by many of the soldiers fighting alongside Bush. "I used to be cynical about politicians who are born into privilege and wealth. I thought, 'Sure, they talk a good game about our duty to protect democracy, but when push comes to shove, they'd rather send off the nation's poor, uneducated, and underprivileged to do the fighting for them,'" said Pvt. Frank Elkins, 19. "I always figured they'd rather see somebody else die in some foreign land than make that sacrifice themselves. But now I know I was wrong."

"There may be some folks out there, born silver spoon in hand, who'd act that way, but that ain't Bush. No, that ain't Bush," Elkins said. "He ain't no fortunate son."



-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 26, 2003.


img src=”http://graphics.theonion.com/pics_3911/bush_bravely_leads.jpg”

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 26, 2003.

one last try!

img src="http://graphics.theonion.com/pics_3911/bush_bravely_leads.jpg"

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 26, 2003.


I know war is no laughing matter but some of these articles at this site are very funny, have a look

http://www.theonion.com/

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 26, 2003.


God loves a trier

-- (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 26, 2003.


http://www.theonion.com/onion3833/bush_wont_stop_asking.html

more "left wing" humour but I found the above article so funny it just hurts.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 26, 2003.


We agree on one thing Gail, the guy is a bum of the lowest sort and should go. But why must the USA have to be the world policeman? Our kids blood, our money etc. This man is a world problem and that is what I mean.

Kiwi, great ,funny,funny,funny.

-- cupid (love@sursumcorda.com), March 26, 2003.


There is nothing wrong in being “anti-war” when all other avenues for alternative solutions haven’t been exhausted. In fact, the Church is anti-war in these circumstances. Being “anti-war” is always compared to cowardice when sound logical argument is lacking by those who support or reject any position. Anyone will acknowledge there are “thousands of heroes” in this story. They are all someone’s sons and daughters - they don’t have to be our own to feel empathy with their situation; but this tactic always useful in masking a weak argument. What does supporting troops have to do with whether this war is right or wrong.? "If you don’t support Bush’s war effort then your not supporting our troops. You’re unpatriotic! Don’t ask any questions, it shows cowardice and lack of patriotism! It’s not American to question the President at times like these! If you’re not for us, you’re against us!” Freedom of expression is ingrained in the American way. When did it become cowardice and unpatriotic to use it?

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 27, 2003.

Actually, that picture was taken in the deserts of California. This is occupied territory, you know.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 27, 2003.

It's hard to support the usa when it makes so many mistakes. Putting Saddam in power in the first place being one of its most obvious, not to mention Bin Landen. However, we can't sit on the fence as they did in world war 2 and wait for the war to come to us. Our poor leadership has made it impossible for our weak military to help but the least we can do is help on the world stage with our full support.

-- (nbrewin@telusplanet.net), March 27, 2003.

Hey, let me qualify my note earlier, guys and gals. I am NOT referring to anti-war sentiments and opinions, I am rather referring to the thousands of anti-war demonstrators making spectacles of themselves and giving this maniac a huge advantage! That really sickens and infuriates me. I should have made that clearer up above.

I have been reading through the war posts for months now, and never contributed an opinion because I could see both sides of the argument, but NOW we are already over there, we are entrenched, Saddam will go and I think we should be supporting these guys rather than taking to the streets and feeding this inhuman monster what he needs to prolong this thing!

So okay, sorry for being so emotional.

Gail

P.S. Kiwi, that Bush thing was pretty funny. It's very nice to talk to you again.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 27, 2003.


Some of us, went through a mind war, you could never imagined, long before what you see on your televison screen. Some of us, who were born when milking cows, meant arising up, in 18 degree cold, to go Milk. Thank The Heavens, I did not not live it. I am American, I too do not like War. But one must make a comparison. How Can it be? That I am living, without headcover, I Am not shamed that I am a female, that I have made shame of some males, who, did not know their heads, from a hole in the ground. And, they also, did not know how to find a certain pot. And they are certainly, Stupid

-- mystory (andiam@sticking.com), March 28, 2003.

This war doesn't seem to be working out so well.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 28, 2003.

War in general "doesn't work out so well"!

But seriously folks... It took the vaunted "world community" 6 months to settle the war in Kosovo, and that wasn't even a major conflict.

It took the US 6 weeks to defeat the Taliban in Afganistan (remember when we were told how those Mujahadeen had defeated both Britian and Russia?)...

Shoot - it even took the German Army 44 days to defeat the French in World War II.

So it's not remarkable that after just 8 days, the US is "only" on the outskirts of Bagdad, "only" now just off loading aid ships, and "only" now just sealing off Iraqi cities.

Every day we get more and more proof that Saddam's regime has been running a reign of terror - and continues to terrorise his people, and the world!

I'd give this war another month - I doubt the Iraqis will put up as much resistance as the French.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 28, 2003.


Has anyone seen the latest "Saddam photo-op" on Al-Jezeera. There is a woman at the round table who sources say is one of the top bio- scientists in his regime. I wonder if that's the famed "Dr. Germ" I've heard about. Dr. Germ is the woman who has tested the children of Iraq with a germ that will cause a person to develop fatal diarrhea and vomiting. This was one of the gruesome Saddam experiments -- of course conducted on his own kids!

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 28, 2003.


there does seem to be one thing that is going well and that is minimisation of so-called "collateral damage". there will always be innocent victims in any conflict but the sheer tonnage of weaponry that has been dropped would, in all previous violent conflicts, have lead to a much higher level of such deaths. that this has happened despite the Iraqi troops shamefully using hospitals and other public places as cover for their military activities is all the more surprising. i do not support the war, nor do i want to heap praise upon its architects, but i can recognise the results of this particular initiative. of course, truth is the first casualty of war, and so maybe it is worse than we are being told, but one would hope that the allies continue in their thusfar successful strategy of tergetting the regime and not its victims.

-- Ian (ib@vertigfo.com), March 28, 2003.

http://www.ewtn.com/Peace/Gregory.htm

Please check this out, It is one Bishops opinion From the EWTN

-- Denise (deniseabs@earthlink.net), March 28, 2003.


For Bush the question seems to be not, “What would Jesus do?” but, “Whom would Jesus bomb?” Joe Sobran

-- James Y. (peace@stop the killing.com), March 30, 2003.

Hi Gail, nice to see you back as well. Blesings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 31, 2003.

Jmj

Joe S, your response to Emerald's rather amazing comment was very convincing.
The reason we see these kinds of impatient comments is that we have become a "fast-food society," unable to wait for a positive result slowly and gradually to come into being.
As someone pointed out, if the U.S. had had TV and "embedded" real-time reporting during World War II, America might have been forced (by impatient people and hand-wringers) to leave the European and Pacific theatres, and the world would now be controlled by German and Japanese fascists.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 03, 2003.


It is also an unfortunate fact there is more cruelty and less freedom in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China etc. and more unfortunately they are our allies. I guess the defenition of holy war is something else.

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), April 23, 2003.

ABraham dont let John wind you up, hes a very unwell man with some serious problems. Take it easy hey.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 23, 2003.

Kiwi...for someone who claims to be right and who claims to have the truth on his side, you really look foolish when instead of answering John's points and arguments with counter proof and argument, you settle by calling him names.

What is it with you?

Why can't you just "beg to differ" and show us why and how you think he's wrong instead of calling him names and going ad hominem?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 23, 2003.


Joe, it's not worth it. You will not be able to get anywhere by reasoning with Kiwi.

The fact is that he has built up a resentment against me because I have had to oppose him on many, many things -- going back to his entry into the forum (a year ago?) -- including matters of personal immorality that he tried to defend [to preserve his dignity, I won't be specific], anti-American positions, etc.
Gravely worsening the situation has been the recent poisoning of his mind against me by a deeply disturbed person who has lied to him about me via e-mail.

Well, it's all a heavy cross for me to have to bear -- even in the Easter season!
Please pray for us.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 23, 2003.


The rabid anti-Americanism and claims that you have to stand with tyrants in order to be a Good Catholic is exactly why I've made the decision to leave the church.

The Pope sided with the UN, not scripture on this one, favoring Europe over the USA....as evidenced by his statements that only through the UN could it be a just war.

Yet what of Bosnia....I guess if the French and Germans are there, it's okay...

-- Frank G (gigerfr@bellsouth.net), May 05, 2003.


Hey, Frank G ...
Did you know that this is a CATHOLIC discussion forum -- a home-away-from-home for orthodox, respectful Catholics?

If you have left the Church, as you say, then what in the world are you doing here, sprinkling your negative comments on a bunch of threads? They are of no value to anyone?

Please reform your behavior or take a hike and find a forum for whining ex-Catholics.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 06, 2003.


You are, of course, correct.

I came to this forum looking for answers.

Unfortunately, the answer was in the negative.

My apologies.

-- Frank G (gigerfr@bellsouth.net), May 07, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ