Iraq and just war, revisited
By: George Weigel

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.

We know some things now that we also knew then. We know Saddam Hussein was in material breach of the "final" U.N. warning, Resolution 1441; his formal response to 1441 was a lie. We know he had the scientists, the laboratories, and the other necessary infrastructure for producing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). We know he was seeking long-range ballistic missiles (again in defiance of the U.N.) to deliver biological, chemical, and perhaps nuclear weapons. We know now, in even more horrifying detail, that Saddam's was a terror regime in which unimaginable brutality was normal state practice. We know, now as then, that Saddam's regime provided safe haven for terrorists.

And we should know now, as we should have known then, that these four facts — Saddam's pursuit of WMD, his internal repression, his defiance of the U.N., and his links to international terrorism — were of a piece. Some have said recently that Saddam himself was the real "weapon of mass destruction" in Iraq. That's a little too clever. But the truth in the trope is that Saddam's regime, as its actions and capabilities demonstrated, was an "aggression underway." The aggression took different forms at different moments over twenty-some years. But the "aggression" was constant.

We also know now that we haven't found caches of WMD in Iraq. What difference does this make to the moral analysis?

Prior to the war, no one doubted that Saddam had WMD. The U.N. thought he did. France thought he did. The only question in dispute was, how was he to be disarmed? And while the investigation of Saddam's WMD programs is incomplete — millions of pages of documents remain to be translated; some high-ranking Iraqi WMD scientists still refuse to cooperate — it seems to me that something like this happened: ...

read the rest here.

George Weigel is a senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 15, 2004

Answers

bump

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 15, 2004.

Cardinal Stafford on War and the Church's Thinking

Critiques Positions by Some Catholic Scholars

by Delia Gallagher

ROME, MAY 22, 2004 (Zenit.org).- Some views recently voiced by Catholic scholars on Church teaching about war and on John Paul II's positions may have missed the point, says Cardinal James Francis Stafford.

In an interview with ZENIT the American cardinal critiqued some of the views that have surfaced in the face of ongoing debates about the Iraq war. The cardinal is the major penitentiary of the Apostolic Penitentiary, a tribunal of the Holy See, and a former archbishop of Denver.

The opinions offered by some Catholic scholars have put a focus on key questions such as: Is there a presumption against war in Catholic teaching? What does the Pope mean when he speaks of humanitarian intervention? What is the Holy See's position on the United Nations, an organization that not infrequently opposes Catholic teaching?

Cardinal Stafford in particular responded to comments made by scholars George Weigel and James Turner Johnson at a conference in Rome in late April.

Weigel asked: "Is the Catholic Church's position on the morally legitimate use of armed force -- whether that position is manifest in the personal witness of the Pope, the diplomacy of the Holy See, or the 'default position' found in the relevant Vatican agencies -- a kind of functional pacifism, a way of thinking that retains the intellectual apparatus of the just war tradition of moral reasoning but that always comes down at the bottom line in opposition to the use of armed force?"

"Recent events might seem to justify a positive answer to that question," Weigel said. "But then what is one to do with John Paul II's insistence on a 'duty' of 'humanitarian intervention' which would presumably include the use of proportionate and discriminate armed force, in cases of impending or actual genocide?"

To these questions, Cardinal Stafford responded: "The Pope speaks first not of humanitarian intervention but of humanitarian assistance."

"In his World Day of Peace Message 2000, the Pope allowed the right of 'humanitarian assistance,'" the cardinal said. "He speaks of this within the context of 'the armed conflicts taking place within states. ... For the most part, they are rooted in long-standing historical motives of an ethnic, tribal or even religious character, to which must be added nowadays, other ideological, social and economic causes. These internal conflicts, usually waged through the large-scale use of small-caliber weapons and so-called "light arms" - - arms which in fact are extraordinarily lethal -- often have grave consequences which spill over the borders of the country in question, involving outside interests and responsibilities.'"

"In the first place, the Pope speaks of humanitarian aid," Cardinal Stafford continued. "He described this as 'the pre-eminent value of humanitarian law and the consequent duty to guarantee the right to humanitarian aid to suffering civilians and refugees.' He then insists on the greatest importance of continued negotiation in such conflicts.

"Then the Pope speaks of humanitarian intervention. He says, 'When a civilian population risks being overcome by the attacks of an unjust aggressor and political efforts and non-violent defense prove to be of no avail, it is legitimate and even obligatory to take concrete measures to disarm the aggressor.'"

"So the context of humanitarian intervention is: How does one get aid to people who are being oppressed by internal conflict within a given state?" noted the cardinal. "George Weigel's interpretation of the Pope's teaching on humanitarian intervention is excessively abbreviated and even misleading in what he omits."

"Weigel says that he presumes that such intervention would 'include the use of proportionate and discriminate armed force in cases of impending and actual genocide,'" Cardinal Stafford said.

"I find it curious that he makes no mention of the Pope's immediate qualifiers regarding the decision for 'humanitarian intervention,' which are severe and specific," he added. "'These measures must be limited in time and precise in their aims. They must be carried out in full respect for international law, guaranteed by an authority that is internationally recognized and in any event never left to the outcome of armed conflict alone.'"

The cardinal continued: "The chief qualifier is that, 'the fullest and best use must therefore be made of all the provisions of the United Nations Charter.' That's important, the qualifiers that are not mentioned either by Weigel or Turner; that is, you must have respect for international law, you must involve the internationally recognized organization."

Presumption against conflict

In a 1983 document, the U.S. bishops' conference contended that Catholic teaching contains a "presumption against war."

Johnson and Weigel contend that the U.S. bishops have misrepresented the Catholic just war tradition by claiming that it begins with a "presumption against war," so that "the function of the just war criteria is to overturn the 'presumption against war.'"

To this, Cardinal Stafford responded: "The Pope's teaching in his 2000 message is equivalent to the meaning of the U.S. bishops' phrase of 'presumption against war': 'War is a defeat for humanity. Only in peace and through peace can respect for human dignity and its inalienable rights be guaranteed. Against the backdrop of war in the 20th century, humanity's honor has been preserved by those who have spoken and worked on behalf of peace. ... Those who have built their lives on the value of non-violence have given us luminous and prophetic examples.'"

"It should be noted," Cardinal Stafford said, "that the Pope explicitly places his emphatic choice of peace against the background of 20th-century total warfare, not the tribal conflicts of fifth-century North Africa where the first enunciation of the just war criteria were developed by St. Augustine. I think that one should look at the bishops' statement in light of the Pope's abhorrence for war and when he says it is a defeat for mankind.

"The Pope himself is building upon the experience of the 20th century and modifying, as he perceives it, the just war criteria. Augustine says nowhere as clearly as the Pope does, 'War is a defeat for humanity.'"

The cardinal continued: "I think there is an evolution in light not only of John Paul II but Benedict XV, his 1917 proposal for the peace plan, which was rejected by the Allies, and in John XXIII in 1963 against the backdrop of the total warfare that was seen in Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Dresden ... that is the wholesale disregard for the civilian populations."

"It doesn't lead to functional pacifism but it is leading to a presumption against preventive war," Cardinal Stafford said. "The Pope is saying that we must exhaust every possible means including the U.N. before this presumption is able to be overcome. I don't think that's being emphasized by neoconservative arguments."

The United Nations

The Pope's emphasis on the U.N. role in international law is countered by neoconservatives who contend that the United Nations is an inefficient organization, incapable of carrying out its mandates and, worse, supportive of policies that directly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Johnson calls the United Nations "inept." Weigel says it is surprising that the Holy See's support of the organization "has intensified at the same time the U.N. and its affiliated agencies have adopted policies with respect to abortion, the family and the proper response to the AIDS pandemic in Africa that are opposed to the moral teaching of the Catholic Church."

Cardinal Stafford admitted that he too is "discomforted" by some positions of the United Nations. But he says that is a "different tract."

"The Pope in various World Youth Day messages emphasized the importance not simply of relying upon the U.N. as it exists now, but of a further enhancement of its peacemaking capacities," the cardinal said. "As a matter of fact, we are living in a world in which the only pre-eminent, internationally recognized authority is the U.N.

"I'm convinced that the Holy See must critically discern the role of non-governmental organizations which are very strong activists for the anti-family, anti-life, anti-conception, pro-abortion positions and pro-gay positions that the U.N. has adopted or is seen to be moving towards. But that is a different tract and I think there are important allies that transcend cultures, including Islamic nations, that the Holy See and Catholic and Christian peoples throughout the world can rely upon regarding these issues."

"We're living in a very ambiguous moral situation in which both the wheat and the tares are growing together and you know what Jesus said about that: Let them grow together," said Cardinal Stafford.

"How long does one tolerate that?" he asked. "The time has not yet come to say that we must jettison the Church's support of the U.N. based upon the immoral positions they're taking on family, marriage and life issues."

Forgiveness

Finally, Cardinal Stafford pointed out an important element of Catholic teaching on the war, mentioned repeatedly by John Paul II, which has been ignored in debates on the issue.

"No one makes any mention of the Pope's repeated and major theme in most of his World Day of Peace messages at least since 2001, of the absolutely foundational need for forgiveness," the cardinal said. "Pope John XXIII spoke of this in 1963 when he said that a program for peace is based 'on the Gospel of obedience to God, mercy and forgiveness.' Major portions of the World Day of Peace messages since 2001 have been devoted to forgiveness and reconciliation.

"No one is talking about the Christian understanding and practice of forgiveness which are unique. It would be important to study the Muslim understanding of forgiveness. It doesn't seem to be a central theme, although the suras, divisions, of the Koran open with the beautiful invocational formula, 'in the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.' Compassionate and merciful implies a God who is forgiving, and Muslims mention forgiveness in some of their prayers."

Cardinal Stafford continued: "The Pope places such great stress upon forgiveness as a condition for peace -- forgiveness of one human being to another, and not only that, but of one society to another: that is, to forgive the whole past of the crusades or the nations of Eastern Europe, the Balkans, before Vienna. The forgiveness of all of that, is not only individual, but societal and cultural. How much of that really rings true in the Muslim faith. What role does forgiveness have?"

"The Muslim religion rejects the idea of redemption," the cardinal observed. "Muslims reject the idea of redemption because they want to place thorough emphasis on the human responsibility for one's sinfulness. And that one must, in a Pelagian way, open oneself totally to the mercy of God. But there doesn't seem to be much emphasis in the horizontal element of forgiveness.

"Is there anything in Muslim religion that would parallel the central position given to forgiveness in the Our Father: 'Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us'? Jesus insists on the essential connection between vertical forgiveness and horizontal forgiveness."

The cardinal continued: "It would be useful to have a dialogue based upon the Holy Father's teachings from 2001 and going back to Blessed John XXIII in 1963, about the foundation of peace today to be forgiveness, reconciliation -- and their resonance in the Islamic religious tradition."

He added: "None of the participants including the dialogue that I read in First Things between the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and George Weigel speaks of the centrality of the Pope's teaching on forgiveness and reconciliation as a condition for peace - - or rather as a creative way of bringing about international peace."

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 02, 2004.

In the future, please post URL's or links to other sites when referring to lengthy articles rather than posting the entire article here in the forum. It helps to conserve our space and increases speed in loading threads for viewers/readers.

Thank you. Moderator

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

Sorry Ed, it was such an absorbing article it didn't seem that long. I know that sounds lame but it's true. I'll be more careful in future. Have you told off others such as J Fernandes ("The Passion and its Enemies")who have recently posted articles much longer than the one above?

BTW would you please fix up the title of the thread "Bishop Mahoney"? Apparently the poster "demoted" Cardinal Mahoney because she doesn't like him. I assume you wouldn't tolerate a thread about the Pope being titled "Bishop Wojtyla".

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 03, 2004.

Steve, I've acted on your suggestion regarding J Fernandes. The person who "demoted" Cardinal Mahoney is well-known here in the forum and is known as someone who would not intentionally show disrespect for the hierarchy of the Church, or anyone else for that matter. In any event she has apologized for her oversight, so nothing need be done.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 03, 2004.

"VATICAN CITY, JUNE 2, 2004 (Zenit.org).- A Catholic Indian citizen was arrested and tortured in Saudi Arabia because of his faith, according to L'Osservatore Romano.

The semiofficial Vatican newspaper, quoting sources of the Fides missionary agency and the Indian bishops' conference, said that Brian Savio O'Connor was imprisoned about six months ago by the Mutawa, the Saudi religious police.

Taken to the Ali Hira prison in Riyadh, the accused was threatened with death if he did not convert to Islam, his brothers, Raymond and James, said.

The O'Connor brothers confirmed that Brian "has been incarcerated for six months and tortured with the intention of obliging him to abjure his faith," L'Osservatore Romano's Italian edition reported today. Sources said the accused is now in the Olaya prison.

"Officially the Mutawa has accused O'Connor of using drugs and praying to Jesus Christ, accusations which imply he runs the risk of being punished with the death penalty," the Vatican newspaper stated.

"The family says that the proofs of his use of drugs have been fabricated by the police, while it does not deny that Brian is a good Christian," the newspaper added.

So much for the invasion of Iraq bringing freedom and democracy to the mid-east. Even our closest Arab ally tortures and kills people just for being Christian, with not a peep of protest from the self- righteous "coalition".

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 03, 2004.

Steve:
Your animosity is blatant and unfair. No one here has said the U.S. and our coalition allies have a claim to self-righteousness. You yourself haven't; so why should we?

All of us are sinners. The truth is, you're unwilling to see and admit any good that may come of the war to Iraq and its people. You're unwilling not from religious motives; but from your obvious political agenda.

When sinners reject something true it's because they aren't interested in the truth.

This is your sin, as nobody can miss who sees you rant on and on. You are able to ignore the truth about Saddam Hussein. To your eyes he was a legitimate and worthy ruler over the people of Iraq. You come here as an apologist for Saddam, attacking the nations who have broken his power. You apparently would rather he were still in Iraq like a deadly viper. The truth isn't important to those like you, who stand up for Saddam; and vent their anger on the United States. You would uphold Satan as well, against our country.

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

I find Cardinal Stafford's words very interesting...but not to the point of Weigel's writing.

I also note that when pressed to give specific alternative courses of action on economic or political questions (such as whether pro- abortion Catholic politicians can receive communion) many cardinals will say "hey, we just point to the principles, it's not our place to spell out specific courses of action" but yet in the case of war with Iraq this didn't happen!

Here, they seemed to be saying "we're not going to lay out the Catholic principles anymore because we just know that war would be immoral, despite all facts and specifics".

So they theorize that all war is the direct equivalent of World War I and II - tactics, strategy and effects. They assume that "modern weaponry" means A-bombs, Chemical and biological weapons...or confuse laserguided muitions and pin-point strikes as "indiscriminate" weapons.

They consider any use of deadly force to be categorically immoral...unless the UN or Russia, France, and Germany OK it? By what moral calculus?

In the specific case of war with Iraq, talk about humanitarian intervention and the like misses the obvious point that the status quo ante bellum was NOT a humanitarian paradise wherein the "international community" or UN moral authority was respected. One can always hope for a diplomatic breakthrough, a miraculous conversion of heart...but only as a private individual. Someone who has responsibility to protect and promote the common good can't base foreign policy on such considerations.

As private persons, as Christians, of course we forgive the sinner and pray for his conversion. But the sinner in question, Saddam, was a dictator and tyrant, directly responsible for the murder of millions, the repression of others, and the awful status quo.

So what specific course of action was required by the Catholic moral law? Forgive him? Lift the UN embargo? Return to the status quo ante 1990? Had we done that Saddam would be armed and rebuilding and no end in sight would come... no chance for democracy, for respect for human rights, for freedom of religion, the press, association, etc.

And those vaunted 100,000 children who he claimed to be starving to death each year (repeatedly and uncritically refered to by the Holy See), would STILL by dying, and their deaths STILL blamed on the big- bad USA, not on Saddam or the UN's mismanagement.

Cardinals and bishops certainly don't base their administrative actions on hopes that committed enemies will convert and change course 180 degrees. In the case of priest scandals...they don't wait for some UN body to give the go ahead. An accused priest is ousted immediately. No talk of endless diplomacy and "forgiveness" here!

-- Concerned Catholic (anonymous@yahoo.com), June 03, 2004.

You’re quite a guy Eugene. Who is it who’s got the “obvious political agenda” ? If you seriously can listen to what Bush and his cronies say and NOT think that they’re being self-righteous, then you must have amazing mental acrobatic skills.

You try to tar everyone who’s against the war as an “apologist for Saddam . Even the dimmest can see Saddam was NOT a “worthy” ruler. That wasn’t the reason the “coalition” gave for the war, nor can it possibly be by any stretch of the imagination fitted into the “just war” theory. The coalition just dragged out that casus belli when their other “reasons” were proven to be totally spurious. There are other rulers of nations who are even less “worthy”.

We all know your fanatical adherence to the war camp and I’m not going to bother repeating what others have pointed out to you on other threads about the church’s teaching, which you refuse to acknowledge.

“Concerned Catholic”, “the point of Wiegel’s writing” is that Wiegel purported to justify the war using Catholic moral principles. Cardinal Stafford clearly pointed out where the Pope disagrees with Wiegel. I know who to believe. I’m sorry you don’t. And if you can’t see the difference between deciding to suspend an abusive priest and deciding to kill thousands of people, then it’s just as useless arguing with you.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 03, 2004.

''. . . when their other “reasons” were proven to be totally spurious.'' --Except for this, Steve. you have no proof there was anything spurious about the reasons.

The reasons are very clear. America has borne with repeated attacks from muslim fanatics. The final injury on Sept. 11, 2001 was a call to war. (That's our right to national defense, No different from Pearl Harbor in 1941.) Nothing at all spurious; but you feel appeasement was a better choice, not the war. You've been roundly proven wrong; since the Saddam regime is no longer a lasting threat.

Your sophism --''Even the dimmest can see Saddam was NOT a “worthy” ruler. That wasn’t the reason the “coalition” gave for the war, nor can it possibly be by any stretch of the imagination fitted into the “just war” theory.'' -- is altogether lame. The ''reason'' for war is fighting terrorists at their origins. Don't place COALITION in those weasel scare quotes. America has definitely formed a world-wide coalition. All determined to track and destroy terrorists because they've declared war on the west. Iraq with Saddam has been an enabler, sponsor and financier of terrorist cells. It would soon have been a ready supply of biochemical and nuclear weapons to Jihadists from all over the middle east. This is not spurious; it's as plain as the wart on your nose. ,p>Just war is not a subjective term. You can understand it. It means a war you cannot avoid. We have no choice excet to stamp out the threat of terrorism in our homeland. Therefore, war against any country aiding and supporting terrorism by fundamentalist Islamists is just. It's only avoidable if & when negotiations result in disarmament of that country. Iraq's government refused to disarm, even when the UN Security Council declared them in material breech of resolution 1441.

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

Give it up Eugene, you’re an embarrassment to your own cause.

The “coalition” (I’m sorry the “weasel scare” quotation marks offend you, I use them because it’s their word, not mine) are frantically trying to make us forget their now obviously spurious and ludicrous claims that Saddam had nuclear and biochemical weapons and would give them to Jihadists (whose very first and most hated target is secular- neo-Marxist Arab leaders like Saddam himself).

Though God knows what Bush is going to tell the Pope who insists that war can only be just if it’s to forestall an IMMINENT (or already begun) attack by the target country. Not a theoretically possible attack via third parties, even if that were true.

I guess if your “world” includes only the USA, Britain and Australia it WAS a “world wide coalition” that attacked Iraq.

Poor old Eugene. You might have to concede the possibility, as you had to re capital punishment, that you were simply (gasp!) wrong.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 04, 2004.

Steve, there is a difference between killing a thousand armed and hateful Saddam fedeyeen who have Iraqi blood on their hands...and arbitrarily killing civilians. The US did NOT arbitrarily kill thousands of civilians, AND gave fair warning to Iraqi regulars to not do battle - and most didn't. Those who were killed died fighting.

-- concerned (anonymous@yahoo.com), June 04, 2004.

Dear Steve: Give it up; why come back with more sophistry? More self-absorbed judgments against your opposing party, the Republicans?

There were upwards of 40 countries that gave aid and/or armed support to the coalition. You can pooh-pooh England, Australia, Spain, Italy, Poland, Denmark, South Korea, Japan, El Salvador, and many more. But you cannot call our defeat of Saddam (not the civilian population of Iraq) any way unilateral.

When you brazenly put words into the Pope's own mouth, - - ''Pope who insists that war can only be just if it’s to forestall an IMMINENT (or already begun) attack by the target country. Not a theoretically possible attack via third parties,''--You only demonstrate your desperation for words. The Pope has NOT defined anything particular regarding just wars. All he has done is mediate between countries in hopes of stopping that conflict before it started. You come here pretending to parse what little the Pope actually says. As if but not because you have authority. Leave the Pope to explain his own words and mind your little penny whistle.

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

“The US did NOT arbitrarily kill thousands of civilians, ...” 15,000 Iraqis civilians have been killed in this "just" war. The Iraqis were not “arbitrarily killed”? Oh right! They’re not really counted as dead people. They’re known as “collateral damage” - a price a people must pay for a democracy they don’t want!

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 05, 2004.

All of this carnage and bloodshed could have been avoided. Had Bush just waited an additional 90 days, he would have had the entire free world behind him in his efforts to stabilize the region and rid the world of a murderous dictator. The problem was that Saddam was more adept and patient at diplomacy and getting what he wanted than Bush was. The reasons then (after obtaining world consensus) for invading Iraq and taking Saddam down would have been justified - failure to comply with U.N. resolutions and subsequent failure to heed warnings to take corrective actions. Bush wouldn’t have needed to use his own personal reasons to go to war with Iraq: 1. Perceived non-existent threat of WMD. 2. Perceived threat of terrorism by Iraq that didn’t exist then, but certainly exists now owing to Bush’s rush to judgement. 3.To influence middle east politics. 4. Oil, oil, oil! 5. To settle a long-outstanding score, from the days his father tussled with Saddam and came up empty (it’s a “Texas Pride” thing). Maybe former Governor of Texas, Ann Richards was correct when she said, "George Bush is all hat and no cattle!"

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 05, 2004.

Had Bush just waited an additional 90 days, he would have had the entire free world behind him

I don't see how you can reasonably come to this conclusion now, knowing that most of the countries with veto power in the Security Council who were holding back a UN resolution to fully back the US were on Saddam's dole.

But I am glad you have come to the conclusion that the liberation of Iraq was just, and that we just needed to convince a few more countries of that fact.

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson-nospam@hotmail.com), June 05, 2004.

Those interested in this topic, should read this article:

Th e New Defeatism

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 05, 2004.

Here is another article detailing how we are now fighting those who do not want Democracy and freedom to blossom in Iraq.

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 05, 2004.

Hi, Ed

How are you ? You said:"..they're not realy counted as dead people, they're known as "collateral damage"...."

Ed, that is what they call innocent people that have been killed in every war. But, everyone knows this mean "dead people".

Just out of courosity, what do you call those hundreds of thousands of people who were found in those graves? Do you count them?

-- - (David@excite.com), June 05, 2004.

Iraqi Links to 9/11 Reported

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 05, 2004.

I've met a lot of others like Ed; and not all from another country. In their blind urge to defeat Bush, all they can think of is to downplay what progress is made in the middle east, & play up the so-called carnage. HEY! Bush MUST be awful: he's from Texas. He'll steal the oil belonging to Saddam alone! They'll do contortions all day to dis-associate the Saddam gov't from ANY connections to al Qaeda (absurdly) and curse Bush without using their reason.

Ed gives himself away; because he inadvertently departs from the subject of just-unjust war-- to this attack on Bush, pure & simple. The hatred of one man is up front. Not so much a dispute over just war,

Ed forgot how thousands were immolated and maimed on 9-11; and three human cargoes on airliners were brutally sacrificed by fanatical muslims to promote hatred of western, Christian society. But then, hey----it never happened at Toronto or Montreal. Let it pass. We can't sympathize with any western army. (Ed the Peacemaker.)

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

Mr. Chavez,

How are you sir? :-)

Be careful with using the word "hate" in this forum. Ed threatened to throw me out of forum for saying that.[Read forum rules thread]

God bless you, Gino

-- - (David@excite.com,), June 05, 2004.

“Had Bush just waited an additional 90 days, he would have had the entire free world behind him” Maybe you’re right Bill that other countries might not have supported the U.S. had they waited another 90 days, but we’ll never know will we?

Eugene, believe it or not, I supported Bush when he came to office. I still support him in many issues he has to deal with, but I can’t ignore facts. I’ve quoted insiders ad nauseum to support my points, but no one seems to read what I’ve written. Bill is the only one who genuinely attempts to see my point and examines what I've said. He may not agree but at least he is reading what I have to say. I continue to give facts to support my position and all I get in return is hyperbole for the most part. Eugene, the facts don’t support what you’re saying. On the contrary, Bush did not go the extra mile to avoid this conflict. You have a short memory. It wasn’t about terrorists being hidden away in Iraq after 9/11. It is now, however! Bush has made it that way. Terrorists are signing up in record numbers. Initially it was about WMD!!! Remember? Weapons of Mass Destruction!!!

Who is denouncing the fall of Saddam? I certainly am not. I am denouncing the illegal and immoral way he was taken down! Big difference Eugene - big difference. But again, you won’t read what I have to say. All I get in return is the same ill-informed rhetoric that is blind to all the facts and everything I've said.

Bill, I agree with you, the U.N. is not an ideal organization for promoting world peace, but its all we've got right now. If a handful of countries are permitted to go off and wage war on their own and the rest of the world sits idly by, it’s only a matter of time before they have a problem with some other nation and so on. There are sixty countries now harbouring terrorists. Who’s next? Will Bush be so anxious to wage war on the next country in light of the quagmire he’s created in Iraq? I don't think so.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 05, 2004.

Bill, I agree with you, the U.N. is not an ideal organization for promoting world peace, but its all we've got right now.

Maybe it is time to reform it?

If a handful of countries are permitted to go off and wage war on their own and the rest of the world sits idly by, it’s only a matter of time before they have a problem with some other nation and so on.

Currently, that is the status quo. Even for France (e.g., the Ivory Coast)

There are sixty countries now harbouring terrorists. Who’s next? Will Bush be so anxious to wage war on the next country in light of the quagmire he’s created in Iraq? I don't think so.

Then you do not know President Bush. In fact, war has been going on with terrorists in a lot of nation states. It may not be by 130,000 troops, but it has been going on all along. I suggest you read the book Rumsfeld's War. One should not be shocked by this, the President said he would be doing it, and he is a man of his word.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 05, 2004.

Terrorists are signing up in record numbers. Initially it was about WMD!!! Remember? Weapons of Mass Destruction!!!

What I remember is that we had to trust Saddam who was suppose to have eliminated his WMDs in such a way that the UN (remember them?) could verify the elimination (what was in all of those precious UN resolutions). Well, he either didn't eliminate them (and buried them or moved them to Syria) or he distroyed them in such a way the UN could not verify it (which would have been very stupid and he is not a stupid man). So where are they? I don't know, and neither do you. But WMDs were only part of the equation (as you know). You also know that we couldn't trust Saddam, at least the President in charge of the security of the US couldn't.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 05, 2004.

Terrorists are signing up in record numbers

Sadr's militia defeated: US

From correspondents in Baghdad THE US military said today it had defeated the outlawed militia of flamboyant Shi'ite cleric Moqtada Sadr across central Iraq, and denied that there was any truce with the radical preacher.

"The Moqtada militia is militarily defeated. We have killed scores of them over the last few weeks, and that is in Najaf alone," Brigadier General Mark Hertling, one of the top US commanders in charge of Najaf, told AFP.

"Over the past several days, Moqtada's militia has lost much of their stomach for fighting," he said, also declaring victory in the central cities of Kut, Diwaniyah and Karbala, dogged by fighting over the past two months.

"We have also destroyed their weapons stores and their offensive capability," he said.

"What remains of them, which is a very small force, will take advantage of the governor's announcement to disperse if not disband."

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 05, 2004.

The New York Times reports that Moktada al-Sadr’s forces are withdrawing from Najaf and Kufa:

Shiite leaders and American officials said the armed followers of Mr. Sadr, known as the Mahdi Army, had cleared out of many parts of Najaf, and seemed to be getting ready to leave altogether. The Shiite leaders said American forces, who encircled the city in recent weeks, had also cleared out of the city center and areas near the Imam Ali Shrine, one of the holiest sites in Shiite Islam. [. . .]

“The people of Najaf are walking the streets, the cars are moving on every avenue and the Iraqi police have moved back in,” said Adnan Ali, a senior official with the Dawa Party, whose leaders took part in the negotiations. “This is a good step forward.”

Iraq’s new prime minister, Iyad Allawi, declared in an interview that the fighting was over. “The armed presence in Najaf and Kufa has ended,” he told Associated Press Television News. [. . .]

A coalition official said American forces had pulled out of the center of town but were running joint patrols with Iraqi forces within the city.

A senior Iraqi official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, suggested that Mr. Sadr had grown demoralized in the face of political isolation and relentless military pressure. American commanders claim to have killed hundreds of Mr. Sadr’s fighters in the past weeks.

“There is every indication that the man is in a deplorable state of affairs,” said the senior Iraqi official. “He feels very weak. The Mahdi Army has suffered big losses.”

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

from another board:

Not sure if this interview has made it into the western press, nor do I have any way to confirm the details of the translation, but I hope it is true: Marek Edelman is the last surviving military leader of the heroic Jewish Uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943. He recently spoke to a Polish television channel TVN24, and the interview has been re-published in a Polish weekly "Przekroj" and here are some translated excerpts.
 

Interviewer: Not a day seems to go by in Iraq without a terrorist attack, and in the last few days two Polish soldiers and a Polish journalist have died.
Edelman: And do you know any war where nobody dies? I don't. Alas, it's in man's make-up; there's a fatal flow there that makes him kill, for pleasure or over some silly beliefs.
Interviewer: So this war is one over some silly beliefs?
Edelman: Now, now. Who started killing people? Americans didn't invade a wonderful democratic Iraq. There was a dictatorship there, torture, terror.
Interviewer: But there are people who say it's not our business.
Edelman: And whose business is it? Every war with fascism is our business. In 1939 there were also many people who said that the war in Poland was not their war, and what happened? Great nations fell because politicians listened to those who were saying th! at it's not worth dying for Gdansk [Danzig]. If only we'd intervened militarily after Hitler re-entered Rhineland we probably would not have had the war and the Holocaust.
Interviewer: Many people do understand that, but they don't understand why the Americans have to go to the other side of the world and fight over Iraq now.
Edelman: And why did they go to Europe then? Who defeated Hitler and saved Europe from fascism? The French? No, the Americans did. We thanked them then because they saved us. Today we criticise them because they're saving somebody else.
Interviewer: Returning to the question about having Polish soldier on the ground in Iraq. Many Poles don't want them there.
Edelman: If they don't want them there, let's just keep waiting and then let's see from which direction the rockets and the bombs will come from - will we in the end be lorded over by Saddam's viceroys or Bin Laden's, just as w! e were once lorded over by Hitler's viceroys.
Interviewer: Do you really believe in such a scenario?
Edelman: It's possible. If we will keep closing our eyes to evil, then that evil will defeat us tomorrow. Unfortunately there's more hatred in men than love. Those who murder understand only force and nothing else. And the only force that is able to stand against them is the American democracy.
Interviewer: But the Americans aren't going too well with introducing democracy in Iraq.
Edelman: That's true, but it's a difficult war. The Second World War went for five years. Democracy tends to be structurally weak. Dictatorship is strong. Hitler was able to mobilise several million people and chase another few million into gas chambers or slave labour. But only democracy saves the humanity and saves millions of lives. The more I see people getting murdered the more I believe that we need to put a stop to tha! t. The murderers understand only deeds.
Interviewer: What about the photos from Abu Ghraib - don't they cause you to start question that American democracy?
Edelman: Well, it happened. Among several hundred thousand American soldiers there were a few perverts...
Interviewer: But the incident nevertheless seriously damaged America's standing. What to say to Polish people after the death of several more of our soldiers?
Edelman: But they died fighting for their freedom. How many thousands of people died in the Warsaw Uprising [in 1944]?
Interviewer: But those people then were fighting for their country.
Edelman: They were fighting for their world. Free and democratic. Just like those who died during the martial law [in Poland in 1981-3]. Did they die only for Poland? No. They died for the freedom of the whole Europe, for the freedom of all those enslaved behind the! Iron Curtain.
Interviewer: But the Spanish withdrew their troops from Iraq after the terrorist attack in Madrid.
Edelman: Please don't tell me what the Spanish did. So what? Do you seriously think that it will save them from further attacks? No. The weak just get punched in the head. Pacifism lost a long time ago.
Interviewer: There are more and more voices saying that Poland shouldn't work so close with the Americans and that instead we should get closer to France and Germany.
Edelman: France used to be a great power, culturally and intellectually. And what happened to them? They didn't want to fight for their own democracy, they thought it wasn't really their war [in 1939]. And they lost everything, because when you bend over and take it - even once - then you're finished. And what's that whole talk about the difference between American politics and European politics? There is no other politics but international democratic politics. If we withdraw from Iraq now, what do we have left? Cosying up to Iran and Saudi Arabia? ...
Interviewer: Is it possible to introduce democracy by force?
Edelman: Yugoslavia showed that it's possible...
Interviewer: You used your own personal history and your moral authority to appeal for the intervention then.
Edelman: Yes... Those who say that you don't have to fight for freedom, don't understand what fascism is. I do.

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

Eugene, nothing I have said is “sophistry” . I have stated only the facts, which you prefer to ignore. The Pope has done far more than just “mediate” . If you think that anything the Pope has said can possibly justify a "pre-emptive" invasion and occupation of a country for the supposed purpose of forestalling attacks by third parties (or because its government is not “worthy” ), then you are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. We all see through your deliberate confusion of the three countries which made war on Iraq with the 30-odd countries who are helping to fix up the resulting chaos.

It’s interesting how someone invariably tries to justify any war the USA wages with “We made war on Germany and Japan and now they’re democracies!” – as if that is the typical result. The USA has made 200 foreign military interventions to protect and expand its commercial and strategic interests. Just FOUR of them have been followed by the establishment of an enduring democracy in the country which was invaded. (The other two were Panama and tiny Grenada. Of course it’s also notable that the wars against Germany and Japan were NOT unilateral wars by the USA [despite what Hollywood likes to portray]. The rest of the world’s democracies had already been fighting them for three years before the USA deigned to help.)

For all his faults, in his 33 years in power Saddam only ever made two foreign military interventions – one (Kuwait) after the US implied to him that it would have no objection, the other (Iran) with the US’s active support, encouragement, and supply of weapons including WMDs.

“They'll do contortions all day to dis-associate the Saddam gov't from ANY connections to al Qaeda (absurdly) and curse Bush without using their reason.” (Eugene)

??? No contortions are necessary. As everyone except Eugene now concedes, there has never been any real evidence of any connexion between Saddam and Al-Quaida. They were bitter enemies. And there seems to be only one person here cursing without using their reason.

Bill tells us "WMDs were only part of the equation (as you know). You also know that we couldn't trust Saddam". So now war on a nation is morally justified merely because our government "can't trust" its leader?

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

Steve, A war is justified if there is an immediate threat or an ongoing attack on people. Bush felt there was an immediate threat and the congress backed him. They all had a lot of reasons to believe this, especially since they knew Saddam had WMDs and wanted to hurt us. He tried to assasinate a retired US President already, was openly paying money to terrorists in the Middle East, and there was reason to believe he was helping other terrorist organizations. We know he had WMDs and when told directly by the UN that the sanctions would be in effect until he showed the WMDs were destroyed in such a way as that fact could be verified. He was told this when everyone was looking at his WMDs, so he really could distroy them in a verifiable way (like Lybia is doing now). Instead he didn't. The President has said he had the choice to trust the word of a madman or to attack, he meant it. Saddam did not show the UN he distroyed his WMDs as laid out in the UN resolutions. Why? Probably because he didn't distroy them. Anyway, congress agreed with the president when they saw the CIA reports. It is on their souls if they were wrong, but the new freedom in Iraq is a wonderful thing to watch grow. Fighting for freedom is a good thing.

bill

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

Steve came back with the single plausible gambit left to him; an appeal to the Pope's disapproval. But what I'd made a point of is overlooked. The Pope has no lock on the truth from his doctrinal advantage. His Holiness is well aware there is such a thing as a just war; whatever he may think of the United States. We are justified in seeing this as one more battle in the war on terror.

The Pope did not declare our war immoral, inasmuch as it is focused on al Qaeda and their global Jihad.

They are the aggressors, the Pope knows that. No admonition of the Pope's has been categorically an anathema. Steve wants to paint the Pope's position as that. He cannot sustain such a claim. Steve can't even give us any orthodox Catholic pretext why Saddam should not have been attacked, other than that Iraq was a foreign country. He speaks his personal conviction only. That's altogether subjective, which is why we have this debate. Since he knows this he tries to assume papal authority for a rationale. To truthfully achieve this, he would have to first show why the war is unjust.

The Pope would have no problem condemning an unjust war. but to date, that's not what the Pope has done.

Steve thinks the war is an unjust one. For his own reasons. He hasn't been able to show why. An abstract exoneration of Saddam (not plainly connected to al Qaeda?) isn't enough. The entire world has proceeded all along on the agreement that Iraq was in possession of, or at least a producer of deadly weapons of mass destruction. It wasn't just some vague pretext for attacking Saddam; it was the world's conventional wisdom. Saddam could easily have avoided his own ruin by simply allowing full-scale and unobstructed arms inspection. He was afforded a very long time to do so, but refused.

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

So Eugene has descended to the last remaining scrap of justification he can find for his beloved war – he refuses to accept anything the Pope says which he disagrees with unless it is in the form of a formal doctrinally binding ex cathedra statement. This type of minimalism does you no credit, Eugene. The Church is not a cafeteria where you pick only those teachings you find congenial. You have to take every item on the menu of Catholic teachings from A (abortion) right through W (war) and X (execution).

“The Pope did not declare our war immoral, inasmuch as it is focused on al Qaeda and their global Jihad.” Quite correct. The same can NOT be said of the war on Iraq. Sorry Eugene, but it is entirely orthodox Catholic principle that you don’t attack a country unless THAT COUNTRY ITSELF is attacking or obviously about to IMMEDIATELY attack you. “They might have some connexion with someone else who attacked us a few years ago” or “They might in a few years time develop weapons which can attack us” don’t even come anywhere near consideration as justification for war in the Catholic church’s view.

This shouldn’t have to be said again, but I’m sure everyone who posts to this board is of the opinion that Saddam was a terrible tyrant (though, interestingly, not the world’s worst) and that Iraq is better off without him. Please desist from your cheap shots that anyone who disagrees with you is trying to “exonerate Saddam”.

Bill, I think it’s fairly obvious that Saddam was deliberately evasive about whether he had WMDs for the same reason that many other countries neither confirm nor deny that they have them. To keep their enemies guessing. Bush had determined before he was even elected that Saddam was going down, no matter what he did. If he had been totally open with the weapons inspectors, would that have held off Bush’s attack? NO. As we saw, Bush had other dubious excuses for war up his sleeve and was not afraid to use them. Saddam was smart enough to realize this. Severely outgunned, his best hope of survival, albeit a slim one, was to try to scare off the Americans by creating doubt whether he still had any WMDs.

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

I agree Steve, the notion that a "pre-empitve" attack on a sovereign nation is justified leads us down a treacherous road. No telling what the standard will be in the future if left to man's creative imagination and his desire for world domination.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 07, 2004.

We didn't attack Al Quada when we should have and we had 9/11.

In the case of Saddam, we were already in a war with him. The war that started in 1991 did not end until the fall of Bagdad. Saddam had a 'ceasefire' with conditions (one of which was verifiable elimination of WMDs). That he was playing games with not verifying his suppose distruction of WMDs simply means he didn't comply with the conditions of the ceasefire and a full war began again. It was not a preemptive attack.

You guys need to go back and read the history of the conflict. Start here: The Right War for the Right Reasons

And keep an eye on the news coming out now about the links between Saddam and Al Queda: Two new members of the Iraqi interim government insist that Saddam and al Qaeda were linked.

take care, Bill

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

Bill Nelson nails it again. Thank you, Sir!
The words of our conscientious objectors here make me laugh. Steve, now check-mated, gives a last stab: ''Bush had determined before he was even elected that Saddam was going down, no matter what he did. If he had been totally open with the weapons inspectors, would that have held off Bush’s attack? NO.''

Not much except another disingenuous display of moral outrage, coupled with insane assumptions. He ''knows'' what Bush intended even before being elected! He presumes as well, bush had no honest intentions either about ''holding off'' an attack, or worrying about weapons inspections.

Steve makes a slightly better case of interpreting the pope's inner thoughts than of bush's. It's interesting to note that Bush never resorted to lying. he said what he would do, following 9-11. What has he done? Just what he said he would. But not until diplomacy had been completely stalled.

Also interesting, no answer-- not a peep about the exposed corruption of those UN officials in charge of resolving diplomatic disputes fairly. The ones our Holy Father has qualified as proper avenues before any hostile actions. Pope John Paul II, of course, was taking for granted these great diplomats are all trustworthy and honorable. For a long time we all supposed so.

But what came to light just as Iraq's fate was being discussed? Shucks; well-

Saddam Hussein was greasing the palms of a number of these select guardians of the world's peace and welfare.

Did Steve have the intellectual honesty even to address the problem; seeing how the UN successfully hamstrung all efforts to confront Saddam over his weapons, The UN expected Bush to be quiet and carry the cross of 9-11 forever; while UN officials were feeding at Saddam's Oil For Food trough. A truly despicable act worse than bombardments of civilians anywhere. Stealing the food intended for destitute Iraqi children. They're reading over in this very minute the mass of documents showing where BILLIONS in oil revenue has gone; straight out of Saddam's bank accounts. No wonder Germany, Russia, France and a number of others were desperately trying to steam-roll George Bush in the UN Security Council.

Steve won't want to go there, I suppose. ...

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

This came out today in the Chicago Sun-Times, it is an interesting read: Why Bush's war to remove Saddam was a 'no brainer'

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

What a surprise, Bill! Two members of the puppet Iraqi government installed by the USA parrot the US government line about links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam. Obviously that PROVES it’s true!

You two gentlemen need to get your story straight. Bill says Bush was just continuing the war his daddy started. Eugene says Bush had no intention of attacking Iraq until after 9/11. Who’s got the “insane assumptions”?

Please spare the insults to the Holy Father’s intelligence. Surely he knows full well the UN and its members and officials are sinners. But he knows the best way to avoid war and build peace is to work through this sinful organization.

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

It takes gall to assert yourself in this manner,

''Bill says Bush was just continuing the war his daddy started. Eugene says Bush had no intention of attacking Iraq until after 9/11. Who’s got the “insane assumptions”?

You have, Steve. I never said Bush ''had no intention'' of anything. I was merely marvelling at your ability to ''know'' everything our President wanted to do before even getting elected. This is quite a gift. I never met a mind-reader before. I have no doubt you can read minds. You should let us know beforehand when Osama bin Laden is laying a new booby trap in a large city. Read his mind for your next post here. While you're at it, read the Pope's mind again and see if he approves of Osama or not. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you tell us Osama is the Good Guy; the Pope said so.

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

Steve, The current government in Iraq was put together by the UN, not the USA. Have patience, they will have elections soon enough. Then will you trust their word?

bill

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

Steve, this is from the article I linked to above, I guess you didn't read it, here is part of it, but I suggest you read it all

In today's Chicago Sun-Times: Why Bush's war to remove Saddam was a 'no brainer'

Tenet was right. Given that Saddam's Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction, indeed was developing nuclear weapons before the 1991 Gulf War, and given that Saddam's regime had not accounted for WMDs he had possessed, any prudent intelligence agency would have to have concluded that he still had them. Moreover, there was no evidence that could have been obtained that would have convinced a prudent intelligence agency that Saddam did not possess them. This argument wasn't made in the run-up to the war because Colin Powell and Tony Blair convinced Bush to agree to a round of United Nations inspections. But the U.N. inspectors couldn't prove that Saddam didn't have WMDs. Given his past behavior, we had no basis for concluding he didn't.

And we had no way of being sure that he would not arm al-Qaida with them. That is the conclusion of Stephen Hayes' The Connection: How Al Qaeda's Collaboration With Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America.

As Tenet testified in October 2002, there were contacts going back to the early 1990s between agents of al-Qaida and Saddam's Iraq. Richard Clarke, when he served in the Clinton administration, said the same thing, as did many others in the Clinton administration. Czech officials believe that Sept. 11 hijacker Muhammad Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague in August 2001. Hayes also reveals that in January 2000, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, acting under orders from Iraqi intelligence, accompanied two of the Sept. 11 hijackers to a meeting in Malaysia that the CIA has concluded was a planning session for the assault on the USS Cole and the Sept. 11 attacks.

As Hayes is careful to note, some of the evidence of Iraq-al-Qaida ties is questionable. Intelligence evidence often is. But it is interesting that many who criticize Bush for not ''connecting the dots'' before Sept. 11 are also criticizing those who connect the dots on Iraq-al-Qaida ties. These critics seem to believe that Saddam's regime should have been considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But foreign policy is not bound by the rules of a criminal court, and Saddam's previous behavior entitled us to regard him as guilty until proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.

So put yourself in the position of Bush in late 2002 and early 2003. You must assume that Saddam has or can produce weapons of mass destruction. And you know that Iraqi agents have met with al-Qaida operatives. You know that both Iraq and al-Qaida want to inflict maximum damage on the United States. So the only way to protect the United States is to eliminate the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was, as Hayes said at an American Enterprise Institute panel last week, a ''no brainer.''

It is interesting to ponder what those who continue to insist that ''Bush lied'' and that there was no danger from collusion between al-Qaida and Saddam would have said if Bill Clinton had done what Bush did in Iraq -- which is consistent with much of Clinton's rhetoric. Almost certainly they would have agreed, as some of them did in the Clinton years, that there was a danger from Iraqi WMDs and Iraqi collaboration with al-Qaida. That they take the opposite view now is evidence not that they are right but that they are filled with partisan venom.

-bill

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

Wake up and smell the coffee, Bill. There’s no way that anyone the USA disapproved of could become a member of the Iraqi interim governing council. Contrary to the implication in your last paragraph, my opinions are based on the observed facts regardless of party. Unlike some I do not take a position merely because I blindly endorse everything a certain political party does and blindly condemn everything the other party does.

I see there’s no point in debating further with Eugene “you tell us Osama is the good guy” Chavez.

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

Looks like some of those non-existant banned weapons just turned up in Holland: Iraqi Missile Engines Found in Netherlands, UN Inspectors Say

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

Hey, Bill:
acknowledge your link to the WMD discovery in Rotterdam. Intersting.

Now-- Steve's lame reponse to: New Governing Council, Iraq-- ''There’s no way that anyone the USA disapproved of could become a member of the Iraqi interim governing council.''

WHY? Because Steve said so. Nothing else. Steve makes them puppets. Who ya gonna believe? Steve reads minds!

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

Wake up and smell the coffee, Bill. There’s no way that anyone the USA disapproved of could become a member of the Iraqi interim governing council.

I'll acknowledge that, but the US had a few surprises and really was put into the position of having to accept people that we probably would rather not have on the council. Iraq, well, played politics, and did a very good job at it! So don't discount the council as quickly as you are. It is not a fully elected representative government; hopefully the UN will find a way to make that happen by Jan. 2005 that is only 7 months away. We will see. But I think you and I will be very pleasantly surprised by this fledgling democracy.

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

And they said it couldn't be done:
Agreement ' reached' on Iraq draft

The UN Security Council appears to have reached a compromise over the new US-UK draft resolution on Iraq.

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

"There’s no way that anyone the USA disapproved of could become a member of the Iraqi interim governing council. I'll acknowledge that, but the US had a few surprises and really was put into the position of having to accept people that we probably would rather not have on the council. (Bill)

I guess that's why only TWO members of the council were willing to go along with the ludicrous "Saddam was buddies with Osama" story.

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

Steve, It wasn't brought up for a vote. Two of them knew of evidence linking Saddam and Al Quada.

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

So much for the US wanting Iraqi oil:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Iraqi officials declared Tuesday that the interim government has assumed full control of the country's oil industry ahead of the June 30 handover of sovereignty from the U.S.-led occupation administration.

 

"Today the most important natural resource has been returned to Iraqis to serve all Iraqis," Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said. "I'm pleased to announce that full sovereignty and full control on oil industry has been handed over to the oil ministry today and to the new Iraqi government as of today."

 

The announcement came as Allawi and Oil Minister Thamir Ghadbhan toured the al-Doura oil refinery in southern Baghdad.

 

After meeting and shaking hands with the refinery workers, the two ministers thanked oil sector workers.

 

"We are totally now in control, there are no more advisers," Ghadbhan said. "We are running the show, the oil policies will be implemented 100 percent by Iraqis."

 

Allawi said the handover of the oil ministry before June 30 reflects "our full confidence in the oil minister. It's evidence that oil ministry has worked perfectly."

 

Referring to the former regime of Saddam Hussein, Allawi said that "in the past, Iraqi oil was used in building palaces, buying weapons to achieve one person's goals."

 

Iraq has the world's second largest oil reserves, with more than 110 billion barrels of crude oil and about 100,000 trillion cubic meters of natural gas, Allawi said.

 

A force has been established solely for the protection of the oil infrastructure, made up of about 14,000 guards.

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

STEVE: ''why only TWO members of the council were willing to go along with the ludicrous "Saddam was buddies with Osama" story.'' ''It wasn't brought up for a vote. Two of them knew of evidence linking Saddam and Al Qaeda.''
-- Bill Nelson

If it were correct, Steve-- that ''only two'' in the Council were willing to go along with the ludicrous -- HAD KNOWLEDGE of a not-so- ludicrous connection between Osama and Saddam Hussein;

Who are we (you) to dismiss that knowledge? Is your mind so made up that those two ALONE couldn't be telling us the truth because you say so?

You call it ludicrous. Bill Nelson has corrected your biased assumption. What if the Council had taken this allegation to a vote and it were ratified by two more members; or all members? Would that shake your certainty some? I can give you the answer; but not yet. You give us the answer.

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

-------

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

I feel like a stuck record here. Saddam and Osama were total ideoligical opposites. Saddam favored secular government and oppressed Islamic radicals. Osama thinks secular government is the great Satan. Osama supported the radical Islamist regime of Iran. Saddam fought a war against Iran (remember...when he used the chemical weapons we gave him...). No proof at all has been found to link Saddam with 9/11. An alliance between Saddam and Osama simply wasn't possible, because Saddam's regime embodied that which Osama sought to destroy: secular government in the Middle East.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 08, 2004.

You only think so. There's ample evidence al Qaeda trained in Iraq, and that Osama was not particularly concerned about the secular nature of that dictatorship. We've discovered a raft of Iraqi documentation showing transfer of money from Saddam to al Qaeda agents well before Bush came to the presidency. A new book is out now, title ''The Connection''. You might do a quick Google search for it.

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

Amazon.com /

The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America by Stephen F. Hayes (Author)

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

The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America

Interesting customer reviews...

-- (link@for.eugene), June 08, 2004.

Bill Nelson quoted from a review yesterday, and now here's a link. Maybe some of our party here should pay attention to Bill once in a while. It's funny that his post had no readers.

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

U.N. Gives Resounding 15-0 Endorsement to Transfer of Sovereignty to New Iraqi Government

The Associated Press

Published: Jun 8, 2004

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The U.N. Security Council gave a resounding 15- 0 endorsement Tuesday to a U.S. resolution backing the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq's new government 14 months after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

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

On reviews of: The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America

Watch out for customer reviews on Amazon, many politicos enter bias reviews of political books without reading them. It is a game they play. I'm not saying to not read them, just keep that in mind and weed out the bogas reviews.

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

From the Sunday London Times:

Iraq today is no bed of roses, I know. I have just come back from a tour of the country. But I don't recognise the place I have just visited as the war zone depicted by the Arab and western media.

It is true that Saddamite leftovers and their allies have stolen enough money and arms to continue their campaign of terror and disruption for some time yet. But they have no popular following and have failed to develop a coherent national strategy. The Iraqi civil defence corps has gone on the offensive, hunting down terrorists, often with some success. At the same time attacks on the Iraqi police force have dropped 50% in the past month.

There is also good news on the economic front. In the last quarter the dinar, Iraq's currency, has increased by almost 15% against the dollar and the two most traded local currencies, the Kuwaiti dinar and the Iranian rial.

Thanks to rising oil prices, Iraq is earning a record £41m to £44m a day. This has led to greater economic activity, including private reconstruction schemes. That money goes into a fund controlled by the United Nations but Iraqi leaders want control transferred to the new interim government, when sovereignty is transferred at the end of this month.

Despite the continuing terrorist violence Iraq has attracted more than 7m foreign visitors, mostly Shi'ites making the pilgrimage to Najaf and Karbala where (despite sporadic fighting) a building boom is under way. This year Iraq has had a bumper harvest with record crops, notably in wheat. It could become agriculturally self- sufficient for the first time in 30 years.

.....

Nor should one believe the claims of self-styled experts that the Iraqis are not ready for freedom. During the past 10 months elections have been held in 37 municipalities. In each case victory went to the moderate, liberal and secular candidates. The former Ba'athists, appearing under fresh labels, failed to win a single seat. Hardline Islamist groups collected 1% to 3% of the vote.

Most of the article is here (read it all).

The link to the London Times article is here.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), June 09, 2004.

For those who like to think about these things, read: The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), June 09, 2004.

"We would like to express our extreme gratitude and appreciation for the coalition led by the United States and all those who have made painful sacrifices for the liberation of Iraq," Allawi said.

. . . .

Now's the time, Blair observed, "for the new Iraqi government to sit down with the multinational force and work out how, over time, the Iraqi capability for security can be established and built up."

Iraqi security capability has "gaps," Blair acknowledged. But, he emphasized, "we are there to help them and make sure that the Iraqis ultimately can take care of their own security."

Iraqi President Ghazi al-Yawar is attending the G8 summit. Bush said he'd thank the Iraqi statesman "for having the courage to stand up and lead, and tell him that America will help him."

Yawar, Bush observed, "is the president of a sovereign nation." Iraq soon will assume its own national affairs, Bush pointed out. "When we say transfer full sovereignty, we mean transfer full sovereignty," he said.

Bush noted that Yawar had earlier thanked him for the sacrifices of U.S. and coalition troops.

"The American people need to know that there are some people in Iraq who are deeply grateful to the fact that our sons and daughters have died for their freedom," Bush said, noting he was sure "the people of Great Britain want to hear that same message."

Bush: Resolution Passage Marks 'Important Day' for Iraq

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 09, 2004.

''Bill says Bush was just continuing the war his daddy started. Eugene says Bush had no intention of attacking Iraq until after 9/11. Who’s got the “insane assumptions”? You have, Steve. I never said Bush ''had no intention'' of anything." (Eugene)

OK, so now Eugene has changed tack and is taking Bill's line, that Bush just wanted to finish off Saddam. What a pity that Saddam didn't play along and provide a justification. Instead Bush had to go in with five half-justifications:

1. Saddam may have had some link with Osama (OK this is more like one- tenth of a justification)

2. Saddam may have still had some WMDs which he may have after many years despite economic sanctions been able to develop into weapons delivery systems which could attack the US.

3. Saddam has invaded other countries in the past.

4. Saddam has used chemical weapons (supplied by the US) in the past against Iraqi citizens (just as the British did).

5. Saddam was in general a really bad ruler who oppressed his people.

I think that's the complete list isn't it? Unforunately even five partial justifications don't add up to one whole justification. The math doesn't work like that in the just war theory. And Bush couldn't help giving away his real motive in the ultimatum he gave just before the war. It wasn't "give up your WMDs" or "break any (chuckle) links to Al-Quaeda" or "Don't threaten other countries". No, Bush told the Iraqis that the only thing that would save them from war was "regime change" - Saddam and his sons must leave the country immediately. That's it, nothing else.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 09, 2004.

"Saddam may have had some link with Osama (OK this is more like one- tenth of a justification)"

A link no one has been able to prove, and there is more than enough reason to doubt it.

"Saddam may have still had some WMDs which he may have after many years despite economic sanctions been able to develop into weapons delivery systems which could attack the US. "

Of which we had no evidence (despite all the evidence Bush claimed to have that was just made up). Say, if he had all those weapons, how come he didn't use them on our soldiers when we were invading his country? And why can't we find them now?

Two questions every conservative dreads.

"Saddam has invaded other countries in the past."

Both times he had our permission. His war with iran was fought with US-supplied chemical weapons. We gave him the green light to go into Kuwait, right up until it showed up on CNN. Then all of the sudden, Saddam is an evil threat to freedom who must be destroyed. If the American media hadn't payed so much attention to Kuwait, there'd be American gas killing Kuwaiti insurgents right now. That's the smell of freedom.

"Saddam has used chemical weapons (supplied by the US) in the past against Iraqi citizens (just as the British did). "

I think Steve handled this one.

" Saddam was in general a really bad ruler who oppressed his people."

So is the King of Kuwait. And the King of Saudi Arabia (oh great, now Zarove is gonna be angry because I'm badmouthing monarchs again). And the government of Turkey. And Morocco (our partner in the War on Terror). And Pakistan. But we support all of those dictators. Would Dubya care to explain that hypocracy?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 10, 2004.

Both of you have little interest in middle east politics or strategy. You are interested in demonizing Bush.

Why don't you go ahead? but stop trying to wrestle with problems you haven't a clue about; such as ''just war theory''-- and ''A link no one has been able to prove, and there is more than enough reason to doubt it.'' We have been in a just war. It is a war that was declared on the western world and the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001 . You have no reason to doubt it.

Stay, therefore, on the main agenda. You are here to heap scorn on a Republican President for having the man's trousers it takes to clap sadististic tyrants into prison or six feet under. For weeks you've been pestering everybody with your sympathy for those evil characters. You've made yourselves look ridiculous and don't know when to stop. The war is now a fait accompli and Bush & Blair & our coalition WON it. It may go to a different stage. It may drag out in other hot spots if al Qaeda doesn't get the message. They're doomed. You are simply both irrelevant.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 10, 2004.

Instead of replying to the evidence plainly presented to him, Eugene resorts to his usual slur that anyone who doubts the morality of the war does it only out of “sympathy for evil characters”.

“the war is now a fait accompli”

Oh that’s all right then, it’s in the past so we should just forget about the fact that it was wrong, and go on to the next thing.

“having the man’s trousers” – ooops he got caught with his trousers DOWN. One day Eugene you’ll realize that waging a war doesn’t make you a man. On the contrary it diminishes your manhood.

“It may go to a different stage” – yes, terrorism will almost certainly escalate, now that the war has given the formerly discredited Al-Quaeda thousands of eager new recruits.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 10, 2004.

Do you feel like a better man than Bush, Steve? He had what it takes to lead his country. You have an appeaser's negative lack of resolve. If you think no resolve, negative courage is manhood; no wonder this is your hue and cry: ''We can't, we can't!''

Neville Chamberlain went to Munich before Hitler attacked Poland, back in the late 1930's. He was like you. A gentleman. A peacemaker. He returned with a piece of paper. All he ever achieved in public life was that piece of paper. It took a Churchill to raise up his people and do battle against evil. Chamberlain was manhood diminished; he had no stomach for the stern challenge.

You haven't any either. As I stated up above: You think letting yourself be bombarded and gassed is manly. Madmen who love to torture little children while the parents watch are not mortal enemies to you. They are just inevitable; and you won't try to stop them.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 10, 2004.

More of the same slurs, that’s all Eugene has. Churchill is his hero. He didn’t let himself be bombarded and gassed. He was the first to use chemical weapons against the Iraqis. He defended it by saying that it’s all right to use poison gas on “primitive” people like the Arabs.

Apparently Eugene thinks that being an “appeaser” is a fault. I plead guilty as charged.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 10, 2004.

"Both of you have little interest in middle east politics or strategy. You are interested in demonizing Bush."

Quite the contrary, I think if we practiced ANY

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 10, 2004.

sorry, got cut off...

if we practiced ANY policy in the Middle East other than bombing the hell out of a country that had never attacked us maybe we'd be halfway to winning this war.

"We have been in a just war. It is a war that was declared on the western world and the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001 . You have no reason to doubt it."

Of course no. Doubting our leaders should only be done by government- designated doubting officials in certain "free-speech zones". That way we can protect our freedom from the terrorists, right?

Iraq never declared war on us. Saddam was a bad guy, but not a threat to us. This is not a war against the Muslim world, and just because a few extremeists declared war on us doesn't mean we should retaliate on the entire Middle East.

"You are here to heap scorn on a Republican President for having the man's trousers it takes to clap sadististic tyrants into prison or six feet under."

Wow. Bush is such a hero. It took a lot of guts, sending someone else's kids off to risk their lives in a country that had no weapons.

"For weeks you've been pestering everybody with your sympathy for those evil characters. You've made yourselves look ridiculous and don't know when to stop. "

Yes. Because everybody who doesn;t support the war must love Saddam. You hit the nail on the head. You're either with us or against us. Either support Bush or support Bin Laden, right? Either support your government or you're a terrorist. And terrorists need to be locked up, right? So perhaps we should round up all the "Saddam sympathisers" and put them in camps for national security...

It's a slippery slope, my friend. Tread carefully.

"The war is now a fait accompli and Bush & Blair & our coalition WON it. It may go to a different stage. It may drag out in other hot spots if al Qaeda doesn't get the message. They're doomed. You are simply both irrelevant."

WE TOOK OVER THAT COUNTRY FIAR AND SQUARE ON THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT! BOOYA!

Nice logic there.

"Do you feel like a better man than Bush, Steve?"

Well, lets see:

Wars started by Bush: 3 and counting.

Wars started by Steve: None that I know of.

Promises from 2000 broken by Bush: A bunch.

Promises from 2000 broken by Steve: Not too many.

Corporations catered to by Bush: Way too many to count.

Corporations catered to by Steve: None that I am aware of.

Amount of time Bush was AWOL from the National Guard while snorting coccaine: At least a year.

Amount of time Steve was AWOL from the National Guard while snorting coccaine: None.

Need I go on?

"He had what it takes to lead his country. You have an appeaser's negative lack of resolve. If you think no resolve, negative courage is manhood; no wonder this is your hue and cry: ''We can't, we can't!'' "

Show me a man who's first solution is violence, and I'll show you a man without any good ideas.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."--Mohandas Gandhi.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 10, 2004.

"Show me a man who's first solution is violence, and I'll show you a man without any good ideas."

How many resolutions were enacted before the Liberation of Iraq to get Saddam to change his mind? How many people in the UN and Security Council were bribed by Saddam after the last resolution so that he would be able to continue to oppress his people and plot against the US? {even now France and Germany refuse to help Iraq} The quote above is a red herring in this case and shows a lack of knowledge of recent history.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 10, 2004.

But Bill, you admitted on another thread that Bush set out to finish off the job his daddy started on Saddam. His first solution WAS violence. He just tried to dress it up as some sort of “civilized” violence with his posturing at the UN and talking nonsense about WMDs and links to terrorism.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 10, 2004.

But Bill, you admitted on another thread that Bush set out to finish off the job his daddy started on Saddam.

If I said that, I misspoke. The UN resolutions on Iraq were a continuum. At one point Bush 41 was involved and at the final stages Bush 43 was involved. Bush 43 finished the job the UN started and got his father involved in.

By the way, a lot of good news coming from Iraq now, it looks like a democratic government is trying to take hold.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 11, 2004.

Looks like Putin is saying the Democrats have no reason to criticize Pres Bush: "The Kremlin leader, answering a reporter's question in Sea Island, Georgia, suggested that the Democrats were two-faced in criticizing Bush on Iraq since it had been the Clinton administration that authorized the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia by U.S. and NATO forces. "

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 11, 2004.

. I plead guilty as charged. -- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 10, 2004. Steve; what happens when a child is tortured in front of his parents? That could change your plea for a little while. It depends on whose ox is being gored. Our country was attacked by stealth and give just cause to exterminate killers. Live with that, Learn it, Love it. This is not Paradise. We have a world to bring under control.

Again I'll remind you: You aren't being asked or forced to participate. You can live like a Mennonite. It's OK. We need people like you too. But you actually seem filled with hatred and spite. Can you explain that?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 11, 2004.

What about these late news?

loschavez@pacbell.net), June 11, 2004.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html

WND?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 11, 2004.

here is the link UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), June 11, 2004.

No, Eugene, no matter how many people you kill, you will never bring the world under your control. God is in control of the world and everything in it, and all the wars and all your chauvinist hectoring can't affect that. No I will not learn to live with and love seeing the US exterminating people. And I AM being "forced to participate" through my tax dollars among other ways. Only one person here is "filled with hatred and spite".

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 13, 2004.

You miss the point AGAIN.

There is no prohibition against just wars that came to us from Jesus Christ. Not a single one. He said love your enemies; and we do. They have been deceived, and the devil is who leads them. The sooner the enemy is defeated, the sooner his life can change, God willing. That is love for an enemy, and our combat against Satan.

But passively waiting to see their lives change as if we didn't care; that isn't love.

Furthermore, self-defense and the protection of our families and our country is a duty. Not a deviation from Christ's holy teachings, but a virtue (when the cause is just.) This is love for our neighbor; an oppressed soul. We fight for lives which have no hope; for the neighbor no one else cares to liberate. There are plenty of justifications for fighting the just war, and God has historically aided that kind of cause many times.

You'll only think I'm attacking you, Steve-- But the truth is, you've deluded yourself to the point of caricature. There's nothing you could truly perceive as a just cause, because to you justice is nothing you could possibly hope for. It's something abstract to your blinded eyes. You're a fanatic, My Friend.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 13, 2004.

There's only one "fanatic" here, my "friend", so blinded by his loyalty to his chosen political party that he kids himself that anything other than killing is simply "passively waiting". I and many others from the Pope down have pointed out the facts of the matter as they relate to your duty as a Christian. Each time your pro-war arguments are exposed as empty, you viciously attack those who show you the truth. If you ever decide to drop your arrogant chauvinism and consider the facts, you can go back over what has been said to you. But I won't bother wasting any more words now on someone with such a tightly closed mind. I pray that one day you will realize the truth of the words of Pope Paul VI, "You cannot love with weapons in your hands."

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 14, 2004.

That's fine, Steve,
I agreed to disagree a long while back. ''Vicious attacks'' are just about what you've relied on here: ''Blinded by his loyalty to his chosen political party'' --I'm not. ''He kids himself'' --I have: by thinking you had a reasonable bone in your body-- ''empty''; I guess what clashes with your wisdom is always empty.

There is chauvinism in much of what I say here. I'm not ashamed of that. Our forefathers were honestly chauvinistic. They had to fight for the freedoms you & I enjoy now. They understood Solomon's words: There's a time for peace and there's a time for war.

There's quite a lot of feminism in your words. Why have you forgotten a basic feminist truth? --Even a mother starling fights when her nest is threatened by the raven.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 14, 2004.

Where are the peace-protesters demanding that Iraqi rebels stop blowing up the civilian engineers who are trying to restore electricity to their country? Where is the Leftist outrage that unarmed civilians whose only intent is to improve the level of life for the average Iraqi get blown up at random?

Ah, but that's the point: they couldn't care LESS about peace. They don't want peace if it is going to mean their political opponent gets re-elected. So they dissemble and never condemn terrorists. Never condemn dictatorships, never call on foreign regimes to respect laws or ethics or their own treaties... no, the only outrage we see on the streets and blogosphere is directed at (surprise!) those in the West who are actually trying to make the world a better place.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 14, 2004.

Boston Globe: Purported letter from militant leader to bin Laden says Iraqi fighters squeezed by coalition

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) A leader of militants in Iraq has purportedly written to Osama bin Laden saying his fighters are being squeezed by U.S.-led coalition troops, according to a statement posted Monday on Islamic Web sites.

It was not possible to authenticate the statement allegedly from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian whose insurgent group claimed responsibility for the videotaped beheading of American Nicholas Berg.

Titled ''The text of al-Zarqawi's message to Osama bin Laden about holy war in Iraq,'' the statement appeared on Web sites that have recently carried claims of responsibility for attacks in Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

''The space of movement is starting to get smaller,'' it said. ''The grip is starting to be tightened on the holy warriors' necks and, with the spread of soldiers and police, the future is becoming frightening.''

The statement says the militant movement in Iraq is racing against time to form battalions that can take control of the country ''four months before the formation of the promised Iraqi government, hoping to spoil their plan.'' It appears to refer to the government that would take office after the elections scheduled for January 2005.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 14, 2004.

I’ll ignore Eugene’s cheap crack about “feminism”. At least he finally admits what he has long denied, that he is in fact a chauvinist. Chillingly, he appears to regard it as something good.

Joe, you didn’t read my answers to similar questions from you and Brian on the “What’s the difference?” thread last week.

Bill, interesting story. A group of apparent terrorists which may or may not be linked to Al-Qaeda is credited with an unverified letter stating that it is under pressure from US troops in Iraq. I assume you mean this as some kind of justification for the US invading Iraq. If they had not done so, there would be NO terrorists there!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 14, 2004.

Dear Steve;
That wasn't a crack. What I stated is true. There has been a generation in our western society raised largely on feminist tenets. The liberal agenda which pushes touchy-feely education and political correctness. Who do you think demonized ''chauvinism''--? Who do you think embraces a blasphemous notion now for about forty years, that the Catholic Church is fascist? -- Feminists.

The generation just coming to middle age was a spoiled bunch whose parents were guided by Dr Spock; worried more about a child's ''self-esteem'' than teaching responsible citizenship. That's what I meant saying your arguments reflect feminist ideals.

You react with candle-light vigils and yellow ribbons, not moral fiber; against the recent outrages committed against America. You call America's flag a piece of ''nylon'', and expect others to like it. That's why I confront you; not for anything personal. And how do you respond? -- With petulance and bad tempered accusations. You're now calling me a ''foul mouth'' because I dare dispute with you. What a nerve.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 15, 2004.

The "petulance and bad tempered accusations" seem to be all flowing to me, not from me. I see now Mr Bush's own commission has finally concluded what everyone else knew - that Iraq had no involvement whatever in "the recent outrages committed against America" , nor any links to Al-Quaeda. Don't hold your breath waiting for any apology from Mr Bush nor from those who continue in a state of denial for political purposes.

Just war principles have nothing to do with being "liberal", "touchy- feely", "politically correct" or "feminist", much less thinking the Church is fascist. They are the moral principles enunciated by the Catholic Church.

I apologize to any flags made of cotton or some other fabric, for calling them "nylon".

"Who do you think demonized ''chauvinism''--? "

The Prince of Demons did when he placed it in men's hearts. "He that falls into sin is a man; that grieves at it may be a saint; that boasteth of it is a devil. " -- Dr. Thomas Fuller

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 17, 2004.

Russia 'warned U.S. about Saddam'

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.

The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday, according to the Interfax news agency.

The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin, who made the remarks during a visit to Kazakhstan.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 18, 2004.

Steve:
''They are the moral principles enunciated by the Catholic Church.''

You mean the very ones I'm upholding and you deny? You don't believe there's a just war ''principle''. I'm the one here who is telling you there is and always has been. You have yet to uphold any principle. You uphold the opinion of Steve.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 18, 2004.

Eugene, you call black white in a desperate attempt to continue claiming as just what has been repeatedly shown to be unjust. Every sentence in your last post is the exact contrary to the factual situation. You need to reflect instead of instinctively shooting off your mouth.

Bill, you and others have repeatedly ridiculed Putin's views on Iraq where they didn't coincide with your own, and dismissed them as pure self-interest. Now you pick out one of his reported statements and choose to believe it, even though it is exactly opposite to the conclusion reached by a comprehensive commission of inquiry by your own government. Very curious.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 18, 2004.

Bill, you and others have repeatedly ridiculed Putin's views on Iraq where they didn't coincide with your own, and dismissed them as pure self-interest. Now you pick out one of his reported statements and choose to believe it, even though it is exactly opposite to the conclusion reached by a comprehensive commission of inquiry by your own government. Very curious.

I still don't agree with Russia's view on the invasion of Iraq. They were profiting greatly from the oil for food program, as you know. But the point is, that is pertanent to the original message of this thread, that Russia gave secret information to Bush (which he personally thanked them for, so we know he received it), a number of times that Iraq was plotting terror attacks inside and outside the US. This gives additional moral justification to the President of the United States invading Iraq to put a stop to such attacks. If Bush did not, and Saddam was successful in a 9/11 type attack, then what would you and others be saying about Bush? I know I would be saying he should not be President. The President of the US has the primary responsibility to protect the citizens of the United States.

Also note that these Russian conversations would probably not be known to the Vatican, and that is why the responsibility for determining if the liberation of Iraq was justified or not, does not rest there.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), June 19, 2004.

Steve,

By the way, our "comprehensive commission", as you call them (they are actually a congressional committee, we have a lot of them, and they are hardly comprehensive), said they could find no evidence of a link between Saddam and 9/11. They did not say there was no evidence between Saddam and terrorism or Al Qieda (in fact they said there was a lot of communication between the two bodies, and that there was a lot of dealings with Saddam and terrorists of all sorts). You might wish to re-read the reports.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 19, 2004.

I meant that the investigation they did was comprehensive, not that the committee itself is comprehensive.

I'm sure there was also a lot of "commmunication" between Saddam and the USA. That doesn't mean they are allies.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 20, 2004.

I'm sure there was also a lot of "commmunication" between Saddam and the USA. That doesn't mean they are allies.

Yea the US and Saddam yelled at each other a lot. Saddam supported terrorism, and their conferences were how they could support each other. There is a difference.

Democratic Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission Lee Hamilton "Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission Lee Hamilton blasted the mainstream press this week for distorting the Commission's findings on links between Iraq and al Qaida before the Sept. 11 attacks, saying those findings actually support Bush administration contentions." He said: "The sharp differences that the press has drawn [between the White House and the Commission] are not that apparent to me," Hamilton told the Associated Press, a day after insisting that his probe uncovered "all kinds" of connections between Osama bin Laden's terror network and Iraq. "What we have found is, Were there contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq? Yes. Some of them were shadowy but they were there," said Tom Kean, the Republican former governor of New Jersey, who is chairman of the commission.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), June 20, 2004.

''WITH a terrorist network like al-Qaida capable of launching operations in the United States and in any other place in the world, the most dangerous thing that you could have is terrorists with access to chemical and biological agents, or small fissile materials," the president [President Bill Clinton] said. "So, we needed to look, after 9/11, any place in the world where that happened."

It was striking, when I interviewed Clinton this past week, to hear him make the case for war in Iraq with language similar to that used by Bush and his top foreign-policy aides. If one goes back to 1998, Clinton even used the term "unholy axis" — close to Bush's "axis of evil": "This is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." If these "outlaw nations" and the "unholy axis" build arsenals of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, Clinton said, "they will be all the more lethal." He continued, "There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

For the leader of the world's sole superpower, issues of policy style and nuance do matter. On whether Iraq posed a threat to the United States and the world, especially after 9/11, honest people do disagree — but Clinton and Bush do not.

bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 20, 2004.

the last post was a quote from Dan Rather.

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

Steve:
About your knee-jerk reaction: ''Eugene, you call black white in a desperate attempt to continue claiming as just what has been repeatedly shown to be unjust.''

Haven't I told you I'm not desperate? It doesn't take much effort to quash your big hullabaloo; you're an easy mark. For instance, you refer to fictitious ''facts''.

WHAT ? ? ? - - ''has repeatedly been shown as unjust'' ? ? ? YOU show repeatedly; how badly you want to win the argument; but where have you ''shown'' the war in Iraq (as it transpired) unjust --? It's only unjust in your eyes, and you aren't an authority. Even the catechism, as others have shown us here, contradicts your view. You see these teachings and somehow think they bear you out. That means, Sir--You are desperately anxious to get up off the floor. How many times will you fall, to argue it was ''unjust'' to destroy the servants of Satan in the middle east?

GOD destroyed Saddam Hussein; and we were God's instruments. Chew on THAT fact.

Go back and read the Holy Bible again. It's God who guides events in His realm. Men of faith are His servants, and this war is JUST.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 20, 2004.

Just hit Reuters: Iraqi Officer Tied to Al Qaeda - 9/11 Commissioner

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks has been told "a very prominent member" of al Qaeda served as an officer in Saddam Hussein's militia, a panel member said on Sunday.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), June 20, 2004.

"GOD destroyed Saddam Hussein; and we were God's instruments. Chew on THAT fact. "

Oh my god, you really are a fanatic. This kind of extremism is dangerous. When you are willing to justify anything our President does as "God's instruments", you open pandora's box. Did God also sign into law the Patriot Act? Does God want John Kerry to lose? Did God run our economy into the ground? Does God want oil companies to drill in Alaska?

And I suppose you are also a purponent of the "Bush was appointed by God" theory, huh?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 22, 2004.

Don't be a fool.
I said God destroyed Saddam. It's an accomplished fact. Nothing happens if God has not permitted it to happen.

It seems to me we did it because God so willed. If you-- a silly atheist-- don't think God willed the downfall of Saddam-- I don't care.

It is God who prepares and delivers the fate of men. Nobody else. He has his instruments. When Jerusalem was destroyed we see how God brought destruction down on her by the hand of Titus with his Roman armies.

All takes place by the Will of God. I merely showed it to you-- an unbeliever-- by hindsight.

This is what came to Iraq. not because Bush is a saint; but because God wanted Saddam brought low. He destroyed the evil ones.

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

By that logic, God also wanted Martin Luther King dead, right? Well, he was an "unbeleiver".

And I'm not an atheist. You know, it is possible to beleive in God and the Bible without subscribing to your fanatical brand of Christianity.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 23, 2004.

Anti-bush, what should the US do in Iraq, Afganistan, and the world? Any blue-print ideas?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 23, 2004.

I mean, we know OBL organized Al Quaeda into an international terror organization. He trained tens of thousands of guys from dozens of countries in camps in Sudan and Afganistan. Cells have already been responsible for dozens of serious attacks in virtually every Muslim country as well as some Western ones.

We know that Iran's governing mullah's seriously don't like us, and have an advanced missile and nuclear program underway: no one disputes this.

We knew that Saddam's Iraq had a WMD program - and later found out that he also had a missile program as well. He acknowledged supporting Palestinian terrorists and Bagdad was a regular stopping place and refuge for other terrorists including Al Quaeda guys coming back from Afganistan.

Now, knowing all this, and knowing that there was a real arms connection between Saddam, North Korea, and a half dozen Muslim states and a dozen terror organizations, including Al Queda... what was the USA to do?

Suppose Gore had been president... the Taliban would still be in power in Afganistan, presumably still allowing Osama free reign. Saddam would still be in power, Libya would still have its clandestine WMD program...

Economic embargoes would still be considered immoral... so what choice would we have except unilateral disengagement from the region? Leaving the region of course would make UN resolutions henceforth not worth the paper they're written on.

How would a different course of action have made the world love us and the Muslims not keep gunning for us?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 23, 2004.

A born debator: ''By that logic, God also wanted Martin Luther King dead, right? --Well, he was an "unbeleiver". (Believe--learn to spell.)

And I'm not an atheist. You know, it is possible to beleive in God and the Bible without subscribing to your fanatical brand of Christianity.--

Who told you we subscribe to a fanatical brand of anything? Is it possible to believe in God & the Bible even if you never were given the Holy Gospel? (The Catholic faith.) You may as well be a vomplete atheist.

Your analogy makes no sense. God doesn't have men assassinated; but God gives faithful men missions. God inspired David to confront and kill Goliath. So, don't go on about, ''by that logic.'' You and logic aren't such good friends.

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

Joe,

We've found no evidence of weapons in Iraq from any time in the past ten years. The only weapons he ever had were the ones he gave us. I've already explained ad nauseum the rediculousness of a connection between Saddam and Osama. Bush has yet to provide any proof. Saddam was not a threat to the United States, and taking him down was not worth the lives of our brave soldiers.

Afghanistan is another story. I support what we've done in Afghanistan, although we haven't done enough of it. Women still have almost no rights, and the vast majority of the country is still run by local warlords who treat the villages like their own private fiefdoms. Very little has changed for the average Afghani, just as little has changed for the average Iraqi. The violence and oppression still continue.

I say we should have stayed out of Iraq. It's not our fight. If we wanted to go after a state sponsor of terrorism, then we need look no further than our best buddies in that region--Saudi Arabia. That's where all the money that funded Osama (and subsequently his terrorist attacks) came from. Many members of the royal family are openly sympathetic to his cause. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Osama is in Saudi Arabia now, chilling in a palace with one of his royal friends. It's a hell of a lot more beleiveable than the idea that he is running from cave to cave WHILE ON DIALYSIS BECAUSE OF HIS KIDNEY DISEASE! Of course, Bush will never fully investigate that, because he is good friends with the Sauds.

"Your analogy makes no sense. God doesn't have men assassinated; but God gives faithful men missions. God inspired David to confront and kill Goliath. So, don't go on about, ''by that logic.'' You and logic aren't such good friends."

You made the analogy. You were the one who said that God must have wanted Saddam to be taken down because nothing can happen without God allowing it to happen. If that is true, then God must also have wanted Martin Luther King dead, because nothing can happen without God allowing it to happen. Although as reactionary as your posts get, you probably aren't a big fan of civil rights anyway.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 23, 2004.

Oh, sure, anti.

You're always the only one who supports good causes like civil rights. You push diversity, don't you? Equality and free speech for all. But not for reactionaries. Let's not go to extremes; keep the bad guys out.

Only what you think has weight, what you think is profound: ''I say we should have stayed out of Iraq. It's not our fight. If we wanted to go after a state sponsor of terrorism, then we need look no further than our best buddies in that region--Saudi Arabia.'' ''I SAY.''

Who cares what you say? You can brand me a reactionary; I say you're a radical. Nobody needs your radical and presumptuous bombast. Just why should this country conduct policy along the lines you choose? If we need you we'll vote for you, Pal. Go run for something. Try to get yourself elected dog-catcher.

I for one voted for Bush/Cheney; and to this point haven't regretted that. Not meaning I am totally satified, 100%; this isn't Paradise. I don't long for perfection in this life. I've never said Bush can't be faulted. I only know he does the best God allows.

I place him much higher in importance than the French & German presidents. If you don't, too bad. Move to France. It has to disturb me that a Bozo like you has nothing better to do than to come here and denigrate a man like Bush. On what grounds, what basis? Look at your own sorry existence before you throw rocks at men greater than yourself. You're lucky your own family loves you.

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

You know anti- all the garbage about Osama not willing to cooperate with Saddam because one was religious and the other not, never convinced me, given the old old doctrine that opposites can unite against a common foe: FDR joined hands with Joe Stalin for years while fighting Adolf... the USA (Constitutional federated republic with freedom of religion etc) was ALLIES with the USSR (Communist dicatorship.)

Even the Axis powers (all racist) were allies even though each of their racial theories discounted the "superiority" of the other two races!

So why should anything be different in the Muslim world? Never fear, I your roving poster have found a native's take on this blowing your little theory of "No connection" to pieces.

From Opinion Journal Reader Responses:

Cooperating With Pagans Irfan Khawaja - Princeton, N.J. I agree with much of what Mr. Pollock says, but there is one point that he misses. Mr. Pollock deals with the reasons why Saddam would have cooperated with bin Laden, but actually, a greater portion of the available evidence suggests that it is bin Laden who wanted to cooperate with Saddam. Contrary to much loose talk on this subject, there is a powerful (if at first counter-intuitive) theological reason why bin Laden would have wanted to do so.

The two fundamental sources of Muslim belief are the Koran and the Sunnah. The Koran is supposed to be God's direct revelation to man; the Sunnah is the "way" of the Prophet Muhammad as embodied in his words and actions. The Sunnah is subordinate to the Koran, but it is binding on all Muslims.

Late in his life, the Prophet negotiated a treaty, called the Pact of Hudaibiyah, with the pagan tribes of Mecca, agreeing to cooperate with them for mutual benefit. His aim in doing so was to cooperate with the pagans for as long as was necessary to supersede them. And as every student of Islamic history knows, he succeeded.

As a believing Muslim, bin Laden is of course bound by the Prophet's actions. In fact, he seems to think that he follows the Sunnah more assiduously than most Muslims. Bin Laden has also described his own thinking as "jurisprudence," and Islamic jurisprudence is governed by "qiyas," or the principle of analogy. It follows that if bin Laden faces a situation analogous to that which the Prophet once faced, bin Laden is obliged by his own religious strictures to emulate the Prophet. ("What Would Muhammad Do?")

There are clear analogies between Mohammed's position vis-a-vis the pagans of Mecca, and Bin Laden's position vis-a-vis Baathist Iraq. Like the pagans of Mecca, Saddam was (by orthodox standards) a corrupt and persecutorial secular ruler. Like the pagans, Saddam was in control of "holy land". As with Muhammad's dealings with the pagans, however, there were immediate advantages to be reaped from Al Qaeda's dealing with Saddam's government, (e.g., opportunities for money laundering, access to weapons technology, access to intelligence, etc.) And just as Muhammad was confident of ultimately superseding the pagan tribes with which he was cooperating, so Bin Laden is probably confident that he will supersede the Baathists. Just as Muhammad hoped to convert the pagan Meccans to Islam, so Bin Laden hopes to convert Iraqis to his brand of Islam. And just as the pagans were willing to play ball with Muhammad (if only to appease him), so it appears that Saddam was sporadically willing to play ball with Islamic terrorists, if only to appease them. Finally, just as Arabia of the 7th century was contested by non-Arab/non-Muslim powers for reasons of trade (by Byzantium and Persia), so Arabia of the 21st century is similarly contested by the Western powers because of its oil supplies.

There are disanalogies between the two cases as well, but these analogies would be sufficient on "jurisprudential" grounds to argue for al Qaeda's initiating an alliance with Saddam. It also explains why, to use Gov. Kean's word, Al Qaeda's efforts in this regard were "systematic." Perhaps they were "systematic" because they were motivated by a system?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 24, 2004.

The only weapons he ever had were the ones he gave us.

Anti-Bush: I think you mean 'we gave him.' But we didn't give him any WMDs. I think we have been over this ground before, the only stuff we ever gave him were back in the 80s when we gave him some biological strains that were in the public domain that a bunch of countries freely traided for anti-germ warfare studies (they were not weapons grade). So we didn't give him any WMDs. Again, you need to check your history.

I've already explained ad nauseum the rediculousness of a connection between Saddam and Osama.

It has been found that indeed there was a connection between Saddam and Osama. The only question is how much they cooperated. I would suggest you read the following: Cutting Through the Fog From the June 22, 2004 Los Angeles Times: Did the 9/11 commission staff statement really say that there was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda?

The War Dividend The war in Iraq has cost a great deal, but it's important to also examine its benefits.

Clinton came out this week and reitterated that he was in favor of taking out Saddam (he just wanted us to work a little longer with the UN). You might want to read: The Clinton Administration's Public Case Against Saddam Hussein

I say we should have stayed out of Iraq.

Definately too late now.

In Christ,
Bill

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

A 1994 Senate Report shows that we gave Saddam Bacillus Anthrax, Clostridium Botulinum (botulism), Histoplasma Capsulatum, Brucella Melitenis, and Clostridium Perfrigens, all very deadly biological agens which became the cornserstone of Iraq's nuclear program. We also gave them computer equipment to guide SCUD missiles, $30,000 worth of speciialy engineered oil which was used in Iraq's nuclear program back in the 80's, another $172,000 worth of computer equipment that was used for guiding missiles, and 60 military helicopters, as well as helping them build a giant petrochemical plant. Not quite so innocent as you make it out to be. Daddy Bush armed Iraq to the teeth and even supplied them with satelite photos of Iranian troops positions so the Iraqi's could clean 'em up with our chemical weapons.

God bless America.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 25, 2004.

Good catch. Here is your Senate Report, if you would like to read the actual report: http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/r_1_2.html#exports

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), June 25, 2004.

"Former Secretary of State Shultz and Vice President Bush tried to stanch the flow of chemical precursors to Iraq." - New York Times Sunday (August 18, 2002). ... interesting ...

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), June 25, 2004.

Well, he certainly had no problem giving them weapons when he was CIA Director.

I propose a whole new foreign policy. It's called the mind-our-own- damn-buisiness-and-don't-sell-weapons-to-any-crazy-dictators-and- don't-give-money-to-any-nut-jobs-that-run-around-Nicaragua-killing- nuns plan. Who's whith me?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 25, 2004.

>Who's with me?

Depends. I did live through the year where every day we were worried that the Iranian hostages would be murdered by the terrorists. The liberal press was yelling every day and every day they pressured the white house to do something. You need to live through such a year. It killed a presidency, Carter's.

Finally Reagan was elected and he promised to not let it happen again. His policy was to keep both Iraq and Iran weak. Was it a wise policy? I don't know, we still ended up with 9/11. Right now we are involved in a great war that will only end if we show the islamisists they need to give up, or we pull out of the middle east, abandon all ties there, including Israel, leaving it to the islamisists so they can create one big islamic state. Not sure that will even stop them. Eventually they will probably still attack Europe and SE Asia. I don't know anyone with any real experience that advocates that. Even Ted Kennedy doesn't advocate that.

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

Text of U.S.-EU joint statement on Iraq

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

Eventually they will probably still attack Europe and SE Asia

why attack europe, when they are outbreeding it?

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 26, 2004.

Eventually they will probably still attack Europe and SE Asia

Because they want a certain type of Islam. Why do you think the Al- Queda are assasinating Shiite clerics in Iraq?

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), June 26, 2004.

"Finally Reagan was elected and he promised to not let it happen again. His policy was to keep both Iraq and Iran weak. Was it a wise policy? I don't know, we still ended up with 9/11."

Yeah, Reagan really kept Iraq weak. That's why we gave them a bunch of weapons.

And come to think of it, he didn't really keep Iran weak either. He sold them weapons and then used the money fund--as I've said before-- nut jobs who run around Nicaragua killing nuns. Looks like he did just the opposite of what you said...he kept them both strong.

"Right now we are involved in a great war that will only end if we show the islamisists they need to give up, or we pull out of the middle east, abandon all ties there, including Israel, leaving it to the islamisists so they can create one big islamic state. Not sure that will even stop them. Eventually they will probably still attack Europe and SE Asia. I don't know anyone with any real experience that advocates that. Even Ted Kennedy doesn't advocate that."

What do you advocate? Invade every country, and then kill their leaders and make them convert to Christianity? All that talk of a massive Islamic state is hot air. Osama could never do it, even if we did pull out of the middle east completely, which I think we should do. We need to return to isolationism. Pull all troops back within our borders, and don't attack any country unless it's in SELF DEFENSE. Whether or not you think Iraq was justified, it certainly was not a defensive war. We should cut the Pentagon's budget by a lot, eliminate most of the standing army, and make the rest do humanitarian work here at home. Hell, most of the inner cities of America are almost as bad as Fallujah (next time you're in Washington D.C., take a stroll down to southeast...it's not pretty). Why not rebuild them the way we're rebuilding Iraq?

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

Now you are sounding like a Libertarian. But let's play a thought game, if you are willing. You are president and it is 9/11 what would you do? Realize the entire threat. Realize that Al-Queda is now infested throughout the world, and the US is depending on countries like Saudi Arabia for oil that is teaching its children that what Al-Queda is doing is right and just. You might review some information by reading The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Barnett

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

May God forgive us for unnecessarily going to battle with Iraq June 22, 2004

"The moral imperative that underpinned the invasion has proved false.

As the only Anglican bishop to have endorsed the Australian Government's case for war, I now concede that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction. It did not pose a threat to either its neighbours or the United States and its allies. It did not host or give material support to al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups.

But did Australia and the Defence Force really believe Iraq had WMD and would use them to support its national interests? Definitely. Were intelligence assessments of Iraq's WMD arsenal and its ability to mount military operations exaggerated and inaccurate? Certainly. But in the absence of any clear mitigation, there is no alternative to concluding that the March 2003 invasion was neither just nor necessary.

I am not saying the war failed to produce any positive outcomes - happily, Saddam Hussein has gone. Nor that it cannot be explained in constructive political terms - the shift to democracy in Baghdad is most welcome. My judgement is that the war cannot be reconciled with just war principles.

Is this of concern? Yes. The relationship of trust that needs to exist between the Government and the people for a healthy democracy to exist may have been damaged by what must be regarded as an unnecessary pre-emptive military strike.

As we ponder the war in Iraq, three observations can be made. First, there is a continuing need of better systems for arbitrating international disputes.

Second, there must be sombre recognition of the complexities associated with armed intervention. While the overthrow of a despotic regime may be achieved quickly, rebuilding countries with a poisoned political culture takes considerably longer.

The causes of disorder and violence are varied and profound, including the availability of guns and drugs, and the prevalence of racism and sexism together with the dissipation of the family.

The weapons of war are not bullets and bombs but humanitarian aid, and direct economic relief and assistance. Armed intervention is time- consuming and expensive if genuine political and economic progress is to be made. This must not be forgotten.

Third, attempts to rebuild civil society are impeded if the invading army or the occupying force fails to uphold certain standards of behaviour.

On March 18 last year - two days before the war began - I addressed students in the united faculty of theology at Melbourne University. Asked "is the proposed war against Iraq just, or just another war?" I said: "We are, as yet, unable to say with complete confidence. The final determination cannot be made until we are acquainted with the information now known by the Government, when we have seen the extent of the WMD that the 'coalition of the willing' alleges Iraq maintains, and when the full human cost of war has been calculated." I am now able to answer that question: it was just another war.

Looking back on the past 18 months, I continue to seek God's forgiveness for my complicity in creating a world in which this sort of action was ever considered by anyone to be necessary. Even so, come Lord Jesus."

Dr Tom Frame is the Anglican bishop to the Australian Defence Force. This article first appeared in The Melbourne Anglican.

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

Hi! Just a few thoughts:

In human schemes of things, the price our freedom ransoms for depends. For some, the cost is small. For others, very steep. Depends on who you bargain with. Sometimes, other reasons are wanted for reluctant to invest. It's good to help our fellow man and now is good as any other time to pay. To those everywhere of every time who helped to fray the costs (willing or not), a debt of gratitude is owed.

God bless!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), June 28, 2004.

As the only Anglican bishop to have endorsed the Australian Government's case for war, I now concede that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction. It did not pose a threat to either its neighbours or the United States and its allies. It did not host or give material support to al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups.

We will see if he is right or not as time goes on. Clinton thought otherwise (read: The Clinton Administration's Case Against Saddam ). But until there is peace and stability in Iraq and we can interview the participants, I don't see how anyone can make such a final declaration. WMDs are popping up in very small quantities now, they may yet be hidden somewhere, we simply don't know. That Saddam wanted to do the United States harm is not disputed by anyone. And we all know Saddam supplied Hesbulla with bombs and bragged about giving 20,000 to any family who sent their kids off as suicide bombers, so I would say he most definately gave material support to terrorist groups. We are also finding out that he probably helped al Qaeda with bomb design and possibly with chemical bomb making technologies. CIA Director George Tenet certainly believes so. "Credible reporting states that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities," he wrote to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Oct. 7, 2002. "The reporting also stated that Iraq had provided training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs." When Tenet testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Feb. 12, 2003, he said that although his agency could not show "command and control" between al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime--something the Bush administration never claimed--it could demonstrate "contacts, training and safe haven."

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 28, 2004.

First off, Clinton was an idiot. He served the same corporate masters as Bush. Just had a different face.

"WMDs are popping up in very small quantities now, they may yet be hidden somewhere, we simply don't know."

We haven't found anything incriminating yet. And if we don't know, WE SHOULDN'T HAVE GONE TO WAR!!!!

"We are also finding out that he probably helped al Qaeda with bomb design and possibly with chemical bomb making technologies."

Until we've got the evidence, it's all just conjecture, and you don't go to war on conjecture.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 28, 2004.

Anti-bush et al: (pertaining to above): We have evidence, unfortunately it is classified

For everyone: There is an interesting quiz in the Christian Science Monitor A re you a neoconservative? Take this quiz to find out.

You all might want to take it for fun. I came out a neocon (no surprise there)

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 28, 2004.

Anti-Bush, the motive for going to war was never "just" that Iraq had WMD... never. After all, Iran has chemical and biological weapons...China has nuclear weapons... North Korea has WMDs... but we're not going to war or amassing troops near those countries! It's not the presence of a stockpile alone that tips the scales but repeated evidence of a regime's involvement in schemes designed to harm and hurt the USA.

Syria has WMDs... but it also hasn't been going out of its way to promote global terrorists... Libya had a WMD program... and the US/UK worked for years on quiet diplomacy... showing that the Bush administration has and DOES use other options than war to solve problems...

In Iraq's case circumstances were such that there were no other options short of invasion to solve the fundamental problem: a regime with WMD's, programs, and the intent to use them as well as promote terrorism and cooperate with Al Qaeda.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 28, 2004.

What Joe says is correct, there is also an issue of intent as well. Iran and North Korea are developing nuclear weapons to deter others from attacking them. You might say that they are defensive weapons. But Saddam used his WMDs offensively and we knew he wanted to strike us (had made a number of threats and had tried to kill Bush 41). Remember, it has been made public recently that Russia warned us that Iraq was planning to strike at US interests inside and outside the US. We also knew he was giving bombs and money to Hezbulla and was probably working with Al Queda.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 29, 2004.

Right and also a person has to look at a ruler's track record: in 1979 Saddam invaded Iran when he thought the country was vunerable: the Ayatolla had just purged Iran's military following the overthrow of the Shah. In 1990, Saddam invaded Kuwait after thinking that the USA wouldn't do anything (and having French and Soviet support).

Had the USA done anything short of invading and overthrowing Saddam (which was the official, CLINTON administration's Policy for Iraq, approved by Congress in 1998 and NOT protested by any Leftist group), his psychological profile would have been to go aggressive. Live and let live wasn't his style. He wasn't running a secret and illegal (and highly risky) medium range missile program for nothing.

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

"Right and also a person has to look at a ruler's track record: in 1979 Saddam invaded Iran when he thought the country was vunerable: the Ayatolla had just purged Iran's military following the overthrow of the Shah."

Saddam used U.S.-supplied weapons in said invasion. Managed to kill 30,000 civilians with chemical and biological weapons, while the U.S. turned the blind eye. Then when his own people revolted, we gave him permission to use helicopter gunships on the freedom fighters (real freedom fighters, not like the nun-murderers Reagan paid to run around Nicaragua).

"In 1990, Saddam invaded Kuwait after thinking that the USA wouldn't do anything (and having French and Soviet support)."

Wanna know why he thought the U.S. wouldn't do anything? We told him we wouldn't do anything. Why should we have? We were still friends with Saddam at that point; we would have gotten the oil anyway. Besides, most Americans didn't even know what Kuwait was. Kuwait simply had the luck of being covered early on by CNN. Had the major American news networks ignored the story, Kuwait would still be under Iraqi rule today. But, thankfully, we liberated Kuwait, and now the Kuwaiti citizens are free.

But wait...isn't Kuwait a repressive monarchy? Oh yeah, we're not supposed to be talking about that John Ashcroft might be listening.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 30, 2004.

OK-- Get yourself on the Democrat ticket. Maybe if the voters hear your lament, Bush and Cheney will take their act somewhere else? Otherwise, take a pill. You've had your minute on the floor. Good-bye.

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

I dunno, Eugene. It gets frustrating sure. I'm not too worried about the Democratic ticket now. Might as well give Anti-Bush a few helpful things to consider:

Saddam used U.S.-supplied weapons in said invasion. Managed to kill 30,000 civilians with chemical and biological weapons, while the U.S. turned the blind eye

First, Saddam did not use bio-agents. He used chemical weapons. Second, the chemical agents were not of US origin. Third, Saddam's suppliers came from all over the world, the least of which was America - don't you know his airforce was French made, his tanks Soviet-import? Fourth, America was still going through Vietnam- syndrome thanks to crafty communist propaganda, and self-righteous tree-huggers who would turn a blind eye to any form of injustice in order to keep their calico shirts clean - after 20 years, it gets tough. Finally, the Iranians had just been through holding US hostages. What was there to do? The UN condemned Iraq's use of poison gas. Yeah! Surely you don't suggest that Ronny Reagan should have sold arms to the Russians to fund a war against Iraq?!

But, thankfully, we liberated Kuwait, and now the Kuwaiti citizens are free

Believe it or not, we did freed Kuwait from a murderous despot and his army of raping, murdering, pillaging thugs.

But wait...isn't Kuwait a repressive monarchy? Oh yeah, we're not supposed to be talking about that John Ashcroft might be listening.

Your position on Kuwait(relative repression) is only justified because Saddam(a murdering despot) is out of power.

Self-righteous post-modernist revisionism gets dull after a while. All talk and no show. Putting first some second-place issues because someone else who's truly righteous has already made it the main agenda. Pretty soon, you idolize your enemies and demonize your friends. Fiddle away while Rome burns. Ho-hum.

What's done is done. Iraqis can now ponder the meaning of inalienable rights. Life, because it's God-given. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness taken both to mean freedom to pursue their proper spiritualism. Take God out of it then sure, materialistic humanism. Doesn't matter either way. Because now, they are not consumed trying to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves; the basic human needs they did not have before.

So what can you take out of all this - wear shirts with colors that don't fade so you can wash them often. For a real challenge, wear white shirts.

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 01, 2004.

"WMDs are popping up in very small quantities now, they may yet be hidden somewhere, we simply don't know." (Bill)

Um, in that case, why are we handing Iraq back to the Iraqis when the country is now crawling with terrorists who would probably find these “hidden” WMDs before we do?

"We are also finding out that he probably helped al Qaeda with bomb design and possibly with chemical bomb making technologies." (Bill) ... Until we've got the evidence, it's all just conjecture, and you don't go to war on conjecture. (Anti- bush) ... We have evidence, unfortunately it is classified (Bill)

I’ve racked my brain what you mean by this Bill and there seem only two possibilities:

1. You, Bill have been shown the supposed “evidence” by the CIA or someone but they’ll kill you if you tell us.

2. You blindly accept that going to war is based on “evidence” you don’t even know exists.

Bill, I took that quiz and they said I am a Realist . I’m worried that you’re so proud of being a neo-conservative . As I understand it, a neo-conservative is one who has all of the bad aspects of a traditional conservative but none of the good aspects (respect for tradition and long-established social customs, values and institutions, religion, marriage and the family, caution, resistance to change until convinvced it is necessary, and then to be done slowly, belief in duty to help the less fortunate and service to others rather than individualism, self-enrichment and power-seeking, etc.)

“take a pill. You've had your minute on the floor. Good-bye. “ (eugene)

How many minutes/hours/days/months/years has Eugene had the floor here? Looks like it’s “Do as I say, not as I do.” No wonder he’s such an admirer of George II.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 01, 2004.

“invading and overthrowing Saddam (which was the official, CLINTON administration's Policy for Iraq, approved by Congress in 1998 and NOT protested by any Leftist group” (Joe)

How exactly is this supposed to persuade either me or Anti-bush, since we have both made clear we have no time for either Clinton or leftists?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 01, 2004.

Steve,
According to the results of the test:

Historical neoconservative: President Teddy Roosevelt
Modern neoconservative: President Ronald Reagan
I'll settle for being in that company anyday!

As for why I said there was evidence that is classified that backs up the position stated on WMDs, we have been told this by both reporters and the Vice President.

For those global thinkers out there:
I think people will be interested in this article that came out today. Iran's clerics fear rise of democratic Iraq

By Parisa Hafezi
REUTERS NEWS AGENCY
TEHRAN — The rise of a secular, democratic Iraq could pose a threat to Iran's Shi'ite clerical establishment, which fears it would serve as a powerful model for moderate Iranians who seek change, clerics said....

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

"OK-- Get yourself on the Democrat ticket. Maybe if the voters hear your lament, Bush and Cheney will take their act somewhere else? Otherwise, take a pill. You've had your minute on the floor. Good- bye."

Good old, jingoistic Republucans. Rather than refute an argument, they simply dismiss the arguer, or in some cases, go to great lengths to try to silence him (like they did to Michael Moore when he tried to advertise for his new movie). It's a hell of a lot easier than actualy admitting you were wrong, isn't it?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

...(like they did to Michael Moore when he tried to advertise for his new movie). It's a hell of a lot easier than actualy admitting you were wrong, isn't it?

Like Michael Moore? Sorry, I couldn't resist....

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

"I'm not too worried about the Democratic ticket now."

Understandable. Kerry is a crappy candidate. He's a total sleaze with nothing that really sets him apart from Bush. They represent the same big corporations, the same high taxes, the same bureaucracy, and the same freedoms being yanked away. All that said, he's still a step up from Bush, if only a small one.

"the chemical agents were not of US origin."

Yes they were. I've already pointed to a Congressional report showing that we gave Saddam chemical and biological agents as well as tons of other nasty stuff.

"Third, Saddam's suppliers came from all over the world, the least of which was America - don't you know his airforce was French made, his tanks Soviet-import?"

And the helicposter gunships he used to mow down Kurdish freedom fighters were American. Go figure.

"Fourth, America was still going through Vietnam- syndrome thanks to crafty communist propaganda, and self-righteous tree-huggers who would turn a blind eye to any form of injustice in order to keep their calico shirts clean"

What's your point? That anyone who opposes a war that gets a million of their brothers killed is a commie? That the only reason anyone would ever oppose the arming of a dictator is "communist propaganda"? How were the people who protested Vietnam turning the blind eye to injustice? That's what they were protesting--injustice! Sending eighteen-year-olds to die for absolutely nothing is injustice. Spraying napalm over an entire countryside full of people who don't know what the hell is going on or why there are Americans bombing their villages--that's injustice. Killing upwards of 50,000 Vietnamese--that's injustice. No, wait...forget everything I just said. That's just what the commies want you to think.

"Finally, the Iranians had just been through holding US hostages."

Ah, the hostage crisis. Another brilliant example of the fact that no matter what the problem in a third world country is, America can ALWAYS make things worse. Kind of like we did in Iran. Iran had a democracy, but apparenty i listened to it's people too much (always a dangerous thing to do...it's a good thing we keep that under wraps here in the States!) and had an anti-U.S. stance. So we overthrew the governent and installed the Shah, a brutal dictator who's secret police terrorized the country (with American help, of course) for a few years until the Iranians revolted and the clerics took over. Had we not MESSED WITH THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE, everything would be fine. But no, things were too stable. He had to sprinkle a little magic screw-up powder on the whole region.

"The UN condemned Iraq's use of poison gas. Yeah!"

What's your point? The U.N. condemns a lot of things the U.S. does. Did you know that the U.S. was one of only a handfull of countries that refused to sign the Declaration of the Rights of Children (we joined the prestigious ranks of Sudan, China, and Iran)? We are just about the only country on earth that executes minors. And I beleive we are the ONLY country that executes retarted people. CHINA DOESN'T EVEN DO THAT! Leaders all around the world have criticised the U.S. for it's human rights abuses. Amnesty international has published pamphlets comdemning the United States human rights record at home and abroad. There are leaders in the U.N. now who call for U.N. supervision of American election--like they do in many struggling democracies--after the debacle that was the 2000 election. You never hear about these things, and it seems unorthodox, as we've all grown up hearing how the U.S. is the perfect republic, and no one is ever oppressed, disenfranchised, or downtrodden in our country, and here you have the leaders of groups that are dedicated to ensuring freedom for people all over the world and they are CONDEMNING our country. Isn't that sad?

"Surely you don't suggest that Ronny Reagan should have sold arms to the Russians to fund a war against Iraq?! "

This may sound a little crazy, but I DON'T SHOULD HAVE SOLD ARMS TO ANYBODY!!!! If you or I did this, it would be called TREASON! And Reagan wasn't trying to fund a war against Iraq. He was arming Iraq. He was selling weapons to Iran in order to fund the Contras, murderers who ran around the jungles of Central American killing nuns.

"Believe it or not, we did freed Kuwait from a murderous despot and his army of raping, murdering, pillaging thugs.

Good. Now the country is in the hands of the rightful murdering despot.

"Your position on Kuwait(relative repression) is only justified because Saddam(a murdering despot) is out of power.

My position against a tyrranical regime propped up by our military is justified no matter who is in power in Iraq. My stance is against depsotism worldwide, no matter what the ideology behind it. I have been equaly critical of both left- and right-wing dictatorships. The fact of the matter is, Kuwait is a dictatorship with a poor human rights record and we, as a democracy, should NOT associate ourselves with them.

"The rise of a secular, democratic Iraq could pose a threat to Iran's Shi'ite clerical establishment, which fears it would serve as a powerful model for moderate Iranians who seek change, clerics said...."

We'll see who the Iraqi people vote into office. They may very well elect hard-line fundamentalist rulers.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

From an interview yesterday with Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld:
Q: Secretary Don Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense. A couple of other issues I want to get to were weapons of mass destruction and the Supreme Court rulings. And so quickly, on the weapons of mass destruction, obviously, the opposition to the administration says we should never have invaded. The Bush administration lied about the WMD, never found any, never were any, etcetera, etcetera. Now, I’m reading recent reports in fairly easily accessible published accounts that Syria is holding the weapons of mass destruction or some of them, that others were destroyed, that others might still be hidden in Iraq, etcetera. What is the status on WMD? And if Syria is holding any of them and you guys know about it, how come we haven’t heard about it?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, let me respond this way. The decision to go to war was a concern on the part of, first, the president, then the Congress of the United States and ultimately the United Nations that Saddam Hussein had had weapons of mass destruction, had used them on his neighbors in Iran and had used them on his own people in Iraq – chemical weapons – that he was known to have various other WMD programs and that he was required by the United Nations over a period of some 17 resolutions to file a declaration declaring what he had. And everyone agreed he had filed a fraudulent declaration as to what weapons of mass destruction he had. The debate as to whether to go to war was not whether or not he’d filed a fraudulent declaration. Everyone agreed to that. The only question was should you give him another chance, should you wait and go 18 resolutions or 19 resolutions, another five years or however many.

Now what’s actually happened? Right now you have the Iraqi Survey Group, which is a multinational group that’s out there reviewing documentation and looking at suspect WMD sites. I was with the Polish minister of defense this weekend in Istanbul, Turkey at the NATO Summit. And in the course of that, he pointed out that his troops in Iraq had recently come across – I’ve forgotten the number, but something like 16 or 17 – warheads that contained sarin and mustard gas.

Now these are weapons that we always knew Saddam Hussein had that he had not declared and they have tested them and I have not seen them and I have not tested them, but they believe that they are correct that these, in fact, were undeclared chemical weapons -- sarin and mustard gas -- quite lethal and that is a discovery that just occurred within the last period of days. If you think about -- most people remember the image of where Saddam Hussein was captured in that hole -- that pit that he was living in. That pit, that hole in the ground was probably big enough to hold chemical and biological weapons sufficient to kill tens of thousands of people. And therefore, it is not hard to hide things in a country the size of California. It’s quite easy to hide things. In fact, we finally found a bunch of jet aircraft that they’ve buried underground.

In answer to your question on Syria, there have been a lot of intelligence speculation and rumors and chatter about the fact that Saddam Hussein may have placed some of his weapons of mass destruction in Syria prior to the start of the war. Until that can be validated and proved, you’ll find people in the administration not talking about it.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

All that said, he's still a step up from Bush, if only a small one.

You are entitled to your opinion no matter how ill-informed and unproven.

"the chemical agents were not of US origin."

Yes they were. I've already pointed to a Congressional report showing that we gave Saddam chemical and biological agents as well as tons of other nasty stuff.

Wrong, your report shows that there was that Iraq received pathogenic and toxicogenic biological material not toxic chemicals. Therefore it does not address my point. Saddam manufactured his own chemicals or imported them not from the US. Now, I turn to the report itself which states that (the biological agents were exported pursuant to licensing and exporting by the DofC from a supplier). Which means someone shipped samples to Saddam legitimately and adds little to your nefarious plot. Many countries around the world have centers for disease control and require maintenance of numerous samples to get faster reaction time. Does trading of such samples mean countries are contributing to one another's bio-weapons programs? I could make it easier on you. Samples can be given based on need for disease control purposes. Acquiring the samples would be an easier than getting the know-how and materials to design processes and cultivate, separate, package, and deploy bio-pathogen. Bio-pathogen production is a high-tech business. It's tough. I'm sure it needs some vessels, plumbing, pumping, filtration, agitation, heating, cooling, and a lot of safety precautions. Samples for deadly stuff you can extract from the human population if it's large enough. That some of the samples Saddam received include anthrax, botulins, and the silly E.Coli bacterium may raise some concern in hindsight. But, it proves nothing. The US is not culpable for his manufacturing know- how which is the key point in making bio-weapons. Someone is.

And the helicposter gunships he used to mow down Kurdish freedom fighters were American. Go figure

So? We're talking military hardware. We supplied him with civilian choppers. He converted them to military use and they were not gunships. Oh, but the Soviets gave him real gunships. Why not read something like this. or this one. That's right! Facts matter.

Don't worry about the Vietnam thing. You are confusing posters and posts from other topics. What you need to keep in mind is it was a very complex war for America fighting state-sponsored terrorism. And some Americans were oversimplifying it, making it grey when there were blacks and whites. So do some more research. Get real numbers. Find out what happened instead of over-generalizing and oversimplifying something you neither know nor experienced. We can work on that some other time my friend. It's a lot of work. You might try asking VAS forum for links. Not sure how that will turn out.

America can ALWAYS make things worse. Kind of like we did in Iran. Iran had a democracy, but apparenty i listened to it's people too muc

LOL! How about you go tothis site. How did you do that? How did you turn a coup by a despot into some sort of democracy? Wow, you know more about Iran than Iranians and more about Vietnam than Vietnamese! Sure, I don't know that much about Iran, but that's an easy link so don't pass up and frankly I don't buy your arguments since you have nothing to validate them with.

I can't reply much to your rant about America. Because again, you are entitled to it. However, if you think it sucks, now you can move to another country. If you don't want to go or have no way to do it, then by all means keep your cynicism to yourself. Just keeping it real.

"Contras and Sandinistas"

Hey look another old article. Read it well. "state- created famine" and "land-reforms" mean the same thing in communist speech. Very elaborate things to describe and to do so would leave no logical stones unturned. It's so old it should be common knowledge. If you do know, explain to me, please.

Good. Now the country is in the hands of the rightful murdering despot.

Prove it. What murder? I watched it play out like many people and was probably same age as you are now. Again, there's no excuse to not learn Critical here is knowing that the UN jumped right into action! Many of those countries needed oil as much as America did. And Saddam was a threat to Saudi Arabia, too. What would have happened if he had not been stopped. What happened after Hitler invaded Poland and incurred a minimal loss? If you know simple economic theory, you can induce that with something like a 50% drop in supply of a necessity like OIL, you get a massive spike in price, then it levels off alot more than twice the price it was before sometime...somewhere...later.

My position against a tyrranical regime propped up by our military is justified no matter who is in power in Iraq. My stance is against depsotism worldwide, no matter what the ideology behind it. I have been equaly critical of both left- and right-wing dictatorships. The fact of the matter is, Kuwait is a dictatorship with a poor human rights record and we, as a democracy, should NOT associate ourselves with them.

Kuwaiti government no matter what propaganda you train yourself on, is among the less repressive regimes in that region. Your stance is remarkable. You're an anarchist now? An isolationist wouldn't do you justice since you talk silly about American politics also. Yes, you truly are remarkable in opposing regimes that you-- alone--clearly know are despotic in nature. Cynical.

Also, you take nothing else into account besides some undiscerning ethic? Gee, let's cut ourselves off from the Mid-East. Let's not depend on them for oil. Well, if we're buying from them then we'll be paying them no? Pay Saddam? Oil for Nukes? How so will you complain when Saddam or some other nut takes over the Mid-East...we really don't need oil...and we're so not interested, man.

My friend, I pulled those articles up just for you. I have read them myself. You should, too. I can't predict what will happen in the Iraq. I know now, Iraqi's have a better life than they did before. As long as America sticks around to lend a helping hand until they get their anti-terror defense up, they'll be just fine because they don't need to have a perfect democracy. The US didn't start out with one either and IMO we still have lots of room for home improvement.

Oh, last thing, you might want to consider another difference between living under Saddam and now. Before, they couldn't fight Saddam even if they wanted to. Now, they have backbone to stand up to power- mongers and bare some teeth to save their skin...with a little help.

The day you see Iraqi's protest, and say "go home GI", you will know they have discontents - living under democracy. The day you see Iraqi's surrendering to terrorists, that's when you know it's a lost cause. Support the troops.

IMO, just war or no just war, against Saddam it's over. Like it or not, Iraq now has sovereignty and is an ally. This war defends Iraq from indiscriminate insurgents and terrorists. Is it just? If Iraq undergoes a little corruption while still maintaining ties, is it still just to help them out?

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 01, 2004.