Dear Administrator,

Perhaps Cantor Joe was a football player - and a wide receiver?

Actually, I just bumped into an OCA friend who thinks that both you and I are heretics . . .

But, I told him, it doesn't matter what he thinks . . .

O.K., it's time for my hour of prayer.

Alex

Administrator,

Just did. Sorry.

I disagree. I believe that Catholics who are conservative generally strongly support official Church teaching. If anything, many who dissent from Catholic teaching on abortion and a whole host of issues are the ones who now, all of a sudden, are positioning themselves as supporting Catholic Teaching and claiming that we must follow what the Holy Father has stated or we are somehow bad Catholics. This is clearly not a matter of dissenting from an excathedra statement on faith and morals.

Very traditionalist and conservative Latin Christians like Michael Davies (President of Una Voce International), Bishop Richard Williamson of the SSPX, Father Arnauld Devilliers from the Fraternity of St. Peter, etc. have strongly spoken against the war on Iraq. I don't think they can be called "liberals".

I can't support war against Iraq under any circumstance except self defense. Our foreign policy in the Unites States over the last few decades has been nothing short of hypocritical, inconsistent and arbitrary. We howl about states that sponsor terrorism, but then sell weapons to Indonesia so they can slaughter Catholics in East Timor. We holler about Iraq violating UN resolutions, but we have amnesia about our own UN condemned invasion of Panama, (the reasons for which were never really made clear). We threaten to actually leave the UN if Israel is ever expelled, despite the fact that Israel has violated more UN resolutions (4 times as many as Iraq) than any country in the world. Our president (GH Bush) states that we have a moral obligation in Kuwait, at the same time that we turn a blind eye to the thousands being slaughtered in the Balkans. Our president Clinton intervenes in a chaotic war in Somalia, where most of the populace is clearly opposed to us, then ignores a holocaust in Rwanda. And finally, have we all forgotten the truly frightening things our president said in the wake of 9-11 concerning his desire for secret trials and executions, or Tom Ridge's proposals for doing away with our most cherished civil liberties. Sorry folks, but George Walker Bush couldn't sell me a used coaster wagon.

Dear Remi,

Not unless they consistently vote "Democrat!"

Alex

Dear Lawrence,

And when has the U.S. EVER been consistent on anything?

A war on Iraq is going to happen (or not) no matter what we say.

But if we are to withdraw support from anyone in politics on the basis of a lack of consistency, and that won't happen, then we wouldn't have North America now, would we?

I've worked in politics for twenty years now.

What you've just said is further reason for me to write a book on politics.

When I leave here . . .

Alex

Lawrence,

I agree with you. Our country's leaders should be the last to take the moral high ground considering the odious regimes we have propped up and the policies they have pursued over the years.

Dear Brian,

But when it comes to Iraq, the USSR, China et al. -

JUST GIVE ME THE GOOD OL' USA ANY DAY!

Alex

Lawrence,

This is such a horrible picture you paint. Why would anyone want to live under such a regime of terror? The hypocrisy, lies, terror, and blatant totalitarianism!

I heard that life is better in Iraq. Let me know if you consider moving there. Maybe we can be pen-pals? Will you plan to convert any Muslims to Christianity if you do go?

Alex, with all respect, that is not the choice! It is for the USA to live up to it's principles of democracy. That is the question and that is what makes this present situation so sad.

Dear Brian,

Then I'm going to make it even more sad . . .

God bless America!

Have a good evening!

Alex

Secretary General Kofi Annan announced earlier today that he is withdrawing all UN personnel from Iraq. A CBC news report included something interesting:

"This does not mean that should war come to Iraq that the UN would sit back and not do anything to help the Iraqi population," Annan said. "We will find a way of resuming our humanitarian activities to help the Iraqi people who have suffered for so long."

The UN food program last week asked donor countries for an emergency injection of $23.5 million US to buy enough food for 2 million people for a month. Suspension of the Food-for-Oil program leaves as many as 16 million people in desperate need of food, the UN warns.

I found it interesting because he spoke of the real tragic long-suffering of the Iraqi people yet he assigns no blame to the United Nations for doing nothing about it for 12 years. I also found it interesting that his way of doing more is by asking the United States for $23.5 million dollars to feed the hungry in Iraq.

Remie makes an interesting point. We have conservative Catholics who oppose using military force to disarm Hussein and we have liberal Catholics who support using military force.

I appreciate Lawrence’s concerns yet I must disagree. The action being contemplated by the United States and its allies is a form of self-defense. Hussein, unlike other countries with similar weapons, already has a history of using weapons of mass destruction. The fact that the United States has failed to do the right thing in the past should not be used as an excuse not to do the right thing today. The fact that we cannot help everyone who is suffering does not mean we should choose to help no one. I respect a difference of opinion on whether military force is justified at this point in time but I question the idea that we should withdraw from the world community because we make mistakes.

I’m not sure about Brian’s comment on living up to the principles of democracy. We already do that. We have free elections here in this country, freedom of speech and all the rest. Iraq does not. Those who seek to force Hussein to comply with the ceasefire agreement 12 from years ago are intending to bring democracy to Iraq (that's what liberation is all about). I see no basis for his accusation that the current action being contemplated by President Bush undermines our democracy or is not living up to our principles of democracy.

I was agreeing with Lawrence references to odious regimes American administrations have supported in the past (El Salvador, Guatamala, Chile etc)
It is against our principles of democracy and against international law to attack a sovereign nation without international agreement through the UN. You're mileage may differ.

To Joe T, nowhere in my post did I ever suggest that life in Iraq would be preferable to living in the United States, preferable to life in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Indonesia (all long time US allies) where Christians are persecuted, YES ! but Iraq still wouldn't make my top 100.

I'am sorry if you're offended by some of my views, but my right to dissent is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. I believe our constitution is the worlds finest, but I also believe that we must always be vigilant to ensure that our liberties are safe guarded against those who would destroy them in the name of anti terrorism.

Brian,

Thank you for the clarification. I do disagree. The United Nations has been incapable of accomplishing the task of getting Hussein to keep his agreement to disarm. The United States is simply completing the task the United Nations could not accomplish during these past 12 years. It is really not a matter of international law or an affront to democracy because of 1441 and the precedence of the United States taking the lead to enforce the prior resolution to remove Hussein from Kuwait.

Admin