Have the French aligned their policy with the Popes? Or is Axios and other just blowing smoke? I hadn't heard that the Pope is selling nuclear material to the Iraqis. I hadn't heard that the Pope is propping up the dictatorship of Saddam Husein so he can continue to get their oil.

I detect some "Axio"matic smoke here.

Dan Lauffer

Our Holy Father has made it clear that war is horrid. He's been there. Most contemporary Americans haven't. When the Holy Father, and other foreign nations shrink from war, it's because they have lived through it.

For us in the U.S., war is the stuff of comic books. Two (yes: TWO) torpedos hit U.S. soil in WW2 from German subs off the New England coast. Otherwise, it's been words. So, I'd rather take the Holy Father's words, or those in Europe or Asia, who have been the direct victims of attack. If one is under the age of 50 and living more than 25 miles of the coast, please don't tell me about the horrors of war in the U.S. You don't know.

As a young Jesuit scholastic, I went to Dachau with our US military chaplains -- inside places where the public can't go. I saw the barbed wire; I saw the ovens and touched the doors and saw the burial mounds. I started shaking when I realized where I was - where ordinary folks, where priests and bishops and nuns and their wards went to be immolated. And when I left, I threw up, right on the street. War is not some glorious endeavor. It's dead people. It's burned bodies and life-taking trauma on family, friends and any other people of good will.

So, when our Holy Father says: "NO! to war", I will not only listen to what he says as Holy Father, but I will understand what he says on purely human grounds.

Apropos the remarks to Axios, the Holy Father doesn't need Iraqi oil; nor is he involved in nuclear intrigue. He is the Vicar of Christ, whose job is to provide both guidance and "questions" to baptized Christians to help them make moral decisions. And his questions are directed to both Catholics and other Christians alike. The Holy Father ain't from Kansas, with a Midwestern perspective; he's responsible before Christ for the well-being of ALL humanity- both the baptized and the non-baptized. Even the non-US-Mid-Westerners.

So what does it say when a US-er decides that his US perspective should provide the norm for morality in the Universal Church? Sounds like hubris to me.

Don't other folks in the Church, like the French or the Germans or the Chinese, have a voice? Could it be fair that everyone gets a chance to say something, and not be castigated because they're "foreign"? Gee, what a concept!!

Perhaps us Byzantines might make a point that the non-majority, like the French or the Germans or the Chinese, could actually say something of value? Nah. We're just non-majority US folks; our perspective ain't worth squat cause the US white-bread and mayonaisse folks decide that non-majority folks are just not worth considering. Whether within the US or outside the US.

Thanks, Massa. We's SO grateful that we can follow you.

Blessings!

I suspect that war is not the reason we have built up our troop levels in the Persian Gulf. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Pressure is being brought to bear for Hussein to disarm or leave or preferably both. Inspections and fly overs haven't seemed to work. Now there is direct pressure and it is having some effect. It is a dangerous gambit but perhaps necessary. Will it result in war? I don't know. Direct pressure such as we have now does, however, seem necessary from this viewer's perspective. All the UN's efforts have been ineffective to this point. I'm glad something new is being tried.

I just hope that Tony Blair, one of the best statemen of our time, doesn't lose his job over this. But then, Churchill lost his job and he came back.

Dan Lauffer, neither in Kansas nor under 50

BTW Dr John, your post made sense until you added this bit of drivel.

"Don't other folks in the Church, like the French or the Germans or the Chinese, have a voice? Could it be fair that everyone gets a chance to say something, and not be castigated because they're "foreign"? Gee, what a concept!!

Perhaps us Byzantines might make a point that the non-majority, like the French or the Germans or the Chinese, could actually say something of value? Nah. We're just non-majority US folks; our perspective ain't worth squat cause the US white-bread and mayonaisse folks decide that non-majority folks are just not worth considering. Whether within the US or outside the US.

Thanks, Massa. We's SO grateful that we can follow you."

This is too important for a vote. Let everyone talk, since they wish to. No one is stopping them. I'm not from a slave holding state, but I notice that you are. Curious.

I agree with Dr. John that war should be avoided if possible, but not at all costs. The price for peace can be too high and history has shown us that peace at all costs sometimes only assists evil.

I disagree with Dr. John because I think that the administration has met the criteria for a just war, especially since this whole problem has been caused by Saddam Hussein’s refusal to disarm per his surrender agreement in 1992 and the inability of the United Nations to get him to disarm after 12 years. There are plenty of Catholics on both sides of this issue and it cannot be approached so simplistically. It has become obvious that Hussein’s own people want him out. [Tom Brokaw reported recently that, when he was in Iraq and had a few moments when there were no escorts, the Iraqi people came up to him and begged for American intervention. CNN reported today that undercover American agents in Iraq are negotiating pre-war surrenders by large parts of Hussein’s army.]

I do respect Pope John Paul II’s admonitions against military intervention. His accomplishments in peacefully fighting the communists are powerful, yet we know that without the Reagan military buildup the Soviet Union might have taken another hundred years to fall apart.

It’s not an easy and quick discussion. No one wants war. But sometimes punching a bully in the face works wonders. We do have a responsibility to look after the people in Iraq who are still being murdered daily by their government. Hopefully the military build up will push Hussein into resigning and Iraq can be liberated.

BTW, France has just send another round of troops to the Ivory Coast to liberate the people of that country. They have not appealed to the United Nations and do not have the blessing of the security council. How come no one has condemned them for this?

These are indeed complex problems.

or that he was in Baghdad in the 80's selling chemical weapons to Hussein a la Donald Rumsfeld.

This is one of the oldest myths propogated by conservatives. The Soviet Union fell (ironically in a very Marxist way) because of it's own internal contradictions. Socialism cannot really exist without democracy. The Soviet Union by the 1980's was a 3rd World Country with nuclear weapons and came that way on her own. Nothing to do with what Reagan did or did not do (despite his posturings of "Evil Empire" or "Tear down this wall" It was the people of those countries that made the changes in Eastern Europe in 1989 and 1991 and saw the demise of the false state socialism of those nations.

Don,

I would suspect that Tony Blair holds views well to the left of you on gay rights, the rights of women, a national health service and on and on. British Labour is still a bit to the left of the American Democrats. Or is he only a statesman when he agrees with this US Administration?
Tony Blair is sadly and recklessly putting himself in an impossible position with his Party and his people with his kowtowing to Bush over this war as his Secretary for International Development, Clare Short recently pointed out. I hope it is not irreperable.

Dr. John

History Buff time here

The Japanese launched over 9000 balloon bombs with incendiary warheads towards the US. The intent was to ignite the woods of the Pacific Northwest. At least 1000 hit, but they arrived during a rainy season, and they woods were soaked.

The Japanese also launched a single plane from a specially modified submarine that dropped 2 bombs in Oregon.

The Japanese also invaded the Aleutian Islands (part of Alaska) and there was Pearl Harbor, which is also US Soil. But I assume you were just referring to the Continential US

-Brendan

Wow! What a rewrite of the truth!

Even Gorbachov has admitted how the military build-up of the United States in the 1980's was one of the things responsible for hastening the fall of the Soviet Union. He points specifically to Reagan’s first use of the term “Evil Empire” as the catalyst of the downfall of the Soviet Union. Yes, there were many factors which caused the downfall of the Soviet Union and the people within did the bulk of the work to bring down communism. The Soviet Empire did rot from within. One cannot deny that the external pressures (like the Church in Poland and the military strength of America under President Reagan) played major parts in bringing down that evil empire. The Church (esp in Poland), Pope John Paul II, President Ronald Reagan, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and many governments and people external to the Soviet Union took actions in the 1980s that directly contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union. Their efforts made it possible for the people behind the iron curtain to topple communism and begin recreating their societies. To say that Reagan (and others) had nothing to do with it is just plain wrong.

Dear Brian,

Even at the risk of being called "conservative" I wanted to give you my take on this

Did the people of Ukraine and Russia change the Soviet Union democratically?

I meet regularly with government officials from Eastern Europe in the line of work I'm in.

Nothing could be further from the way things happened and continue to happen.

The same people who were in power there before 1989 are still there. They've just put up different flags, allowed greater religious freedom and have become more capitalistic.

The control is still there, but it is more subtle.

Elections basically still produce expected outcomes - expected by the ruling elites that is.

Socialism as the Soviet Union knew it wasn't working - for the elites.

The people there continue to have very little say in the way things are run and done.

To say otherwise is not to be either conservative or liberal.

It is to be wrong.

Alex

As has been said, all war is horrible and to be avoided if possible. Nevertheless, I believe we must consider the great atrocities that some wars have averted or put to an end.

Dachau has been rightly mentioned here as a place of extreme horror and human tragedy. No doubt, a visit there would solidify these sentiments. But, what would have happened if the allies of World War II did not take on Hitler and put a stop to his madness? Without military action then, his plan to annihilate those considered undesirables would have continued to proceed until the goal was accomplished in its entirety. And this not only in Germany, but throughout Europe.

A dictator and violator such as Hussein also needs to be stopped before he can inflict greater damage on his own people and potentially, on other nations throughout the region and the world. If military buildup and other types of threats do the job, the God be praised, but if they do not, and I believe that unfortunately, the will ultimately not result in his disarmament or removal from power, then action must be taken. I know there is no simplistic answer to these questions on either side. However, as we saw in World War II and other instances, lack of action or hesitancy can result in graver travesty.

Fr. Joe

I too agree, and I have stopped reading the spin that the media has put on the Pope and went directly to the source (watching an iterview with the Papal Envoy and readin press releases at (www.vatican.va) and the Pope's position and words are being mis-represented through the public media.

The Pope is not a pacifist, has not said that a US/Iraq war would be unjust, has not said that any future wars must be approved by the UN, has said nothing about if a war with Iraq would fail the Just War Theory - and the Envoy makes it clear that the Pope never 'instructs' but simply gives advise and the gospel.

The recent vist by the Envoy to President Bush was at Bush's invitation and he was not sent by the Pope to reinterate Vatican opposition to a war (not in the way nnews portray it). It was an advise seesion only and all in private and the media was told nothing at all of its contents.

Not the same story we read in the papers

Anyone who comes to opinion via the evening TV newscasts - is in trouble.

I can pratically give the exchange of the interview with the Envoy - verbaitum. It was on C-Span.

Dear Alex - a friend on mine recently returned from Russia and he said the same thing you say.

The "government" of Russia is centered in Moscow and the people outside of Moscow have no say and no interest. Despite the 'change' in government - nothing has changed - this is what the Russian people themselves say.

But I don't understand what is the direct injustice commited by Iraq against the United Stetes, which would be a criteria for a just war.

It is certainly true that Saddam's regime is infamous and that Iraq people would be more than happy if the USA invade and overthrow him, but how many countried have regimes like this and nothing is done against them? Africa has suffered a lot of dictatorships that have been more cruel than this one and nothing happened, North Korea has one of the most evil governments and nothing happens, and what about Turkey, and Cuba, and so on? The same criteria are not being used, this is why I am suspicious about the true reason of the war on Iraq.

Iraq is also a threat against its neighbours because of the probable existence of chemical and massive destruction weapons, and the attacks that Iraq has done in the past, against Iran, Kuwait or Israel. But what about other countries that are a threat to the neighbour too? like Israel? or Russia? They posess weapons that are quite more dangerous that those of Saddam. If Iraq is a threat that must be disarmed, who will disarm other countries that posess these weapons and are a threat to peace? Who will disarm Russia, for example?

This is why I believe, dark interests are very present in the attempts to approve a war against Iraq. Pope John Paul II, as a religious leader, has to be critical with war when it is done under these unclear conditions. Moreover, as a moral leader of world's christianity he is worried about the loss of human lives. Modern wars and modern weapons will not discriminate between civilians and soldiers, Saddam will be very happy if civilians die, after all he is an evil man and will use humans to protect his buildings, and a lot of people will die. (But even if a lot of people die, the government officials will not tell you. They will say that only some buildings were destroyed, after all no-one will prove that human lives were lost.) I think that the Pope is very concerned about this, and his opposition to war should be taken in a non-political context, in a religious and ethical way.

Dear RayK,

There used to be a joke about Ukraine being the largest country in the world - what with a border in the Carpathians, a capital in Moscow and a population in Siberia . . .

And thank you for confirming my earlier post.

I know it's hard to believe, but there are those here who sometimes feel I'm just putting them on . . .

And I'm just trying to carry on discussions on what are serious discussions in a more or less entertaining way . . .

Alex