www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Bush vs Benedict article

The American Conservative article I mentioned a couple weeks ago is now online: Bush vs Benedict [amconmag.com] [It is pro-Benedict, by the way.]
-Daniel

A post about a "holy pierogi" gets 20 responses and a post about "Bush vs Benedict" gets not a one? I must have wandered into the Byzantine Forum! :rolleyes: :p

Dear Daniel:

I, for one, mistook your description of the article as a "push versus Benedict!"

At any rate, thanks for this enlightening article as it foreshadows, perhaps, the "softening" of the neocons' view on the "justness" of the Iraq War launched by "43."

Personally, I follow the tag line currently espoused by our 2 last Popes!

Amado

Well, have either President Bush or His Holiness appeared on anyone's plate of pirohi lately?

We are very food-centric here...

Annie- I must ask you publicly, as you don't have email, but are you by any chance the Annie from Dryden Dr in Mclean VA that I once knew? She was a runner, and a lot of other things you have said to describe yourself sound like her...

Shlomo Iconophile,

First, I would like to say that I have not been on line often, so I did not get to read your article. I agree with the author a 100% that it is hard to Catholic Doctrine on Just War and remain a Republican. I serve on my state's Central Committee, and I get a lot of you know what. Thanks for the article again.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

I don�t have a lot of time this week but would like to offer a few comments.

Both Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessor, Pope John Paul the Great (as well as many of their fellow bishops) grew up in the midst of War. All totaled, WWII left over 50 million dead (soldiers and civilians). War is a horrible thing. I can respect and support their desire that there should never be a violent conflict. In turbulent times � indeed, at all times � it is wise to call for peace. The problem is that such a call needs to be heeded by both sides. I think that the part of the Just War theory that needs to be developed revolves around the proper response to a country where its dictator is committing both genocide and ordinary murder? When someone like the Taliban or Saddam Hussein decides not to abide by the Catholic teaching on the Just War Theory the response to them must be realistic.

In the article Joseph Bottum argues: �Much of the Roman curia seems to have fallen into a functional pacifism that threatens a damaging loss of the traditional Catholic theory of just war.� I think he directly hits the weakness in the current papal argument. As stated, the current papal argument is functionally pacifist, as it disallows the use of force pretty much in all cases, except for immediate self-defense. Followed to the letter one could conclude that the Church is teaching that it is preferable to allow someone like Saddam Hussein to continue to terrorize and commit wholesale murder of his own people (and his neighbors) than it is to remove him from power and allow the people to at least attempt to establish a stable, non-violent government. One (of several) logical conclusions to current papal argument is that it is better to have allowed the 50 million Muslims we have liberated to continue to live under governments that inflict terror and murder upon them then it is to forcefully remove a terrorist dictator from power (it is morally better for Hussein to kill with intent then for us to use force to remove him and possibly kill some innocents in the process). That black-and-white approach is something I have problems with. Look at the example of Rwanda in the last decade. We have millions dead because diplomacy did not work (the warring parties were not interested in it) and the decisions (by the U.N., the USA and other local governments) not to use force to stop the killing ended up allowing the killing. The current example in Sudan seems to be heading along the same path.

Then there are the practical issues. [Then] Cardinal Ratzinger recommended that: �the United Nations � should make the final decision. It is necessary that the community of nations makes the decision, not a particular power.� Such a statement is utopian. As currently configured, the United Nations is an extremely corrupt organization which has no real interest in working towards peace. It was making billions of dollars from its corrupt �Oil for Palaces� scheme in deals with Hussein that violated its own agreements and had no interest whatsoever in seeking a diplomatic method to get him to end the killing of his people and to abide by the terms of the cease fire he signed. I know the Church�s response to the United Nations is that it should be a responsible and moral organization. The reality is that it is neither responsible nor moral and that we need to work to reform it.

Regarding the weapons of today, it is certainly true that technology has evolved that can kill millions of unintended civilians. But it has also evolved to kill only the enemy, and keep civilian casualties to a minimum. We see this in the current war were a single house of the enemy can be targeted while leaving the house next door unharmed.

I accept the moral principles the Church is trying to teach. What I think is lacking is a realistic method of applying them when the enemy is refusing to abide by the same principles. Doing nothing while millions continue to die is not an option. Diplomacy does not always work. It is sometimes necessary to smack a bully in the jaw in order to make him realize that he must refrain from doing what is evil.

My, you are a presumptive chap sometimes, Daniel... :rolleyes: . What else needs to be said? McCarthy is spot on, in my opinion. Would that more world leaders heed the words of our Holy Fathers and our Church. And that is only partly the reason why I am no longer nor could be a Republican and have a satisfied conscience.

Dear father Daniel,

At least "pierogies" are somehow related to the Eastern Churches!

Alex

Dear Fr. Diakon,

Up here, a republican is someone who wants to get rid of the Monarchy.

And a "democrat" is a shortened version of the Ukrainian phrase used to describe politicians in general: "De mozhe, Kradeh!" (He robs wherever possible).

Alex

The Admin truly believes that the everyday Iraqi is better off now than when Hussein was in power? I have no illusions about Saddam Hussein, but at least there wasn't chaos and near civil war, at least Baghdad was still a functional and beautiful city.
How naive to think that our motives were so altruistic.
I still think that the Holy See has a better perspective and is more to be trusted than the Bush Administration...

By all objective standards the everyday Iraqi is far better off now than when under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. Anyone willing to look past the purposeful negative bias from the mainstream media can see for themselves the good things that are happening in Iraq.

Our motives for removing Hussein were many. And many of them were and are altruistic. If I remember correctly the Senate�s authorization for war contained at least 17 major reasons that Hussein needed to be removed. The President was even more eloquent in stating the need to remove Hussein (although I can understand that those who hate him will never bother to even listen to him).

It seems unwise to contrast the trustfulness of a religious leader like the Holy Father with the trustfulness of a governmental leader like President Bush, as such a contrast is comparing apples with oranges. If one is serious about turning to Rome to provide detailed direction in resolving these types of issues than one must be willing to place the blame for 12 years of inaction and continued killing in Iraq (and Rhwanda and Sudan) on the Holy Father. In reality, there is a difference in the person (or Church) that articulates moral principles and the person (or government) that has to act upon those principles.

The naivety I see is in those like Daniel who seem to think that, for the everyday Iraqi, Hussein�s tyranny was better then liberty; and the freedom to at least attempt build a democratic state. It is na�ve to speak of the functionality and beauty of Baghdad while Hussein�s torturers were feeding children into meat grinders as their parents watched.

I am sorry that Daniel has chosen to simply issue more condemnations rather then to actually discuss the questions I have raised.

Dear Administrator,

I agree with you, but must ask how you envision the future in Iraq given the nastiness the US forces have encountered there, the growing insurgency and the like.

Is it not a situation that can lead to despair, especially for the American people?

Have not the American people lost the stomach for this?

Also, it seems that what is happening in Iraq is what usually happens when regular forces fight guerrilla forces.

The US, in the aftermath of 9/11, said it would not fight a conventional war against terrorists, since it could not win that way.

And yet the US is engaged in conventional warfare on the ground in Iraq against guerrillas.

Perhaps there is no answer to this - how can one engage guerrillas and fight them on their own terms, which, historically, has been the only real way to defeat them?

Alex

Alex,

My advice is for the U.S. and coalition forces to �kick tail� with far more force against the insurgents then we are doing now.

I�m not sure that it is accurate to consider the insurgency as growing. I read both sides of the media and it seems to me that Iraq has been a gathering point for the Islamic terrorists rather then generating thousands more. [It is certainly generating some but not an endless supply.] One of the positive developments I have seen in recent months is that the Iraqis are now often forcefully rejecting imported terrorists (those not of their ethnic and religious group coming mainly from Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran).

How I envision the future depends upon what happens with the creation of the constitution and it�s acceptance by the Iraqi people at the October elections. At best the process is going to be a bumbling one, taking many years. We�re dealing with a people who have never had democracy before and often expect to be executed if their candidate looses the election. [We are asking them to do in six months what took us ten years to do!] The insurgents, of course, will fight the hardest as the formation of the government continues. Once a constitutional and functional government it is established and has the acceptance of the Iraqi people the terrorists will have lost a lot of ground and their task will be far more difficult.

A huge question in all of this is whether America will stand firm or abandon those seeing genuine reform. I can respect those who disagreed with the action to use force to evict Hussein but they really need to agree to disagree on that and move on to the reality that we are already there. The question before us is no longer should we use force but that we have and need to move forward from where we are at. The Islamists in Iraqi know how powerful public opinion can be and they are doing everything to convince Americans that we are in a no win situation. [Something I disagree with entirely, since it is not supported by the facts.]

I have a different perspective about �guerrilla forces�. In other conflicts these guerilla forces tended to be homegrown. In Iraq they are predominately outsiders and the people don�t support them. It�s also not a conventional war, in that we are not facing uniformed enemy troops (although sometimes it seems we are making the mistake of fighting them if they were an army rather than terrorists using hit and run techniques).

Admin

Dear Administrator,

Then we see I to I!

The Russian army, after 1945, could not defeat the guerrilla forces arrayed against it in Ukraine and elsewhere - until they brought in the Red Army partisans.

These were fresh from fighting the Germans and were still under Soviet Russian command.

The US has no tradition of training partisans etc. as indeed there is no need for it to do so - or is there?

In addition, the US has always been vulnerable to the media war at home, as Vietnam showed.

That media war has begun in earnest and has received a legitimacy in the US now that it could never have hoped to have before.

Plus the fact that the US is not used to enduring casualty losses - at least not since Vietnam.

The terrorists know all the foibles, it would seem.

(After you get through with Iraq, on your way home, could you swing by Ukraine for a few weeks? Plenty of good food and music await you guys! But bring plenty of soldiers trained in the art of kick-boxing!).

Alex

While we do not have precise numbers, it does not seem unlikely that more Iraqis have been killed by Americans and other Iraqis since the invasion than died by Saddam's hand during his entire rule. Even if we could be assured that in time a stable democracy would evolve [not likely, in my opinion] wouldn't this violate the principle of proportionality?

The documented deaths caused by Hussein in all his offensive wars exceed 700,000. He directly and intentionally ordered the murder of least 100,000 Kurds. The average number of annual deaths of ordinary, civilian Iraqis under Hussein is estimated at between 5,000 and 10,000 per year during the four or five years prior to his removal. Every few weeks in Iraq another gravesite is discovered adding thousands to the killing totals. Can you use the principle of proportionality to justify doing nothing and letting the killing continue? How can you be content to allow the killing to go on while saying to yourself, �Well, if we go in there we might kill even more so the moral choice is to support Hussein and to turn a blind eye to his continued murder and torture of Iraqis.�

It seems very unlikely indeed, nearly impossible, that more Iraqis have died from the war than from the actions of Saddam Hussien. One would have to be living in a cave not to know what the man was up to.

The embargo/oil for palaces scheme meant an ever increasing infant mortality rate, a country that led the Arab world in medicine plummeted to the bottom.

Who paid for Saddam's transgressions? The Iraqi people of course, and yes, they are far better off today than they were under his "leadership."

The Administrator's posts have been spot on on this subject. The UN embargo wasn't working, it never worked, and I have yet to hear one reasonable alternative to removing Saddam from power . Iraqis were dying at the hands of Saddam's henchmen, and they would be dying this very day at those same hands if no action had been taken. Consider that for a minute folks. Innocent Iraqi citizens would be being tortured to death in Saddam's chambers as I write if our "unjust" war did not occur.

The Administrator said:

Well said Sir.

We live in very strange, polarized times. Two people can look at the same thing and report not only different, but opposite accounts of what they are seeing. What is very odd is that in the case of the Administrator and myself it is not an atheist and a theist, or a Jew and a Christian, or a Protestant and a Catholic. We are both Byzantine Catholics, and if we have ever disagreed about theological or ecclesial matters I don't remember it. Indeed, even on matters that are not dogmatic, where opinions may differ, we agree, like the desirability for a united American Byzantine Church, or the approach to ecumenism. Yet when he sees President Bush he sees an altruistic man of God. I see something very different. When he sees the war he sees great progress in a noble cause. I see chaos and a cynical tug at American emotions.
Political discourse in this country resembles more a shouting match than a conversation. I cannot stomach talk radio, for example: it's we the Good Guys against you the Bad Guys and God forbid if I acknowledge that you may be onto something or have good motives. [The only exception to this is Al Kresta, syndicated talk show host on Catholic radio, who is unfailingly intelligent, charitable and principled. I don't always agree with him; he supports the war, for example. But he does so without vilifying those who oppose it, questioning their patriotism, etc].
Now in this world of confusing claims what is one to do? How does one discern what is really going on?
It is here that I find the Holy See a valuable reality check. I know that the Holy Father is not motivated by personal or national self interest. I know he approaches everything in light of moral principle, and I know he does so prayerfully. I also know that the Holy See, being the one truly international [ie, Catholic] institution in the world, has intelligence resources far beyond what any government has.
And while I have been sceptical of everything the government says since I could think for myself, I not only trust the Pope, I have a filial love for him. It is in this sense that I see him as a more trustworthy source of information and guidance than the Bush administration. If it's Bush vs Benedict I'll take Benedict, thank you.
It is interesting that in arguing about how many have died at the hand of Hussein, you include the Iranian war dead, killed when Hussein was our ally, killed with largely American weapons. Ditto for the Iraqis killed by him and the Baathists during the long years when Iraq was cozy with the US.
Actually, we do not know the numbers, either of the Iraqi dead under Saddam or under the invasion; the American government no doubt exaggerates the one and downplays the other. I only say that arguably more have died in the war.
We also should address America's role in the world. Is it truly our mission to rid the world of every evil? We dont have the men or the resources to do that. That is more the role of the United Nations, to step in when genocide is occurring. And why did we stand by during Rwanda's crisis? Or Sudan's? One suspects that it is because there was no compelling self interest...
Finally, I would like to address the Administrator's habit in these discussions of impugning my motives. He either implies or says outright that I "hate" Bush [or in the past, Reagan] because I criticize public figures and their policies. This is a cheap trick, and it is offensive. It is an attempt to destroy my credibility based on an attack on my motives. John, we are both Christians. We are compelled to view one another's motives in a charitable light. I don't suggest that you are blinded by your hatred of Democrats, or Saddam Hussein, or whatever. I assume you have the best of intentions, even when you distance yourself from the mind of the Church. And as Christians, we both know that we are not to hate but love and pray for our enemies. I do this, and assume you do too. You owe me an apology.
-Daniel

I can understand and respect that people disagree with the President on the issues. I certainly do not agree with him on every issue. I do not, however, understand where people get the idea that he is not altruistic. I simply don�t see any evidence suggesting that he is mean, cold-hearted or otherwise malevolent. I have never met the man but in the lengthy interviews he has given he comes across as a very warm man of faith, with that faith being in the Protestant Evangelical Christian style. I know he spends an hour in prayer and Bible-reading every day. So what exactly is it that causes some people to think he is not altruistic or trying to live in accordance to his Christian faith, as he understands in the Evangelical Christian style?

Regarding chaos, I think that the chaos of emerging freedom and democracy in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, some of the other �-Stans�, Ukraine and etc. is far better then any sort of unchaotic order of tyranny. In Iraq, what passed for an orderly nation under Hussein was only smoke and mirrors. Like the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba the chaos of tyranny is hidden behind the curtain. I fail to see how the liberation of 50 million people and giving them a chance to live in freedom according to the principle of law is somehow a step down from some sort of unchaotic tyranny.

Political discourse in this country has always been chaotic. Students of history know that the chaos (for lack of a better word) we are experiencing now is nothing compare to the early years of our country. It is part and parcel of democracy. Since we are quickly abandoning the Judeo-Christian ethic, we should expect it to get this chaos to get worse over time.

If you are looking for interesting talk radio try The John Batchelor Show [johnbatchelorshow.com] . It is syndicated and runs live from 9 PM � 1 AM ET (10 PM � 1 AM in syndication). Batchelor does conversational style detailed interviews with people from around the world and treats both sides of all issues with respect (it�s not a call-in show). He spent last week in Gaza reporting on the Israeli pullout and speaks regularly with people on the ground in Iraq (�on the ground� meaning getting all over the country and not just sticking to the inside of the Baghdad hotels).

Talk radio (like internet messageboards (like this one) and the new internet blogosphere) has become the new town square with the microphone as the new soapbox. It exists in all flavors from ultra-liberal to ultra-conservative. I don�t enjoy many of the styles of the various hosts, but I do applaud the opportunities for societal discussion they offer.

I agree that the Holy See provides a valuable reality check. I disagree only in that the Holy See does not attempt (or even try to attempt) to give specific advice on how to resolve issues. As I stated earlier, there is a difference between a party that provides the moral principle and the party that needs to act in light of that moral principle.

But it is not Bush vs Benedict. They are not on opposite sides, like good and evil. One who uses such black and white analogies must be willing to say that because the Holy Father opposed the war he supported the continued torture and murder of innocent Iraqis by Hussein. But such an analogy is just as false the �Pope is good so Bush must be bad� analogy.

Pope Benedict XVI (and the Church) gives guidance on moral principles. President Bush (and governmental leaders worldwide) takes those moral principles and have to act upon them in the real world. One must remember that the Holy Father�s guidance on the Iraqi situation was spoken to both Iraq and the West. That guidance must be applied in light of the reality that Hussein rejected it.

Again, we live in the real world. Hussein was once our ally in a fight against a larger evil (the Soviet Union) just as the Soviet Union was once our ally in a fight against an even larger evil (Hitler). One simply cannot take on all the bad guys at once. Try rewording that paragraph to see what I mean: �It is interesting that in arguing about how many have died at the hand of Stalin, you include the Russian war dead, killed when Stalin was our ally, killed with largely American weapons. Ditto for the Russians killed by him during the long years of WWII when the Soviet Union was cozy with the US.� Does anyone hold America responsible for the murders committed by Stalin with the weapons we gave the Soviet Union during WWII? See what I mean?

If there are no reliable figures then the issue is not arguably anything. Accurate figures are tough to come by, since they often include insurgents (because they are not uniformed it is tough to know). Plus, some groups (like Amnesty International) are unreliable sources since they include Iraqi civilians intentionally bombed by insurgents together with unintentional civilian casualties.

I believe that it is America�s mission to combat evil in the world. Yes, we do not have the resources to fight evil everywhere. But we do have the resources to fight it where we can.

I agree that the United Nations should be taking the lead to stop genocide where it is occurring. Unfortunately, the United Nations has shown by example that it really does not care about genocide enough to actually do anything about it. Why did we stand by during the genocide in Rwanda? Because we said it was up to the UN to take the lead. Former President Clinton has been candid in his admission that he should have acted when the UN refused to and that he regretted it as the biggest mistake of his presidency. We are not doing enough in Sudan, at least not beyond the basics of diplomacy. It is my hope that President Bush will move beyond the diplomacy level and ratchet up the pressure (with sanctions, etc.) enough to force some positive developments.

Your posts about the president have shown that you do not like him. In your most recent post you stated that I see an altruistic man when I see Bush and that you see something �very different�. The opposite of altruistic is mean, cold-hearted, and/or malevolent. In the quote of what you wrote immediately above you stated that you criticize not just the policies of public figures but the public figures themselves. In earlier discussions you have stated much worse about the person of President Bush (and not just disagreements on issues). Can�t you see that when you accuse the president of intentional ill-will (the opposite of altruistic) anything you say about his policies will be seen in the light of your belief that he (personally) is malevolent? I think it would be far better to simply assume that he means the best for the country even if you think his policies are incorrect. Disagree with him on the issues without impugning his intentions.

I have said little about Democrats that can be considered hateful of specific individuals. I believe that the worst that I have stated is that Democrats and those who support them have blood on their hands because of the position of that party on abortion. But, in context, I also applied this description to individual Republicans and politicians from other political parties who are pro-abortion. I have said some nasty stuff about Saddam Hussein because of the evil he has done (and I do not withdraw it because the evidence supports it).

I think that there is a difference in our respective styles of posting that you are not picking up on. If you go back and read what I wrote about various politicians of both parties that I disagree with you�ll see that I almost always say something positive about their intentions and then go on to disagree with them on a particular issue. Your posts, on the other hand, tend to speak negatively about people rather than just disagree with them over the issues. [Not too long ago you said something about the best thing you could say about Bush was that he was either a �dupe� or part of some �imperialistic plot�. I have never said that about any politician, regardless of party.]

FWIW, I am not registered as member of any political party (Virginia doesn�t register by party). On primary election day here in Virginia one can walk into the polling place and simply declare with primary one wishes to vote in. Occasionally there is a pro-life Democrat on the ballot. When there is, I vote for him. Even though voting in the Democratic Primary means that I will forever receive political flyers about how the Democratic Party is staunch in protecting the �right to choose�.

Regarding an apology, I do not believe I owe you one. If you re-read your posts you should see that they contain a great deal of ill-will towards the person of the president (and others), and are not just presenting a disagreement with him over the issues. When you start toning down your personal comments about people you disagree with and disagreeing with their positions I will respond less forcefully.

Admin

Admin- Whenever you have called me on a perceived lack of charity I have apologized; why can't you, when I perceive your accusations of hatred as uncharitable? My estimation of Bush as more a dupe than a villain was charitable, based on what I have seen of his actions. We just perceive reality very differently.
And I didn't say I saw the opposite of altruistic; you did. To say I see something "very different" leaves a host of possibilities.
- Daniel

Daniel,

I do not see anything I have written here as uncharitable. I think the problem is that you see principled disagreement as hatred of individuals. If I were arguing your position I would find a way to credit the president as having honorable intentions but being incorrect in his conclusions and actions rather than considering him � at best � to be a person who is a dupe (either so stupid he is easily deceived or a willing tool of someone else).

Let�s recap what you have stated. You believe that � at best � Bush is more like a dupe (a stupid person who is easily deceived) rather than � at worst � a villain (a wicked or evil person). And you say you don�t hate him? Nothing you have written provides evidence to support either accusation. At best you have an honest disagreement with a man who is well intentioned. The fact that you disagree with him on certain issues is not evidence that he is either a dupe or a villain. It is only evidence that you disagree.

Once again you have demonstrated the point I have made.

Admin

I don't like Mr Bush, or many other politicians. But there is a huge gap between not liking and hating. I don't hate anyone.
You are certain- and correct- in believing that Saddam Hussein is an evil person. Does that mean you hate him? I hope not. Even if I thought Mr Bush was evil, I wouldn't hate him. My dislike is based upon his actions, and upon reading a good bit about his and his family's history, about their wealth, acquired largely by long association with the Saudis and even the bin Ladens [Mr Bush was one of a handful of people on 9/11 for whom "bin Laden" wasn't a new name].
Your accusations of hatred are an accusation of sin on my part; if I hated Mr Bush, or anyone, I would have to go to confession. The accusation is uncharitable. You do owe me an apology.
And when you have the President of the United States saying that an action is justifiable, and the Pope saying it isn't, it is a matter of Bush vs Benedict.
Daniel

Daniel,

Can you please explain why it is that you cannot find enough charity to allow that President Bush has acted with good intentions even if you believe that his actions were (in your opinion) were wrong? I think you should strive to allow this because when you don�t your dislike of him colors all your arguments and reduces them to mere emotional rants.

Regarding your �dislike� it is difficult to accept that you merely dislike him since you have stated at � at best � he is a �dupe� (and you only raised it up from �villain� since you were trying to be charitable!). Again, one should be able to have a legitimate disagreement with someone over an issue (considering them to be well intentioned but incorrect) without having to consider them to be a �dupe� (stupid).

Regarding Bush vs Benedict, we will have to disagree. To me there is a huge difference between speaking about moral principles and acting upon them in the real world, especially when your adversary has no intention of following any moral principles.

I�m still waiting for you to answer any of the points I have raised in these discussions. You seem to be very willing to condemn but very unwilling to provide alternate actions that meet with your moral approval. Exactly what specific action should the President have taken to end Hussein�s reign of terror in Iraq that would meet with your moral approval (given that the United Nations refused to act after TWELVE YEARS of negotiation while the murder continued)? Saying �nothing� or not responding can only be taken as an endorsement of Hussein�s continued murder and ill-treatment of the Iraqi people.

Admin

Dearest Administrator,

What actions should the U.S. have taken to end the reign of the Soviets over Eastern Europe? Or of any number of other dictators?

Is Hussein truly the worst of them all?

In fact, I know Iraqi Christians, Chaldeans, who have always told me that Hussein was a "pussycat" by comparison to other political leaders in Iraq.

I just find this type of international perspective interesting, given the penchant for Americans to see the world that is relevant for them being between New York and Los Angeles.

Whenever we've had discussions about other languages in the liturgies, haven't you usually come out with "We live in America" where English is relevant and the like? Since when are Americans so international in global focus?

And why can't Daniel say what he wants to say about his President?

Is that not his democratic right?

Alex

Alex,

Well, for a start, I think if that if there were more politicians in the West who were willing to call the Soviet Union an �evil empire� and treat it for what it was the iron curtain might have fallen a decade or two earlier. We knew what the Soviet Union was to become in its very early days. We should have defended freedom at Yalta instead of giving in to tyranny. Even in the middle days the Khrushchev �we will bury you speech� while pounding his shoe should have been followed with an equally harsh verbal response. Even little things are important. All during the 1970�s and thee 1980�s the United States bishops issued pastorals that condemned the U.S. military buildup but was pretty silent about the actions of the Soviet Union. There are so many other things that one can see. But to use hindsight they are far easier to figure out and I am not condemning any individual for their actions.

On the modern dictator front, I would demand great reform of the United Nations. I would allow only democracies to vote on issues. I would not allow countries with dictators and horrible records of human rights abuse to have a vote on anything. I certainly would never put countries like Syria, Libya or China on the U.N. human rights commission. If such countries want a seat at the table they must reform into democratic countries that respect liberty. Non-democracies would given non-voting observation status. Since the United States provides something like 35% of the UN�s operating budget we are in the position to �kick tail� and demand reforms that promote liberty around the world.

Is Hussein the worst of them all? That depends on how you look at it. The genocide in Rwanda and today in Sudan is worse on an absolute scale. Hussein was an active threat to his neighbors while the horrors in Rwanda and Sudan were internal to those countries. It is human nature to rush to help someone who attacks his neighbor and to hesitate when helping someone who is killing mostly within his own household (but that doesn�t make it right). Looking at just the Middle East we can see this in that Hussein openly attacked Kuwait (and we begged him for 12 years to live up to the cease fire agreement he signed).

Iran is no picnic. They torture and murder their own citizens, just like Hussein (but the reported numbers seem to be far smaller). I agree with the American policy to quietly and consistently encourage the Iranian people to overthrow their government in favor of a democratic state.

I like your comment about New York and Los Angeles! But I think that some see New York and Los Angeles to be the only relevant part of America, with the rest being �flyover territory�.

I�m not sure I see your point about living in America, speaking English and America being �so intentional in global focus�. I believe that good people everywhere (and the nations they live in) have a responsibility to fight evil wherever it exists. As Daniel rightly pointed out earlier in this thread, we cannot fight all evil everywhere by ourselves. But we can and should fight it where we can and when we can. And we should do so together with whoever is willing to work with us. I think it is morally wrong for those countries with the ability to stop evil to sit by and ignore it.

Of course, Daniel can say whatever he wants about the President! And he certainly has! And at great length! If you reread what I have written you�ll see my comments about why not providing the link from evidence to conclusion for his argument reduces that argument to an emotional expression.

I admit that I find his habit of simply repeating accusations and never answering questions providing alternate solutions to be a bit annoying.

Admin

Dear Administrator,

Well, I won't talk about how annoying other posters can be, given my past track record . . .

Your points on Eastern Europe are well taken, period. I'm only grateful that, as far as I know, the U.S. has never sent kick-boxers over to train the Russians!

Your point on New York and Los Angeles is right on - I've been told the same by Europeans and Asians . . .

I agree with your point on fighting evil.

I just wish that the U.S. wouldn't appear to be so selective, as I think it has been, when it comes to choosing targets of evil - nor do I pretend to understand the thinking behind the selection.

Alex

I never said that Mr Bush acted from evil intentions. I have said that the only way I can see to avoid this conclusion is that he is a well-meaning dupe.
However, you are unwilling to grant that I may be acting from good and principled intentions. Instead you state that in fact I am evil, for only an evil person is filled with hate.
From this I can only conclude that you in fact hate me, and this has blinded you in this conversation. You have gone much further in ascribing evil to me than I have to Bush.
The eminent historian John Lukacs has commented that Bush's mind and character are "often astonishingly shallow". Does this mean that Dr Lukacs if filled with hate, or is he merely stating his perception? I have seen Mr Bush's speeches; if he has had eloquent moments I must have missed them. Again, our perceptions of reality differ radically. Indeed sometimes I wonder if we dwell in the same universe, in spite of our common Faith. When I see Mr Bush I see squirming, shifty eyes, a fellow looking for all the world like he doesn't believe a word he says. I suspend judgement at this point; we are called to as charitable an interpretation of another's actions as is possible. Maybe he's just nervous in public. Maybe he is a well-meaning dupe.
About Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld I have a harder time...

I'm waiting for an apology for your hatred of me.
Daniel

Daniel,

Earlier in this thread you wrote: �My estimation of Bush as more a dupe than a villain was charitable, based on what I have seen of his actions�.

When you say that someone is more one thing than another you are saying that he is both things, but in different quantities. If I were to say that a �Vodka-OJ� was more vodka than OJ I would be saying that the content of vodka was higher then the content of OJ. I would not be saying that the drink had no OJ in it (otherwise it would be called a glass of vodka and not a �Vodka-OJ�). When you say that the President is �more a dupe than a villain� you are saying that he is both a dupe and a villain but that the dupe part outweighs the villain part. By definition a �villain� is one who is �a wicked or evil person; someone who does evil deliberately�. The use of the term �villain� is an accusation of him acting from evil intentions. The fact that you mitigate it by saying he is �more a dupe than a villain� does not cancel out your accusation of his being evil. And when you say that you must use charity to put more weight upon the �dupe� part anyone reading your statement must conclude that you consider the President to be acting from evil intent. Again, it is possible that you don�t mean what you are writing or have chosen your words poorly. But on internet forums like this one people can only understand what you mean by what you write.

Regarding the idea that I hate you, there is nothing in what I have written that even remotely suggests this. There is also nothing whatsoever in what I have written that ascribes evil to you. I have called you neither �dupe� nor �villain�. In fact I have offered no personal judgment against you whatsoever. I have gone to great lengths to point out that you may not mean exactly what you have written and have asked you to clarify what you have written. Disagreement does not equate hate. I assume (and have always assumed) that you are a good person, someone who loves God, and someone who is striving to follow he teachings of Christ. The fact that we disagree on some issues does not change my positive opinion of you.

Lukcas showers many people with terms like �shallow�. That seems to be his style. Some of what he wrote about the Soviet Union was exactly correct. But I have not read much of his writings so I don�t know the context of the use of the term �shallow�. Still, there is a big difference between saying someone is intellectually lazy and saying that a villain (acting with evil intent).

I agree that President Bush is far from eloquent when giving speeches. From the interviews in which he has discussed his talents in public speaking, I think he would agree too. I don�t disqualify a person because he or she might not be eloquent in speech. I don�t agree with every policy of the president or everything he has done, but on the whole, and especially in Afghanistan in Iraq (and, on the domestic front with the economy), he has done what is right and what needed to be done. I can respect someone who disagrees without calling that person either a �dupe� or a �villain� because of that disagreement.

�Squirming�? �Shifty eyes�? These are judgmental terms that carry very negative connotations.

�Maybe he is a well-meaning dupe�? Why is it not possible for you to believe that he is a well-meaning intelligent person that you happen to disagree with? I disagree with you on these same issues and yet I consider you a well-meaning intelligent person. Am I to conclude that you consider everyone who disagrees with you to be neither well meaning nor intelligent?

And than you go on to say that while the President might be a �well-meaning dupe� you could never ascribe even the status of �well-meaning dupe� to Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld? Is it really all that difficult for you to believe that these men might be as well-intentioned as you are, even if you consider them wrong on the issues?

Again, if you want people to appreciate your opinions and consider accepting them, make your case upon merit and not emotion.

Admin

"More a dupe than a villain" may be taken as you have taken it; that is not what I intended. Perhaps I should have stated it as "a dupe rather than a villain". I say this is charitable because a strong case can be made that he is in fact a villain. This is not, as you suggest, an emotional thing for me; it is based on his record and his and his family's history. I try and stay away from undue speculation about people's motives. With Rumsfeld and Cheney and Wolfowitz, it is their own records and writings that make it harder for me to ascribe anything but ill intent: they are on record as favoring an American Imperialism that is hostile to all I view as good about our political tradition. But even in this I will grant that they act for what they perceive as a good. Heck, the Islamists are doing the same, a better good, even, for it is not a mere political good for which they strive, but the rule of God. Deluded, but well-intentioned.
I am relieved to hear you think that I am not evil, though I am not sure how this squares with thinking I am a hater.
I ran this by my wife, who knows me better than anyone. For what it's worth she laughed "You're fiery, but I'd be shocked if you hated anyone", she said. So there it is, a witness for the defense!
Anyway, I weary of this exchange, as I have wearied of every conversation with you that didn't involve theology or ecclesiology, where we happily agree. We seemed doomed to speak at cross purposes and to misunderstand one another. I'm reasonably certain that if we could sit down over beers with our mutual friend Bob Wiesner, we could iron it all out and part as friends.
Maybe someday...
Daniel

Daniel, you really must consider altering your style of posting. In your first sentence you agree that you should have used different words. Then, in the very next sentence you state that you say that you can make a �strong case� that he is fact a villain.� Which is it? In all these discussions you have yet to offer a single piece of evidence that supports such an accusation. Nothing you have written demonstrates anything beyond a legitimate disagreement between two men who are both honest and well-intentioned.

What specific things has the President done with deliberate evil intent? Please provide the evidence. Your continued refusal to provide specific evidence to support your accusations can only force readers to conclude that you have none to offer. This means that the only logical conclusion is that your opinion of him is based upon emotion rather than fact.

50+ million people have been freed from tyrannical governments and you say you have trouble ascribing good will to those who have worked hard to free them? I applaud and offer prayers of thanksgiving that each is in the position he is in at the current time. I support what has been done, even if I might have done things slightly differently. Since my motives are the same as theirs do you consider that I am acting from evil intent?

�American Imperialism that is hostile to all�? Maybe I missed something. Did we officially proclaim Afghanistan and Iraq as American possessions? Are we not allowing the peoples of those countries to write constitutions and engage along the very messy path of democracy? I don�t see any American imperialism.

It is possible to extend the meaning of �American imperialism� to include the promotion of a generic Western values (built upon the Judeo-Christian moral tradition as it matured in English Common Law with democratic governments based upon the rule of law). If this is the type of American Imperialism you are speaking of, then I support it wholeheartedly!

Does this mean that you will never answer the questions put to you regarding the specific alternatives the world should have used to either get Hussein to follow the cease-fire agreement or otherwise remove him from power (those that, in your opinion, were moral)?

I agree. I would welcome the �in person� opportunity to set you straight on these issues. :p Maybe I can even get you to put a �Cheney/Rice 08� bumper sticker on your car! :p

Regarding friendship, our friendship is already secure because it is based upon our mutual fellowship with Christ. Disagreement on these issues would never threaten that.

Admin

But I have alluded to reasons for my suspicions; it is based on Mr Bush's and his family's history. The Bushes are wealthy largely because of association with the Saudis, who are largely responsible for the growth of Wahhabism in the modern world. Then allowing the bin Ladens to flee America right after 9/11 heightens my suspicions; the bin Ladens already had business contacts with the Bushes. All the gentlemen I mentioned are on record as favoring a form of American imperialism. Of course we are not going to declare anything like that, but want to install friendly governments, friendly especially to the oil industry by whom Cheney et al have become rich. Don't the financial ties to the oil companies, who have long been in bed with the Saudis, who oppress Christians and finance Wahhabist missions around the world bother you at all?
Read the recent book House of Bush, House of Saud for an eye-opening account of some pretty shocking details.
Mr Bush's personal history does not inspire confidence: he was bailed out of one disaster after another by his Dad's associates, and has had a pretty easy go of it. He certainly did not rise to the presidency because of his accomplishments.
I realize that he claims a conversion experience, and I can't judge that, only note that evangelical Protestantism is hardly a guarantee against sins of nationalism or militarism.
I think your claim that all those folks in Iraq are free is a bit premature; let's hope for the best but the situation is pretty dire there now.
You seem to accept everything the government says at face value.
I know Hussein was a brutal dictator but view details and numbers with suspicion. The government has lied to us too many times to trust them. Remember the claims during the first Gulf War that invading Iraqis had thrown Kuwaiti babies from their incubators? That was thoroughly debunked.
If a country is saddled by a dictator it is primarly their responsibility to rise up [like the Kurds attempted to do when Bush senior abandoned them].
Why is it the duty of America to fight all the evils in the world? Do you really think we would be there if Iraq did not have huge oil resources? I am skeptical.
"Cheney-Rice 08"? You're kidding, I hope. Last I heard Rice was not prolife. And don't get me started on Cheney....
What kind of beer do you like? I prefer pale ales in the summer and heartier stouts in the winter...
Daniel

Where is the evidence to support your accusations?

The Bushes are wealthy because they have business relationships with the Saudis. Is there something criminal about doing business with a foreign country? What illegal activities have they engaged in that causes you to assume evil intent? Are you suggesting that the evil Bush family deliberately fostered the growth of Wahhabism so that someday when he was elected president he could launch a war and deliberately murder lots of innocent people? It seems to me that you are just buying into conspiracy theories that are not supported by evidence. Or maybe you dislike financially wealthy people? I hope not because I hope to be financially wealthy someday and I don�t want you to dislike me.

Yes, there have been reports that Osama bin Laden�s brother Salem invested in Bush�s oil company. If it is true, is there something illegal or immoral about it? Are you suggesting that somehow George W. knew that Osama bin Laden was a terrorist and funneled money into terrorism? The same conspiracy theorists also claim that the deal was negotiated by David Edwards, one of President Bill Clinton's closest friends. Was Clinton also in on this conspiracy, too?

I favor a form of American imperialism. We should be very imperialistic with our liberty and democratic way of governmental organization.

No, the oil ties don�t bother me at all. The whole �war for oil� business is a bit silly. Hussein would have sold us as much oil as we wanted. So will Iran.

Why is not possible for you to believe that these are honest, well-meaning individuals who have used their talents to become wealthy and are not players on the international stage?

It�s on my shelf but I admit to only having gotten through about half of it. It makes a lot of accusations but offers no proof other than appealing to an �it must be this way� argument. The part about the Saudi�s donating a hefty amount to the first President Bush�s library doesn�t happen to mention that the Saudi�s donated an equal amount to the Carter, Reagan and Clinton libraries. That makes one want to discount a lot of the claims. The only claim that could have legitimacy is that the first President Bush was lax in dealing with rising fundamentalism in Saudi Arabia (and elsewhere). But President Clinton was offered Osama bin Laden three times and declined so one could make the same accusations against him.

You are quite correct that his family bailed him out from several disasters. My reading of his live slows me that he was pretty much lost and worthless until he stopped drinking. From there he seems to have put his life together accomplished a great deal. From where I stand the children of the rich learn life�s lesions much harder than the children of the poor. As to how he rose to the presidency, it happened because he engaged in behavior that inspired the confidence of the voters.

Is there some reason for you to believe that his �claim� of a conversion experience is false? I see nothing to justify it. In interviews his Evangelical Protestant Christianity comes across as both sound and typical.

I agree that being a Christian doesn�t guarantee that one will not either make mistakes or fall into error. Nationalism and militarism can be sins if excessive, but I see no excessive in either. I am a strong believer in American exceptionalism. But this is something quite different.

That�s exactly what the British said during the years between the American Revolution and the establishment of the U.S. Constitution. The road to liberty and continued liberty is always bumpy.

I start by giving someone the benefit of the doubt while at the same time holding them accountable for their actions. Even when mistakes are made I assume good intentions. That does not mean that I am gullible. President Reagan�s �trust, but verify� is always good advice. It�s really mandatory when dealing with the government.

Do an internet search for the photos of the mass graves in Iraq.

Watch the assorted news stories that interview the Kurds who were attacked by Hussein with chemical weapons and lived. Look at their children who have an incredible number of chemically-related birth defects. It�s true. It happened.

Hmmmm�. Maybe President Bush abandoned the Kurds because someone convinced him that they were primarily responsible to rise up against a dictator? Are you complimenting him for abandoning them?

Whatever happened to the �do good whenever and where you can� imperative from the Gospel?

So, if someone broke into your neighbor�s house and used torture and murder to keep them in line you would be happy to pass by that house and say: �I can�t get involved. The responsibility to take that guy out belongs to the people looking up the barrel of his gun?�

It is the duty of every individual to fight evil wherever it exists.

I don�t know if we would be freeing the Iraqi people from a dictator if Iraq did not have oil. If the Middle East did not have oil it would have developed very differently. Hussein (if he got to power at all) would not have had the financial resources to build bombs and invade neighbors.

I think that Cheney would make a tremendous president. Rice is unelectable because of her pro-abortion stance. I threw her in because I knew you�d appreciate it. I will praise Rice for her effectiveness as sec of state. But she is still young in that position so time will tell.

Anything German will do, but nothing too dark. There is something in American beer that I seem to be allergic to. I�m about to go out on the deck with something cold since it is such a beautiful evening. Why don�t you stop by? Knock loudly or come around back.

Admin

So then.
Did Saddam Hussein kill more Iraqis during his reign than died in the two wars America has fought in Iraq?
Was he a tyrant of Hitlerian magnitude or the sort of run-of-the-mill dictator that is so common in the world, both among our enemies and our allies [and he was our ally for many years]?
Is the damage that has been done to the Iraqi infrastructure, the deaths of civilians, and the internicine strife that has erupted since the invasion proportionate to the good that America proclaims it is trying to accomplish?
Are Bush, Cheney, et al simply canny businessmen or are they compromised by their financial interests in a regime that has almost single-handedly created the Wahhabist terror network, which brought us the horrors of 9/11 and which American corporations overlooked during a half century of profit-making?
Is America in Iraq to free the Iraqi people or because of American financial interests [and in some of the members of the Administration, financial self-interest]?
Do the jihadists hate us because of American foreign policy and our corrupt culture or because we are free and prosperous?
Is America primarily a force for good, in spite of being the world's biggest exporter of weaponry, pornography, and a soul-killing popular culture? And having among the world's most permissive abortion laws?

These questions will be answered differently according to what principles a person embraces, and what information he believes. Different and contradictory facts and numbers can be cited for either view, both sounding credible. It is largely a matter of temperment, inclination, and experience that determines which view one believes.

Hence our impasse, John: you believe in American exceptionalism, in a benign imperialism, that bombing cities is not "indiscriminate", even when this means certain slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians [as you stated in a previous discussion, in which you defended the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki]. You believe the just war principles need loosening to include preemptive war, and that American motives for attacking Iraq are entirely defensive and altruistic. You believe the Official Version of things set forth by Mr Bush and his friends.
I believe that American exceptionalism is a form of idolotry, stemming from the Americanist heresy, that the imperial impulse runs counter to all that is good and wise in our political tradition, and that any act that is "aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities...along with their populations is a crime against God and man himself [and] merits unhesitating condemnation" [ Gaudiam et Spes ]. I believe, with Pope Paul VI that the atomic bombings were "a butchery of untold magnitude", and that the just war principles need a more restrictive interpretation in light of modern weaponry [John Paul II and Benedict XVI]. And I believe that American motives in Iraq are those of self-interest, even financial self-interest for members of the Administration. I do not believe the Official Version.

Which brings us back to my original post, linking to the magazine article on Bush vs Benedict [amconmag.com] : which of these views more resembles the views of our Holy Father? Which resembles those of Mr Bush?

ps: even our tastes in beer differ: I prefer the heartier English and Irish style ales to those thin German brews....
Daniel

Yes. All the documented evidence shows that Hussein is responsible for over 700,000 deaths. Are you suggesting that we have killed more? Are you suggesting that unintended deaths that occur during a rescue are morally equal to purposeful deaths of a dictator?

No one outranks Hitler, except possibly Stalin (for total number of deaths). Hitler and the Axis powers are responsible for over 50,000,000 deaths that occurred during WWII. Regarding Hussein being our ally, you keep conveniently failing to address the fact that he was our ally only in order to help defeat a larger evil (Communism). Are you suggesting that we should not have worked with Stalin (a horrible man) to defeat Hitler? You keep failing to address this.

The deaths and damage are regrettable. The United States has gone to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties. In fact, compare to any previous war the civilian casualties are very low.

Regarding damage to infrastructure, are you suggesting that lives of the thousands murdered annually by Hussein are not worth temporary damage to the infrastructure (which Hussein hadn�t bothered to maintain during his despotic reign)?

Are you blaming 9/11 on Bush and Cheney? With each post you seem to just want to consider everyone who has met with financial success to be corrupt. Using your logic you would need to place equal blame on each American who drives a car, since they use fuel made from imported oil.

Mostly the first, but definitely a bit of all three. Hussein was perfectly willing to sell us as much oil as we wanted, so one cannot legitimately call this a �war for oil� or even one based solely upon American financial interests. Would you also conclude that our rebuilding of Europe and Japan was merely to generate very large trading partners?

They hate us for a number of reasons. Mostly they hate us because we are not Muslims. They seek to establish a world-wide caliphate that is ruled by the most severe Islamic laws. Our culture is certainly corrupt but theirs is exponentially more corrupt when compared to ours. The way you are wording your responses almost suggests that you think that an Islamist society is morally superior to ours. I find that odd.

America is primarily a force for good. It is shameful that we export porn and a soul-killing culture. Still, our society is one were we can work through our legislatures in a free and open process to accomplish change. That was not possible in Iraq. Nor is it possible in Muslim countries governed by Sharia.

Since leaflets were dropped prior to the dropping of bombs on Japan advising the people to evacuate (the goal was to take out infrastructure and not people) one cannot really label the dropping of the bombs as �indiscriminate�.

There were about 17 different reasons for liberating Iraq from Hussain�s dictatorship. The main ones for me (which I argued here) were to free the people from a dictator and to punish him for violating the ceasefire agreement he signed. Given all 17 reasons, including his refusal to cooperate and live up to his agreement we were certainly justified in removing him from power. In a similar way (if negotiation with Iran fails) I would support the taking out of Iran�s nuclear facilities. I would also support an effort to end the genocide in Sudan.

I disagree. I am sorry you are willing to sit by and watch as thousands of your neighbors are fed into grinding machines in front of their children. Evil wins when the just refuse to get involved.

I think it was Gold Meir (the Israeli PM) who said: �We can forgive you for killing our children. But it will be very difficult to forgive you for forcing us to kill your children.� It is horrible that one country should place another country in such a position as to drop bombs that could and would kill innocents. The blame belongs with the party that started the war (in this case Hussein, when he invaded Kuwait). I am sorry that you seem to think that America ranks morally below Hussein�s dictatorship.

As I stated numerous times, there is a difference between the party who speaks to moral principles and the party that is responsible for carrying them out in a real world situation. The comparison is apples and oranges. Since the Holy Father offered no method of ending Hussein�s atrocities are you suggesting that he advocated letting Hussein alone to continue his killing? And you had no problem with that?

Once again you have failed to answer my questions. But I will ask the most important one again. Given that 12 years of diplomacy (not mention sanctions) had not worked, and that the United Nations had no interest in stopping Hussein�s atrocities (and were, in fact, profiting from them), what action should the world have taken to prevent Hussein from his continued reign of terror upon on the Iraqi people?

Admin D:

Daniel:

You wrote:

Thomas Friedman wrote an excellent piece on this very subject for the NY Times on July 15th. Although he refers to the terrorists hatred of the west in general and not just the United States, it still answers your question. You can find the article here:

A Poverty of Dignity and a Wealth of Rage [hvk.org]

In the article Friedman asks:

He finds the following factors, among others:

An excellent article.

I do not intend to answer your last post point by point; I am a Celt, more suited tempermentally for skirmishes than seiges [see I am not above using martial imagery ]
Like I said, facts and figures are cited by both sides of the argument and which we believe is based on complex personal attitudes. Who was it that said that the first casualty in war is the truth?
I will say that your "documented" number of 700,000 dead at the hands of Hussein sounds suspiciously high. It is hardly reasonable to count all the dead from the Iran war as being the victims of Saddam [let's not forget that this was done with American support and weaponry, battling not the Communists but the Iranians].
And I find your claim that Muslim societies are "exponentially more corrupt" than ours odd. It is hard to be more corrupt than a society that allows the murder of a million and a half unborn babies every year.
And can you cite one legitimate historian for your claim that we dropped warning pamphlets on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? That has long been debunked.
And your repeated claim that it is not a case of the Bush Administration vs the Holy See is a bit disingenuous; it is not like the Pope was just articulating abstract moral principles. He broke from the usual diplomatic talk and very specifically over and over condemned a particular act [going to war with Iraq] as unjust and unwarranted. He thought, with most of Europe, that continued arms inspection and international pressure was working. As the Pope has access to more sources of intelligence than the Bush Administration, and as Mr Bush appeared selective in his intelligence gathering, I trust the Pope's judgement.
And this whole idea that we are there to free the Iraqi people was articulated only because the other, primary justification, that this was a preemptive strike to defend our nation from a real threat was proven false.
It is Bush vs Benedict. I choose Benedict, you choose Bush. Time will tell who knew best.
-Daniel, the weary Celt

Since Hussein launched the 1980 invasion into Iran I think it is very reasonable to include the war dead in the total figure. I continue to find it very strange that you are very willing to give Hussein the benefit of the doubt at the same time you assume our president is evil unless proven otherwise.

Do you also believe that America is similarly responsible for the millions murdered by Stalin? After all, we armed the Soviet Union during WWII to defeat a larger enemy, which was Hitler. You seem intent on not addressing this.

There are different forms of corruption. Here in America we have the chance, through our elected representatives, to effect change. In Islamic countries governed by the Sharia there is no similar method of effecting change. If America is so corrupt you might consider moving to Tehran.

I�d have to do some research. I was only reminded of it because of a History Channel anniversary program at the beginning of August.

It�s not disingenuous at all. It is one thing to articulate a position that war should always be avoided. It is something quite different to respond to a dictator that invades other countries and does not keep the terms of a cease fire agreement that he signed. Again, if one says that removing Hussein was not justified than you must be saying that his continued torture and murder of innocent Iraqis is morally acceptable. How can you say this?

Twelve years of continued torture and murder of Iraqis, together with attempting to shoot down the planes trying to force him to live up to the cease-fire agreement is not an example of successful diplomancy.

As far as I know the Holy Father never spoke directly to whether the arms inspection was working. We know from the corruption at the United Nations that it was not working, and that at least one member of the IAEA was being paid by Hussein to let him know in advance which locations would be inspected. We also know that the United Nations made billions of dollars from violating its own sanctions against Hussein. To suggest that zero progress in twelve years was acceptable is pretty ludicrous.

I sincerely doubt that the Holy Father has access to more sources of intelligence than does the President of the United States. First, the Holy Father genially has no interest in military intelligence. Second, he does not have a host of spy satellites and other electronic intelligence gathering systems. You might remember that during the 1980�s President Reagan provided the bulk of Pope John Paul II�s intelligence about what the Soviet Union was up to (especially in Poland). The Holy Father certainly has sources of information but inside information about Hussein was not one of his strong points.

That is a factually incorrect statement. Go and read the pre-war declarations by the President and the Congress. You will find that the preemptive elements were only a few of the 17 or so reasons justifying the removal of Hussein. On this Forum I made the case only on the merit of removing a dictator that was torturing and murdering innocents.

The comparison is apples and oranges. If there is a choice here it is Hussein vs Bush. You seem to think that Hussein was a model of virtue when compared to Bush.

Daniel, you seem intent on just issuing accusations and never providing solutions. I will keep asking my most important question. Given that 12 years of diplomacy (not to mention sanctions) did not stop Hussein from continuing to torture and murder innocent Iraqis, and that the Untied Nations had no interest in stopping Hussein�s atrocities (and were, in fact, profiting from them) what action should the world have taken to stop Hussein�s continued reign of terror upon the Iraqi people?

Admin

The real "apples and oranges" analogy is yours. To equate our strategic alliance with Russia in what was for them a defensive war against a common enemy with our support of Iraq in its war with Iran is odd indeed. If we had supported Stalin with our money and weaponry in an aggresive war against his neighbors, then twenty years later decided to punish him for it, that would be an apt analogy.
And to answer your question, I first of all do not believe your explanation concerning our reasons for being in Iraq. If we are there to give them a constitutional government it is a sidebar, not without self-interest, not the main motive.
Secondly, I do not believe that any one country has the obligation to rid the world of evil. If this is our duty, why have we done so little in Africa, which is full of brutal dictators? Why do we do nothing about China, which has a forced abortion policy? Why don't we invade North Korea, or a dozen other places where there is no freedom?
To accept such a role is to accept endless war.
This is not to say that international alliances shouldn't try to stop egregious brutality, but to attempt it single-handedly is foolish, and maybe worse, especially when it is undertaken by men on record endorsing imperialism. At best it is a form of messianic fantasy, at worse a thin veneer hiding an attempt at strategic and financial gain.
I do not "trust" Saddam; it is just that I also don't trust the American government, which has lied to its people too many times to be trusted.
The bottom line is that you and I have different bottom lines. You take the Administration's word at face value, and I don't. We believe differing accounts of the facts.
This argument could go on forever, and I doubt either of us would change our minds about anything. I suggest that we give it a rest, unless and until we can discuss it over those beers....
Daniel

The analogy holds. Our initial support of Iraq against Iran was because Iran was in league with the Soviets. Also, there was this issue of the Americans held hostage. We supported someone who was fighting a country that had the support of the Communists.

And exactly what is the main motive? It certainly is not oil, since Hussein was willing to sell us as much as we wanted, so long as we joined other countries who were willing to overlook his atrocities.

I agree that one country should not have to take responsibility to address the evil in the world. But just because other countries are not willing to address evil does not mean that we can abstain from doing what is right.

I also agree that we must do more in Africa, China, North Korea and elsewhere. When the horrors of Rwanda were occurring I was actively petitioning the Clinton administration to take active measures (even using our military) to save lives. Every month I petition the President, my senators and congressmen and the leading senators and congressmen to act boldly to save lives in places like Sudan. I am embarrassed that they have not acted. I know that we cannot rid the world of every evil in a single. But we can do it a little at a time.

I disagree. There is nothing messianic about opposing evil and doing what is right, even when others won�t.

I am sure that whenever you see someone doing something wrong, something that can hurt others, you speak out and take action without regard to the fact that others around you don�t. I am positive that if you were on your back deck enjoying a cold brewski and heard cries of �Help!� you would immediately run to offer assistance without taking a poll of your neighbors to see if they all were willing to join. I am positive that you would drag people from a burning house even if you neighbors were too scared to do anything. Countries are no different. Evil can be thwarted by the good action of one man (or one country).

As I stated earlier: �Trust but verify.� Unfortunately what you have written seems to indicate that Saddam was not all that bad when compared to Bush and that as long as the streets of Baghdad were kept clean and the torture well hidden we should stay silent.

I don�t take the Administration�s word at face value. But I don�t assume that the President is evil until proven otherwise. I follow a number of news sources, domestic and international, liberal and conservative. You�d never know it from the American but there is good news [opinionjournal.com] in Iraq.

I�m very happy to keep the discussion going. Every time you refuse to answer my most important question your weak position becomes weaker.

Given that 12 years of diplomacy (not to mention sanctions) did not stop Hussein from continuing to torture and murder innocent Iraqis, and that the Untied Nations had no interest in stopping Hussein�s atrocities (and were, in fact, profiting from them) what action should the world have taken to stop Hussein�s continued reign of terror upon the Iraqi people?

I know you don�t want to have to answer any real questions but eventually we all must answer them.

I have some dark micro-brew that is good but not to my taste in the 'fridge. If you stop over you are welcome to it. But bring some bug spray. The 'skeeters are horrible this time of year.

Admin

Your "most important question" is based on believing that the atrocities in Iraq were beyond what we was and is occurring in other parts of the world. Now why should I believe Bush's contention that they are when his intelligence regarding the WMD [the original justification for war] turned out to be inaccurate?
I am glad to see that you are consistent and would send American troops elsewhere in the world to fight oppression. I hope you understand that this will require mass conscription, and that the American people would hardly stand for this.
Of course I would take the actions you described, whether or not anyone else supported me. If you haven't noticed I don't put a lot of stock in the opinion of others. However, I don't really believe that the obligations of a person are analogous to the obligations of a state. I don't think that globally or abstractly. If states are bound by the same moral obligations as individuals we must work to outlaw blasphemy, to demand Church attendance of all on Sundays, and to ban contraception. Individuals and localities have obligations that nation states do not share. Except in cases of genocide, I believe the nation state is bound to use lethal force only in self-defense. States, for one thing, cannot be trusted to tell the truth. I mean we had one guy here on the Forum saying that Poland was a threat to Germany in 1939, for heaven's sake.
And why don't you admit it: you disagree with the Holy See not just on prudential questions but on the principles themselves, as you have done numerous times in this discussion.
It is Bush vs Benedict and we are on opposite sides.
Daniel

Daniel,

My question is not at all based upon the idea that the atrocities in Iraq were beyond what was occurring in other parts of the world. Hussein pales in comparison to some of the human rights abuses in communist China. We don�t have the resources to end the evils in communist China. We do have the resources to address evil in other places. We cannot use the fact that we cannot address all evil to be an excuse for not addressing any evil.

Inaccurate intelligence? Time will tell. On the WMD issue we know that Hussein had them because he used them against the Kurds. Our inside sources in Iraq indicated that Hussein was continuing to produce them. Either Hussein�s own henchmen were lying to Hussein (telling him that they were producing them) or they were made and still well-hidden (either in the sand or exported to Syria). We do know that all intelligence sources � including the French, the Germans, the Russians and the Israelis, had the same information. Given the information they had at the time the decision to include the WMDs as one of the 17+ reasons for liberating Iraq was valid. We also have to take into account the fact that some of these countries were willing to overlook the atrocities because they were making a handsome profit from Hussein.

As I have already stated numerous times, we don�t have the resources to address all the evils in the world at once. We do have the resources to address some evil and we should do so where we can when we can. There is no need for conscription. The liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq have already had created a very positive political momentum in the Middle East. Afghanistan and Iraq are liberated and are engaging in the very messy work of creating democracies. Syria is mostly out of Lebanon and Lebanon is holding elections. Egypt is having elections with opposition candidates (a step forward even if the elections will not be fair). Saudi Arabia had local elections (another step forward even if rather unfair and corrupt). Libya has abandoned its terroristic ways and is attempting a turn-around. The people of Iran are moving towards overthrowing the mullahs (people are carrying pictures of President Bush much like those behind the Iron Curtain carried pictures of President Reagan back in the 1980s). Some of the �-stans� are trying to get rid of their dictators.

I didn�t expect a libertarian statement from you! Are you also against social security, MedicAid, and most social programs? It is my opinion that we have an obligation to have a safety net for those who needed, one that is mostly temporary in nature and gives people the tools to get on their feet and then ends. The obligations of states do differ from those of individuals but they differ not in general but, rather, in implementation.

So you would not have supported FDR�s Lend-Lease program to assist the Brits at the beginning of WWII? If we had refused and kept out of it Hitler most likely would have won. Then, after a few years of recovery, he could have worked with Japan to take over America.

No, lethal force can be justified to end oppression in other parts of the world, with the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq being two good examples. In the Iraq example the world tried for 12 full years to get Hussein to comply with his cease fire agreements, so the use of force was both just and warranted. When there are no consequences for governments that terrorize both their own citizens and their neighbors, that lack of consequences serves as tolerance and even tacit approval. When there are real consequences, other governments (with similar plans to terrorize their citizens or their neighbors) think twice.

Regarding the Poland example, I believe the comment made on the Forum noted that Hitler claimed Poland as a threat to Germany as one of the reasons for invading Poland.

As I stated earlier, I accept the principles articulated by the Holy See. There is, however, a difference between stating a principle and applying it. Real life is never as neat and tidy as are theological statements. This is why your comparison is apples and oranges. In a utopian environment Hussein would have acknowledged the validity of the moral principles as espoused by the Holy See. He would never have tormented his own people, dropped chemical weapons on the Kurds, started wars with Iraq, invaded Kuwait, paid money to the families of suicide bombers in the PLA, and etc. Because he didn�t and 12 years of diplomacy didn�t work, the people of Iraq deserved to be liberated and neighboring countries freed from this threats.

In the years before WWII Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII articulated the need for Hitler to find a peaceful way to resolve disputes with Germany�s neighbors. Hitler didn�t listen and it was not immoral for the world to respond to defeat him. Likewise, it is not wrong to use force to remove a tyrant who is threat to his own citizens and his neighbors after all diplomatic routes have been tried. In the case of Hussein, 12 years of diplomacy after the cease-fire had made no progress and Hussein and the United Nations were profiting billions of dollars from the �Oil for Palaces� scandal.

You seem to keep avoiding my most important question:

Given that 12 years of diplomacy (not to mention sanctions) did not stop Hussein from continuing to torture and murder innocent Iraqis, and that the Untied Nations had no interest in stopping Hussein�s atrocities (and were, in fact, profiting from them) what action should have been taken to stop Hussein�s continued reign of terror upon the Iraqi people?

Admin

If anyone wants to know what atrocities are then come over here to where the bullets are flying and see the victims of car bombings that kill innocent bystanders and children, even if killing our US and of course other coalition troops is of no matter.

Dear Daniel,

I disagree with you on many accounts, but I especially picked out the following in one of your posts:

"And while I have been sceptical of everything the government says since I could think for myself, I not only trust the Pope, I have a filial love for him. It is in this sense that I see him as a more trustworthy source of information and guidance than the Bush administration."
---------------------------------------------------------
What you can't seem to realize is that the Pope's Benedict and John Paul have reasons for their pacificism. They are not looking at the political realities, but rather praying for a spiritual awakening and conversion in the people committing the crimes that lead to war. Yes I am sure that will happen if most of humanity turns to prayer, but will that happen?

Then again in the past martyrs have managed to change world situations and brought peace to humanity. Do we have those martyrs?

I think you are comparing apples to oranges. Our President has the burden of the world on his shoulders. He is the head of the only power in the world. Any inaction on his part might mean the death of millions upon millions of people in the future. He will be accountable for it at judgement day. Is it any wonder he reads the bible everyday?

Zenovia

Sorry for the delay in responding; I had a busy holiday weekend followed by trying to catch up at work.
Zenovia- I find your approach intriguing. Let's look at some other moral questions from this perspective:
"What you can't seem to realize is that the Popes Benedict and John Paul have reasons for their prolife stances. They are not looking at the human realities, but rather praying for a spiritual awakening and conversion in the people committing the sins that lead to abortiion. Yes I am sure that will happen if most of humanity turns to prayer but when will that happen?
You are comparing apples to oranges.
Women have the weight of the world on their shoulders; only they can determine their needs in particular circumstances."

Or substitute "chastity" and "contraceptives for teens".
The assumption seems to be that the Way of Christ is fine for priests and nuns and little old ladies, but here in the real world we must make these hard decisions.
Oh, we will profess respect for the distant ideals the Popes represent; world leaders fell all over themselves showing respect for JPII, without for a moment allowing him to influence their decisions when their nation's self interest was at stake.
American Catholics seem fine with the Faith as long as it doesn't interfere with their Faith in America and its inherent destiny in the world.
Perhaps if we took Christ more seriously we would become the world-changing martyrs of which you speak.
And John- indeed I am not a libertarian. I believe that the State is a good, not an evil [not even a necessary evil]. The fact that there are evil states does not negate that it is a human good any more than the existence of disfunctional families or oppressive corporations negate the fact that the family and private property are human goods.
That said, I believe the State has certain obligations to its citizens, including the ones you outline. But I also believe the State has very limited obligations to the citizens of other states. In a rough analogy, a corporation has certain obligations to its employees: a just wage, safe working conditions and so on. But it has very limited obligations to the employees of other companies. It would be odd indeed for it to proclaim that it must forcibly take over other companies to bring humane working conditions to their employees.
I respect that you are motivated by high ideals: freedom, America as a liberator, etc. Unfortunately I think you are being duped. What this Administration is really promoting is a global corporate empire. We were fine with Hussein's atrocities -and the worst of them occurred while he was our ally- so long as he was subserviant to us. If he had been content with his palaces and perks we would have let him be, as we have left so many of our dictatorial allies alone. But no, he had bigger ideas, and was perceived as unstable and a threat to our allies Saudi Arabia and Israel. He had to be taken out and replaced by a friendlier regime [ie, in Bush's parlance, "democracy"]. But the bottom line is still the global corporate empire. And if you follow the money trail you will see the Bush family at the epicenter of this empire, from Bush interest in United Fruit in Central America to Bush petroleum dollars in the Middle East.
And how can you with a straight face claim to "accept the principles of the Holy See" regarding the waging of war?
Pius XII called Hiroshima a "war crime", Paul VI called it a "butchery of untold magnitude" yet you continue to defend it. [I am still awaiting the corroboration for your claim that we dropped warning leaflets; surely that would have been suicidal strategically]. Benedict has stated that preemptive war is not allowed by the Church, but you claim it is, and so on.
I almost liked the neoconservatives better back when they openly dissented on Catholic social teaching...
-Daniel