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

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