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