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

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