www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Where the war would take place and other ponderances

I just realized that this war would take place in the cradle of civilization. With all the talk of weapons of mass destruction, even world war III could the end of civilization take place there as well?
Our president could he possibly be the person who unleashes the end or saves us from it?
Has God been speaking through France who's title is Eldest daughter of the Church?
If Saddam leaves did he listen to his Guardian Angel as Fr. Mitch Pacwa suggest we pray for?

Does anyone else wonder about these things?

Nicky's Baba

This day has been a very sad day for the human civilization and for the state of nations. The whole international community and all kind of international right represented by the U.N. have been defeated, the vast majority of people in the world who oppose war have been ignored, the moral voice of the Roman Pope, Catholic and Orthodox Bishops and also representatives of Protestant Churches was not succesful.

The military power of the United States is enormous, its army posesses weapons whose level of destructive effects surpases our imagination, capable of making any nation dissappear. Thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqi people, and maybe a lot of American soldiers will perish (but they will most likely not be said).

This last moral voice has made us clear that as christians we cannot support the anihilation of so many human lives. The price of a certain freedom must never be paid with death and destruction.

I still believe that President Bush, as a Christian, will still try to avoid the death of so many human lives in his campaign against Hussein. But Hussein is a bad man, to fulfill his infamous "dream" of causing the "Armaggedon" he will intend to attack other countries and involve them in a war, especially Israel. And Israel will certainly not have the intention to avoid the deaths of Iraqi people as President Bush does, they will not hesitate in using a nuclear weapon to respond an agression. The consequences of this war are inimaginable.

Even the secular leaders of other nations such as Chirac, Berlusconi, Chretien, Fox, Schroeder... whose attitudes on other issues are far from good, have refused to support this action.

Now that the efforts of people who stand for peace, in order to convince the West with marches (the young people in the streets), negociations (the International Community, the U.N.) and speeches on ethics and morals (religious leaders like the Pope, and moral leaders like Nelson Mandela) have not been succesful, the only think that can be done now is to put some pressure on Saddam Hussein, he is the only one who can stop a massachre against his own people by leaving the power.

But only a miracle can cause this to happen. He will probably be pleased if more people die, as he did in the Gulf war when he sent his army to a sure death in order to avoid the possibility of being overthrown by it.

Now the labour of those who stand for peace, such as the Pope and the Chaldean Patriarch of Babylon will be dedicated to convince Hussein to leave and to avoid a massachre. We can just pray that their eforts have success and to ask for a miracle.

And what about all the Christian shrines in the near-by country of Israel?
How many will be left?

The Middle East is so fragile! Actually the whole world seems to be so fragile.

Have mercy on us, O Lord, have mercy on us.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Remi:
[QB] This day has been a very sad day for the human civilization and for the state of nations. The whole international community and all kind of international right represented by the U.N. have been defeated, the vast majority of people in the world who oppose war have been ignored, the moral voice of the Roman Pope, Catholic and Orthodox Bishops and also representatives of Protestant Churches was not succesful.[QUOTE][QB]

Dear Remi,

I disagree. Moral leadership does not follow the majority. I believe President Bush is doing the right thing in disarming Iraq and removing Saddam from power.

I believe it is immoral to leave Saddam with his stockpile of chemical and biological weapons. Also with his oil money-machine Saddam will eventually build nuclear weapons.

Saddam is evil and he has evil weapons of mass murder.

Paul

I respect your possition, I disagree, however, in the issue of what is morally fair. Saddam Hussein is not the only autocrat who posesses or may posess chemical and biological weapons. There are several dictatorial or pseudo-democratic regimes which posess this kind of weapons, including nuclear weapons, such as Pakistan and India, while their citizens face the worst kind of starvation and poverty.

It is a matter of fact that India and Pakistan will be left with all their nuclear and chemical weapons.

Dear Snoopy,

Thank you for your reply.

Yes, Pakistan's and India's nukes are troublesome. I believe their governments want to be good neigbors with the world community, however they need to be reconciled with each other.

Our Lady of Peace, pray for us!

Sincerely,

Paul

UNCLASSIFIED

Administration Split On Europe Invasion
Washington, April 3, 1944 (Reuters)

Fissures are starting to appear in the formerly united front within the Roosevelt administration on the upcoming decision of whether, where and how to invade Europe. Some influential voices within both the Democrat and Republican parties are starting to question the wisdom of toppling Adolf Hitler's regime, and potentially de stabilizing much of the region.

"It's one thing to liberate France and northwestern Europe, and teach the Germans a lesson, but invading a sovereign country and overthrowing its democratically-elected ruler would require a great deal more justification," said one well-connected former State Department official. "The President just hasn't made the case to the American people."

Indeed, some are querulous at the notion of invading France itself.

They argue, correctly, that the German-French Armistice of 1940 is a valid international treaty, and the Vichy government is widely recognized as the legitimate government of France, even by the US. (The British government
doesn't recognize it, but much of that is a result of antipathy to the Germans from the Blitz.) Under this reading, German forces are thus legally stationed in France, per the request of its government, and by all observable indications, the Vichy government is supported by the "French street." More Frenchmen serve voluntarily in the Vichy militias than join the "underground" organizations supported by foreign intelligence services like MI5 and OSS.

It was pointed out to this reporter by a prominent former US ambassador to France that, "President P�tain was legally appointed by the last freely elected government of the Third Republic, and therefore is the legitimate democratically-chosen head of state. He has been governing by emergency decree under the appropriate provisions of the Third Republic Constitution. Surely there are grave issues of international law in any aggressive act against France."

In addition, some have proposed that, once the Russians take back Poland, it might make sense for them to stop at the German border. They argue that much, if not most, of Hitler's war-making capacity has been destroyed by the Allied bombing, and after we've taken back the Benelux countries, he'll only be a threat to his own people, and the ethnic minorities within Germany itself.

Others, however, contend that as long as he remains in power, he will be a continual threat to the region, and perhaps even the world, as there are rumors that he's frantically developing weapons of mass destruction greater than any the world has previously seen, and is building rockets with which to deliver them.

"For God's sake, the man is gassing Jews by the millions!" said one exasperated presidential advisor. "Do you think that he's going to be content to simply murder his own people if we let him stay in power?"

Concern is great that, in a total German defeat, or regime change, the results could have unpredictable and far-reaching consequences. Germany consists of a large number of ethnic groups antipathetic to each other, including Germans, Jews, Bohemians, Slavs and Gypsies. In the power vacuum created by the absence of a strong and stable central government, there is concern that it could split up into a number of fractious, balkanized countries, with the
potential for renewed war and strife on European soil.

There has been little public discussion of what kind of government would replace the present Nazi reich, and many believe that, in the absence of a plan, it would be foolish to simply go in and topple the dictator.

The Administration has reportedly been talking to German dissidents, but they're hardly united in anything other than a desire to see the end of the Hitler regime. Many who know them well feel that there's little prospect for them
forming a post-war consensus German government.

Others say, however, that the German people are well educated, and that if the shackles of the brutal regime that currently oppresses them could be thrown off, there are excellent prospects for one that would be friendly to the US
and western values in general. Such a government, in a region in which it is so dominant, could provide a healthy example for the populace in some of the other troubled regimes in the area.

But despite such optimism among some advisors, many, particularly in Congress, are also frustrated by an apparent lack of an exit strategy. There is a great deal of concern, both within and outside the Administration, that should the German government be replaced, US troops might have to be stationed in Europe for five to ten years. Some have even suggested, improbably, that they could end up being there for decades.

One Senator who has been deeply involved in the discuss

One Senator who has been deeply involved in the discussions within the Administration said, off the record, that "we can't risk the chaos that could result from Hitler's removal. He's the only thing holding Germany together."

"Once we get into Alsace, and the Russians cross the Vistula, what we need to do is to establish a truce with him, and set up an arms inspection regime, so that he will never again be able to threaten his neighbors."

"We'll let the new planned United Nations organization handle it."

Fascinating yarn Dan.

Of course the actual history was that, in our heretofore characteristic fashion, we were very reluctant to become involved in that fighting. Upon direct attack, however, there was no doubt about our actions, or their compatibility with just war doctrine.

Thank you Dan for giving us a sarcastic, secular, right-wing partisan commentary on matters. Now I have no need to watch O'Reilly.

Axios,

I doubt that you would know what a right wing sarcastic commentary is.

Dan Lauffer

Dan:

Awesome news . It's very interesting.

But there are still some important differences between Saddam and Hitler. Since 1990, Saddam has not invaded any country and has no territorial claims, while Hitler had invaded almost every European country at the time of the American Intervention in WW-II.

I don't want you to think I am defending Hussein, but he has not exterminated millions and millions of people as Hitler did with the Jewish population of Europe. In fact, Iraq's regime has been more "tolerant" with its Kurdish and Chaldean Christian minorities, than Turkey's "democracy".

I wonder why if the situation was so similar (and it seems siimilar), President Bush decided not to overthrow Hussein from the power in 1991, when he was a real threat to everybody and had invaded three of his neighbours. The fact is that this didn't happen because he thought Saddam was the only one who could keep Iraq united, and also because he worked as a buffer state, against fundamentalist Iran. Wars are always full of strange interests, we'll never know what happened.

Snoopy,

For the most part I agree with you.

A report came out today that Saddam may have been injured in that Wednesday bombing. It made me wonder what will happen if he is captured. I know it's all speculative but I wonder if there is some war crimes tribunal whose authority the Muslim world would accept to which he could be taken? Does anyone know?

I also wonder if Afghanistan and Iraq become a more democratic nation, one in which minorities are truly respected, if that will act as a greenhouse for other Muslim democracies? I know that Turkey is not the best example of a Muslim democracy. Isn't it officially secular? I'm not sure.

These are fascinating times.

Dan Lauffer

With this logic, the Revolutionary War was an immoral price to pay for independence, the Civil War was evil and we should have left the South alone and slavery continue, the Civil Rights movement should have stopped with their first death or lynching and allowed the KKK to dominate American thinking, and Hitler should have continued. We as Byzantines should also be ashamed that one of the four soldiers lifting the American flag over Iwo Jima was a Greek Catholic - who later died in action. Freedom doesn't come in a gumball machine.

To return to Baba's original concern:

Do you listen to Don Wade and Roma on WLS radio? Today they read a transcript of a military leader's instructions to his soldiers that make it very clear that people do recognize and respect the ancient traditions of Iraq. If the transcript appears on their website I will post a link.

I am greatly encouraged by the news that we have not started the intensive bombing that may have been planned and that we seem to be focused upon removing Saddam.

Snoopy,

In the early 1990's I was opposed to our war with Iraq and wondered why we did not go after Saddam. I think it is as you say, he was seen as a stabilizing force in the region. I believe we made a deal with the devil.

Dan Lauffer