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

Dear Dan:

Yea there is an International Penal Court in La Haye, Netherlands, which has been recognized by all the countries in the world except Cuba, Lybia, Iraq, North Korea, some African regimes and the United States.

The United States said they would recognize the penal court only if it guarantees that US citizens will never be judged in the Court, indeed!

To tell you the truth I don't think Saddam will be captured (at least not alive) but if this happens it wouldn't surprise me if the US want Saddam to be judged as a war criminal or because of violation of human rights in the International Court. After all, the present administration acted without the resolution of the U.N. Security Council, but of course, they want the U.N. to cooperate with money and equipment in the future reconstruction of Iraq!

About Turkey, it's a "western democracy", completely secular and masonic, with two or three political parties that are all the same and where the military have the real power and is submited to the economical policy of the IMF and the WTO. Religious Muslims and Christians are the victims of awful tortures.

Saddam Hussein's dictatorship is completely secular, it's quite oppresive with fundamentalist muslims, specially the shiites (I wonder what would happen when the shiite ayatollahs get the government there). Maybe it's the only Arab country when the large Christian (Chaldean) minority is so tolerated (they won't have so many privilleges under the Muslim Kurds believe me).

I just hope this doesnt end up like in Kosova, where 100 monasteries and churches that had survived 500 years of Muslim rule, were destroyed.

Yes, I know about the Netherlands. You have rightly pointed out the difficult situation we face when trying to "convert" a nation. A secular form of government is certainly better than one that persecutes its minorities.

I can tell you what I've done during past wars that were questionable but I have never marched in an anti-war parade. I was never decisive enough in my opinion to do such a thing. Though I've noted that it doesn't take reflection to be a war protester. Perhaps I reflect too much.

Ash Wednesday fell during Desert Storm. We had the president of the Muslim Community Organization speak for the service. I asked the leader if he believed that Jesus was Lord. When he said yes, I invited him to speak. We used John 17 as our text and helped people see that the majority of Muslims are not blood thirsty.

Dan Lauffer

Excuse me for dragging the thread off topic, but this is too much.

India is not a dictatorship, nor is it a "pseudo-democratic regime". It is in actuality the world's largest democratic government. Is there corruption* in government there? Of course. It's here in the States, it's in the West, it's everywhere...any place with politicians will have corruption, since politicians are, by and large, liars and cheats. Is there starvation and poverty* in India? Surely. I blame a lot of that on the politicians for getting in the way of progress. But if poverty is our worst problem**, we're not all that bad. There are many Western nations who have significant portions of their citizenry living in conditions of poverty even now, not to mention the drug abuse, sexually transmitted diseases (spread in part because of the moral decay of the West), etc.

*Of course, certain places are worse off than others. Bihar, for example, is much worse on some counts than Kerala, which is, quite possibly, the best place in the nation on all levels.

**Admittedly, there are more problems.

As for "chemical weapons", I have never before heard that India possesses them. If Pakistan has them, it wouldn't surprise me, since they were in bed with the Taliban and still are (strange friends the American government likes to make when it's in a pinch). However, I have never heard India developing such, and if they did, I'm sure I would've heard of it by now, and if you have any sources, I'd be interested in seeing them. To be fair, although I said it wouldn't surprise me, I don't even know that Pakistan has them.

As far as nuclear weapons go, so what? America has them, and has had them for decades, and has used them in the past. Many other Western nations have them, but no one is afraid of them waging nuclear war. North Korea has nuclear weapons, and has the capability (and the will) to launch one at the West Coast, but no one here takes that too seriously, although we're sure beating Iraq to a pulp. Why is it that nukes are OK as long as you're a Western nation?

If India developed them, it is only because the region is volatile, especially with Pakistani military/terrorist attacks against Indian targets from Kashmir to Parliament; furthermore, nearly all of her neighbours have attacked her at least once. They serve as a deterrent to conflict (and one might ask if America faces a great threat from Canada or Mexico that it continues to have a formidable nuclear arsenal?), and unlike other nations, India has pledged itself to not using nuclear weapons in a first strike, although the possibility is held open as a defencive action. Pakistan has them, and developed them soon after India did so (and unlike India, which developed them indigenously, it is known that China and the US helped Pakistan along the way). However, I am not aware that they have pledged themselves to not first-striking, although it is possible.

As for the possibility of nuclear war, it is there, but certainly not from India's side. It doesn't need to strike first since even without nukes it could deal decisively with Pakistan, in spite of the American military equipment, fighter jets, etc. it has; in fact, in every war we've fought with them, we've beaten them rather easily, American technology notwithstanding. If we needed to, we could deal with them without nukes. But they are a deterrent. If nuclear weapons were launched at us by our neighbour, I doubt it would escalate into the full blown nuclear war that Western observers fear. Even without nukes we could take them out, but if our government chose to use them, that would be the end of all conflict: one well placed bomb and that would be the end. Surely no one wants to see this, and I doubt it would happen, it's not nearly the apocalyptic disaster Westerners think is waiting to happen.

Of course, maybe you have different facts than me. May I ask where you're getting your information?

Dear Mor Ephrem:

I apologize for my grave erorr in the statement about India. When I meant that there were pseudo-democratic governments I refered most of all to Pakistan and Turkey. My explanation on why I think Turkey is a false democracy was posted in another thread.

What I tried to say was that in the Indian-Pakistani conflict, very powerful weapons were developped. I have seen the photographs and news of the parades that are held in both countries and how the powerful missils with nuclear content are prominently displayed.

I still believe that the money and time that are employed in the development of these weapons could be employed in the general welfare of the population.

I share your concerns about Western countries which posess nuclear weapons (some would say then who tells the USA to disarm, and Russia, and so on?... but that's another thing).

There's a case like North Korea where the people indeed face the worst kinds of starvation while the government dedicates all its efforts and money to develop nuclear weapons. This is clearly inmoral.

Hey check this article, it unmasks the enthusiasm of some "conservative" Catholics about the war. It's just an opinion, but it's still interesting:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods18.html

Turkish troops are going into Nothern Iraq and we accidentally shot a missle into Iran. We are losing control of this war.

Nicky's Baba

Dear Snoopy,

I'm sorry if my first reply came out sounding angry. It's just frustrating to hear people say the same stuff that has its origin in the American media, which have no idea of what the situation there is like. I agree that, in a perfect world, we wouldn't devote money and time to the production of weapons, but to helping the people. Unfortunately, it is not a perfect world, as our wars with Pakistan and China have proven. The conflicts with Pakistan are particularly brutal; we know of what stuff the Taliban are made of from the events of 11 September, but our people have endured that sort of thing (though admittedly not on such an immense scale) for years at the hands of the Pakistani military and the Pakistani-funded Taliban terrorist squads. Men killed violently, women raped and killed, atrocities unmentionable committed against our children...there's only so much the Indian people can take before our patience is exhausted, and any other people would've lost it a long time ago. That is why I don't think the development of military technology is such a bad thing; it is an unfortunate necessity. As for the problems that occur throughout the country, I place the blame for that squarely on state politicians, who would rather hold on to their power than serve their people. Some state governments are worse than others, but in any case, it is the politicians, I think, who hamper progress.

As for the article you linked, I read it with interest. To be honest, I don't know if I support this war or not, and so my position on it is that it is better to pray than to worry too much whether this is just or not. Americans feel that the French are against the war because they want the oil contracts, while the French and others think America wants to fight this war for oil. The Pope comes out saying that this war is immoral based on just war theory, but just war theory does not seem to take into account terrorism and the things we have seen in recent years (Should there be a "development of doctrine", for lack of a better word, in the realm of just war theory just as there has been from this Pope regarding capital punishment in light of modern advancements and developments? Who knows?) Meanwhile, coalition governments feel there is every justification for the effort based on their intelligence. Watch five different news channels, as I have, and you'll get five different stories about anything war-related. I watched the proceedings in the British parliament last week, and I heard things they don't tell you in America. How can anyone make a fully informed judgement without the right information? You can't get a straight story from anyone, and that is why I think a lot of the pontificating about whether this war is just or not -- whether it comes from the Church or from governments or from the common folk -- is just a lot of hot air. It would be much better if all these people, myself included, pray, rather than spend too much time thinking and debating.

Mor,

"I watched the proceedings in the British parliament last week, and I heard things they don't tell you in America. How can anyone make a fully informed judgement without the right information? You can't get a straight story from anyone, and that is why I think a lot of the pontificating about whether this war is just or not -- whether it comes from the Church or from governments or from the common folk -- is just a lot of hot air. It would be much better if all these people, myself included, pray, rather than spend too much time thinking and debating."

I think my position must parallel yours. After hearing Mr. Blair I was pretty well convinced that Mr. Hussein had indeed been doing most of the things for which he has been accused. One did not get nearly the details here in the USA as was given the British Parliament.

If we do help Iraq establish a nation based upon lifting up the people rather than on lifting up a Tyrant then this war may have been justified. If not, shame on us.

Dan Lauffer

This is a war of medias too.

On one side you have Saddam's people saying that his army has shot an American helicopter and various planes and saying this ridiculous news about them winning the war.

And on the other side the BBC and the American medias saying that no civilians have been hurted, thet they have intelligent bombs (one of them ended up in Iran I suppose that bomb confused the Q of Iraq with the N of Iran, well, even the intelligent ones make mistakes sometimes), they are showing images telling you that "thousands of Iraqi soldiers are giving up" (it was hilarious to see five or four guys dressed as civilians with white flags), "people are celebrating the arrival of our troops" (and I only saw a couple of men saying shouting something in Arabic). It's incredible how information is biased and they don't show any imparcial opinion.

Here the Mexican TV are showing the images of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Spain, of how the police is beating people and the repression of the protests. Its seems that President Bush does not allow any opposition.

Much of this discussion points out clearly that there are very many who want to sleep in the "master bedroom" regardless of circumstances. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Saddam Insane is a greedy self-centered bastard, who, perforce of weapons and purloined resources, has wrought havoc upon the Iraqi people as well as the ethnic and religious minorities who dwell within "his" borders.

I still believe that some intelligence service should have gone in and done him in. (Lord knows, we all pay enough for these folks.) I am very distressed to learn that bombs are falling all over Baghdad and that ordinary folks are in harm's way. Same for the rest of the country.

I know that he will aim his weapons of destruction against any other neighbor of his (remember Kuwait?) including Israel. Personally, I'm not so concerned about "shrines" or "holy places"; I am only really concerned about God's holy people -- all of them including Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Armenians and Jews. Oh yeah: there's RCs there too. So, if it's a question of some church or mosque getting pulverized, it is of less than no concern of mine unless there are people involved in the onslaught.

If St. Augustine is right, then the good African bishop's statement: "Gloria Dei vivens homo" [God's glory is the living human being] should be our benchmark. We are morally obligated to do whatever we can to save any and all life; buildings are just architectural stone and mortar that belong to man; people belong to God.

Lord, be merciful to us sinful humans.

Blessings!

How coincidential!

I found this recently.... here it is...

--------------------------
Ahhh, Far off sounds of War!
And nearby sights of Anti-war hysteria!

Cattle, spooked!
Herd, stampeding in chaos through the streets.
Lambs without a Shepard!

The sweet smell of animal fear
that same which makes the rule of tyrant possible.

Emotions clouding reason,
Mind in panic chaos,
Desperately wanting to believe the next prophet
Who promises �Peace - peace!�

Leave me in the womb of semi-consciousness.
Do not ask me for bravery or courage,
Or reason,
I am NOT my brother�s keeper!

Give me Liberty of Give me Death?!
Nah - give me familiar comfort
Low gas prices
The thrill of my secret vises
Semi-consciousness
Week end movies
and my security that I know the way things work - so well.

Leave me to the womb of animal nature of which I was born And ask me to go no higher.
Suckle me still at the breasts of my mother
Why do you disallow these stones to be turned to my bread?
Why wake me so rudely from the peace of my slumber
To tell me what I do not want to hear �Heaven is not here�?

Why not let me sleep still in my blissful oblivion
That there is nothing further I need strive for?

Cruel God!
That you do not agree.
We piped happy songs and you did not dance.
We sang the dirge and you did not mourn.
If you do not do as we say then
Why cannot you just leave us be?
Cruel God who does not heed our demands.

We would that Christ had traded his sonship
and gained all the governments of the world
so that we would have no choice
But YOU would NOT!

Cruel God!
We would rather not know you
And continue on here
In peace
Rather than you wake us from slumber!

Pray one hour with you?
Oh - yes - is true - I do not
I only call you when I need something for my comfort and security.
Reality? We despise it!
But - be a good fellow and do not remind me as if it were MY fault!

There is talk about the damage to the environment from the oil fires but I wonder how bad it will be damaged from the bombs. From the last war the ground there was contanminated along with the water sources where bombs fell. They could not grow crops in those areas not to mention the birth defects it caused. The name Bagdad will be changed to Haz-mat.
Oh yeah I heard on the news that we bombed the Ansar Al Islam compound. Later it stated that they had made poisons like Ricsin (Sp)? Etc there. If they blew it up can those poisons spread?

Nicky's Baba

Last week the Jerusalem Post showed a probable scenario that is being prepared, in which a nuclear bomb could be used against Iraq if the Iraqi Army utilizes chemical weapons. Some people would say that even if the chemical weapons don't exist, there'll be a way for the Coalition to "find" them.

Other newspapers have reported the kind of weapons that are being used, some of them include uranium. What surprises me of the medias in this war is the de-humanization of many, I have seen long articles and documentaries in the news written by people worried about the behaviour of the stock exchanges, the current prices of oil, inflation, etc. At the same time, very few TV programmes have shown the images of destruction and human pain that people in Iraq are facing, and the conditions in which American soldiers are kept as prisioners by the Saddam regime.

Dear All,

We may or may not have had any choice in this war, but in any case we should pray for our (practicing Christian) President, whose burden of responsibility no one should have, our wonderful and brave men and women who are fighting, and for a quick end to this war.
My priest includes the President specifically, instead of ' all civil authorities' in the liturgical litanies...Kyrie Eleison! It was sad hearing ...'and for the captives', which for years and years, I thought was antiquated, because now we really do have 'captives' to pray for.
If I may, just another thought, without meaning to be controversial...where were all the 'anti-war' people in our war on Kosovo? (We didn't even cease fire on Orthodox Easter, even though it was requested of the President.)

In Christ,
Alice

Dear Alice,

It was anti-war people like myself who made the request to the President he not bomb on Easter. Sadly, he had it not in his heart to honor our request.

Axios

(This is Freedom of Speech)

NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - American television network NBC said on Monday it had fired veteran reporter Peter Arnett after he told Iraqi television the U.S. war plan against Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had failed.


Arnett, who as a CNN reporter in 1991 was one of the few Western journalists reporting from Baghdad during the first Gulf War (news - web sites), said in an interview on Sunday with state-owned Iraqi television that the U.S. military would need to rewrite its war plan following Iraqi resistance.


"America is re-appraising the battlefield, delaying the war, maybe a week, and re-writing the war plan," Arnett said in the interview. "The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance now they are trying to write another war plan."


Arnett, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the Vietnam War, told NBC's "Today" show, "I said in that interview essentially what we all know about the war, that there have been delays in implementing policy, there have been surprises.


"But clearly by giving that interview I created a firestorm in the United States and for that I am truly sorry. My stupid misjudgment was to spend fifteen minutes in an impromptu interview with Iraqi television," he said.


His assignment with NBC and National Geographic (news - web sites) represented a chance for redemption after he was fired from CNN in 1998 after the network retracted a documentary, in which Arnett alleged that U.S. commandos had used sarin gas on American defectors in the Vietnam war.


NBC said in a statement it was wrong for Arnett to grant an interview with state-controlled Iraqi TV at a time of war and chastised him for making personal observations and opinions.


"His remarks were analytical in nature and were not intended to be anything more," the network said.


On Sunday, Arnett told Iraqi television that American war planners had underestimated the determination of Iraqi troops to fight U.S. and British troops and that the Pentagon (news - web sites) seemed to be amending its original strategy.


PATRIOTISM IN FOCUS


MSNBC, which had been using Arnett's reports, also severed ties with him. "I'm not aware of anybody in the journalism community who has seen the war plan, much less Peter Arnett," said Erik Sorenson, MSNBC president and general manager.


"It's just inappropriate and arguably unpatriotic for an American to be communicating these things to the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people," he added.


Asked how much of a priority patriotism should be for an objective journalist, he said, "When you go on state-controlled television after Iraq (news - web sites)'s vice president promised to send terrorists into your country, I do think some patriotism is appropriate in this instance."


On Saturday after a suicide car bomb that killed at least four U.S. soldiers, Iraq's vice president Taha Yassin Ramadan said it would use any method that "stops or kills the enemy."


Arnett also said there was a "growing challenge to President Bush (news - web sites) about the conduct of the war and also opposition to the war."


That view echoed similar comments in many U.S. media after the rapid advance of U.S. forces through southern Iraq slowed south of Baghdad amid disruptive attacks on its long supply lines and persistent resistance, particularly in the towns.


Arnett's remarks were received with anger by the administration in Washington. One White House source said they were based on "a position of complete ignorance."




In another media development, veteran reporter Geraldo Rivera, a correspondent for Fox News, is being removed from Iraq by the U.S. military for reporting Western troop movements in the war, the Pentagon said on Monday.

Hundreds of reporters from around the world are currently assigned to U.S. and British military units to report the war in Iraq under ground rules that allow them freedom to report without compromising the security of the troops.

Arnett, while apologetic on NBC, said he has granted many interviews in the past and that his remarks were not "out of line with what experts think."

"Maybe some people think I'm insane, but I'm not anti-military," he added. "This is the biggest story of my life." Asked what the future held for him, Arnett said: "There's a small island, inhabited in the South Pacific that I will try to swim to."

"I'll leave, I'm embarrassed," he said.

We may or may not have had any choice in this war, but in any case we should pray for our (practicing Christian) President, whose burden of responsibility no one should have, our wonderful and brave men and women who are fighting, and for a quick end to this war.
My priest includes the President specifically, instead of ' all civil authorities' in the liturgical litanies...Kyrie Eleison! It was sad hearing ...'and for the captives', which for years and years, I thought was antiquated, because now we really do have 'captives' to pray for.

I hope I don't make you feel unconfortable with this comment, I don't ask this to you directly Alice but to Americans and British people in general.

I just don't understand why so many people in the developped Western World strongly believe that their governments are esencially good and nouble like in the ideal world, that they always have a good and nouble intention (in theory it should be that way, but our life is far from fantasy). Everything seems to be a fantasy, a pink world.

I've noticed (I don't mean in this forum) that many people regard the President of the United States as having some kind of infalibility and that everything he says or does is always for the good of the people and inspired by good and nouble intentions, no matter how good or bad is what he does (as well as many Catholics believe that the Pope is inspired by the Holy Spirit in most of his decisions and that his actions are always for the good of the Church).

In this case people seem to defend the President or the Prime Minister this way, following blindly what they do and praying for them in Church and wishing them good luck in their actions. I point out that the attitude of the Orthodox Bishops in Britain has been very different, there they support the British troops, it's their duty (and it is also right and fair and good for Americans to support their army and their country) but nothing that could imply any support to the attack againts Iraq in which Christians are suffering.

If I may, just another thought, without meaning to be controversial...where were all the 'anti-war' people in our war on Kosovo? (We didn't even cease fire on Orthodox Easter, even though it was requested of the President.

That's true, very few Orthodox complained about it but here there were many activities of Orthodox Bishops opposing the bombing of monasteries. Roman Catholics in the West were quite supportive of the Albanians because in Kosova there's a very important Latin Catholic community.

Anyway, I don't think fire will stop this Easter in Iraq, the Protestant authorities don't have much respect for the Christians of Iraq.

Baba,

Your fears have been realized.

"In the capital, looters ransacked the Iraqi National Museum, smashing display cases to grab treasures dating back thousands of years to the dawn of civilization in Mesopotamia.

''They have looted or destroyed 170,000 items of antiquity....They were worth billions of dollars,'' said deputy director Nabhal Amin, weeping openly."

Dan Lauffer

Dan,

That doesn't surprise me. They are looting hospitals. Sadam was a bad guy but it seems he was restraining some of the people there. What also bothers me is that there were no troops guarding the museum or hospitals but the Oil Ministry building is guarded.

Nicky's Baba

Could it have been the Saddam regime that cleaned out the National museum?

Paul

My husband said he heart that the museum looting may have been an "inside job". Will listen for more news reports.
denise

Like many others, I was greatly saddened to see the loss of many irreplaceable works of art in Iraq. Furthermore, I fear that postwar Iraq will not be a democratic country, but rather a destabilized one which will suffer from upheaval.

I remember the words of Pope Pius XII: "Nothing is lost by peace. All can be lost by war." Once warfare begins, it is not like a faucet one can turn on and off, and most people who start wars end up regretting them.

I sincerely hope that hostilities will end soon and the reconstruction of Iraq will begin. This war can mark a new era of democracy and stability with the rebuilding of Iraq, or it can simply go into the history books as another instance of a war that caused destruction and nothing else. I pray it will be the former.