www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Saddam Captured!

Lawrence wrote:

The Bush administration hasen't faced up to the fact that the Iraqi's are no more interested in freedom (i,e American style democracy) then the Saudis or Pakistanis are.

Well they may not settle on an American style democracy, but they will settle on a market style economy and that in itself brings freedom. I think the president has said repeatedly that the Iraqi's must develop a government that is compatible for them . Too many of their people have lived in the US and they want to go home. They are not going to be willing to settle for the old way of doing stuff anymore.

With them finding these papers on Saddam, they are going to go a long way towards breaking up the cells that are causeing the violence. What I see, are a people that are seeing the state of their nation changing for the better, and with Saddam captured, much of the fear will deminish.

Rose

Rose

I think you're alot more optimistic then I'am, about the future of Iraq. Regardless of how many Iraqi emigres plan to return home, they're still going to only represent a small minority. In the meantime you'll still have a population where Shi'ites and Kurds make up more than 75 pct of the total, which in itself could be a recipe for disaster.

I also think the US soldier in Iraq is increasingly being regarded in the same fashion that the British Army were viewed in Northern Ireland. When the British Army were sent to Belfast and Derry in 1969, they were initially cheered and welcomed in the Catholic areas, because there presence deterred Loyalist mobs from burning down Catholic homes. You can only string so much barbed wire,kick in so many doors and drag so many people out of there beds though, before they start to despise you and begin thinking of ways to kill you.

A market economy brings freedom? For whom? Only the exploiters and profiteers. I am glad Saddam Hussein has been captured; he is a scoundrel. However, for many years he was the Americans' scoundrel. How many of our allies in the Middle East, if put on trial, would be found innocent of human rights abuses?
There was an article in the local paper today about what "freedom" has brought Iraq: an increase in prostitution, pornographic films and drug use. Where in the world does the myth of American righteousness arise? I suspect it is an echo of our Calvinist past. Note that after the Iranian revolution the first thing the Ayotollah did was shut down the abortion clinics. I am not here defending the rise of Islamic totalitarianism, far from it. It's just that the Bush doctrine that the Islamic terrorists hate us "because we are good and because we are free" is such nonsense.
Once, in the Middle Ages, men had the sense to call the Muslims the "scourge of God" and examine their consciences to discern what they had done to deserve such a chastisement. Modern Americans, living in a veritable Babylon, refuse such reflection, choosing reaction instead: we are good and we are free and that is why "they" hate us.
Lord have mercy...

Daniel,

Winston Churchill once stated that �democracy is the worst form of government � except for all the rest�. And a market economy is one of the foremost products of a democratic society. I don�t think that anyone will seriously claim that totalitarian or socialist societies are freer than capitalist and democratic societies.

You are correct to point out that many of our allies in the Middle East are very guilty of human rights violations. I, for one, welcomed President Bush�s statement in a speech last month acknowledging this and stating it was time for us to choose our friends more wisely. While I disagree with many past policies, I am hesitant to judge too broadly. We needed to work with Stalin to defeat Hitler. We also needed to make choices to best serve our interests in the Middle East. We did support Hussein at one time when Iran threatened our interests (and, indeed, the very lives of American hostages).

Has freedom in Iraq brought an increase in prostitution, pornographic films and drug use? Yes. But it has also ended the reign of a tyrant who is responsible for the deaths of more than 500,000 of his own people.

I don�t remember that the Ayatollahs shut down the abortion clinics after the Iranian Revolution. I do remember, though, that they executed Muslims who converted to Christianity. Both are wrong and both must be condemned.

We need to double our prayers for our American nation, the people of Iraq and for the whole world.

Admin

Mr Administrator, sir, you make the common error of reducing the possibilities to two: either we have socialism or we have capitalism. That is, either the state owns everything or a few rich men own everything. There are alternatives: have you heard of Distributism? This is an idea that the most just society is one in which property [meaning productive property] is most widely held. This is an idea that is common to the thought of GK Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc, Fr Vincent McNabb, Wendall Berry, and for that matter, Thomas Jefferson. Do not confuse things by proposing false dichotomies.
And what does it profit a man if he gain voting rights and lose his soul?

Daniel,

Yes, I am familiar with all of the people you have mentioned. Using your definition of distributism the United States is the most just society in the world.

Distributism is not realistic. It is really more akin to a Christian version of socialism. Its major flaw is that it needs the government to tell the individual how much he or she can accumulate.

A person who gains voting rights need not lose his soul. The problems in our American society are not because of capitalism. They are because we have forgotten Christ.

Admin

and there is the Social Democratic alternative of social justice with a regulated market economy

Personally I don't see the Shi'ites, Kurds, Saddam Loyalists and Pro Al-Qaeda types supporting ANY kind of Western style government.

Well to start with the United States is a Republic, not a democracy.

Distributism reminds me of what Marx set out to do. No thanks, we would end up with Liberation Theology.

Rose

Distributism equivalent to Marxism? In what way? Marxism preaches centralism, distributism opposes centralization in all its forms: "small is beautiful" as EF Schumacher said. Marxism favors state ownership of the means of production; distributism favors individual ownership and small cooperatives. Indeed there are affinities with certain elements of traditionalist conservatism [the Southern Agrarians and Russell Kirk, for example] and the movement is strongly influenced by papal social teaching; it is diametrically opposed to Statism. Unlike conventional conservatism, though, it opposes not only big government but big business as well. Remember that no less than Karl Marx considered capitalism a good thing to a point because it weakened the family and tradition.

And furthermore, it's pierohi with an "h" not pierogi with a "g". Sure, they look the same on the plate, but the "g"s make them poisonous. I've heard tell that the "g"s have turned some people into Ukrainians! :rolleyes:

I remember an Econ professor friend from college who was always trying to explain to his wife that their is no such thing as a "third way" economic system. It is simply socialism using different terms. She never agreed with him and thought less of him as a Catholic because this "third way" idea was being pushed by Rome.

I believe that just systems are made of just people who make just decisions, regardless of the terminology (or the presence of the letter "g"). The power I have is to take personal responsibility in making business,voting, and social decisions.

I've met die-hard socialists from Europe with big houses and tight pockets and capitalist conservatives from the U.S. with very little but always willing to give something to the poor. Who is better, the one who talks or the one who acts?

If anyone wants to believe that this "third way" or Capitalism or some other system is going to help free societies of injustice and poverty, fine. Good luck to you.

To better the world and our society we require two things: freedom to make the right or wrong decision and Christ and his Church to help show us which is which. The people of Iraq have been denied both. Foolishly or not, the U.S. Government has decided to try to bring some semblance of freedom to the people of Iraq. What they do with it is up to them.

In the end, the Admin is right. Perhaps we could read that as, "The problems in my society is because, in my actions and inactions, I forget Christ."

A few days ago someone posted a news clip concerning the inclusion of the Christian faith as an integral part of the new European Economic Union's constitution.

What surprised the individual (I think it was Archmadrite Gregory) was that it was a 'high level' European rabbi who suported this inclusion. The United States on the other hand wants a complete separation of church (Christian) and state.

To better understand why the Jewish community supports the inclusion of Christianity in the new European constitution one only has to look at two recent socio-economic experients which led to the complete destruction of their society:

NAZI-SM

COMMUNISM

Clearly the Europeans Do not want a 'third try' at totally destroying their society, this time through:

RADICAL ISLAM-ISM

Even the Republic of China which is morphing into a neo-Capitalist autocracy will not succeed unless it accepts Christianity. The social consequences of moving to capitalism without a Christian ethos is beginnig to show (ie: mass human missery).

The American and European economic models are influenced by Christianity and this is why they are succeeding. No - they are not perfect, but look around the world.

The North American and European capitalist societies of today are not those which Marx wrote about a century and a half ago. They are much more flexible and have created the largest middle class in the world.

The godless communist societies created by Marx imploded after decades of mass human destruction.

Please NO MORE RADICAL ECONOMIC EXPERIMENTS !!

Let's work with our very flexible Christian democraticies.

The European societies although capitalist have much more of a social democratic ethos then in the US (capitalism restrained in order that there are not great disparities between the very rich and very poor) whereas there are wide differences in the US, to our shame.

Many of the those European countries are welfare states, where people expect the government to take care of them from cradle to grave. I can stand on my own two feet just fine without the state's helping hand. But as taxes go higher, the day may come when I cannot. See the first, second and third points of the Communist Manifesto.

Lawrence,

I doubt that you or anyone did much standing on their own two feet in the cradle. A reasonable issue for a society to consider is how much advantage a person should have by accident of birth, or conversely, what community action should be taken to mitigate disadvantages. Similarly, before the grave, therapy for certain types of illnesses is enormously expensive - far beyond the reach of most individuals. Should resources be pooled to mitigate the individual costs of such catastrophes? Should all people in the country be included in such pooling? These are among the issues of interest that are answered somewhat differently from us in "those European countries". You are, IMO, misinformed about what people in those countries "expect".