www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Sen. Clinton/Other candidates talk about their faith

Zenovia, I really enjoy reading your posts.

However, I must disagree with you on the point of WMD's. If Sadam had them before and He did, because He used them, why do people think He did not have em now.

He could have destroyed them, smuggled them out of the country, heck they still may be hidden in Iraq.

Dear Borislav,

Well, there is one Iraqi General that says they were taken out of Iraq into Syria by Russian planes.

God Bless,

Zenovia

Another thing is that it wasn't only Republicans saying that Iraq had WMD's, Clinton's people were saying it, England was saying it, Mubarak's people were saying, Israel was saying it and even Putin's people were saying it.

Sadam would not let inspectors into ceratain parts of Iraq. He violated 12 UN sanctions....

Come on....

Zenovia:

I've never heard any Orthodox or Catholic Church authority ever suggest that the goal of democratization is a justification for going to war. As far as that goes, I think that you'll be hard pressed even to find other Christians with a much lower bar for justifying war use the goal of democratization as a justification for the horrors of war. As to your other points, I see little point in discussing them. As long as you blame every woe in the world on Democrats (which, to me, as a Democrat since I was 18 years old, is a grave insult), I believe that you are without so much as a hint of fairness with respect to this particular issue, so I see little reason to discuss it with you. However I will add a few things. I told Subdeacon Borislav, I stand by my criticism of President Bush. He is, in my opinion, dishonest; a judgment that quite a few others have also made. I disagree with the historical judgments you are making. Of course, I respect your right to arrive at your own judgments-after all, you may be the one who is right. I simply ask that you show the same respect to me, and stay away from accusations of slander and implications that those who disagree with you would not do so if only we weren't so stupid as to disagree with your particular interpretation of history.

Ryan

It's not about disagreeing with us Athanasius, its about ignoring FACTS.

It's not about me or Zenovia. It's not about my pride. OH MY GOD HE IS DISAGREEING WITH ME.

You are disagreeing with cold hard facts.

Sadam used weapons of Mass Destruction.

Numerous intelligence services told us He had them, including that of Bill Clinton's.

Given the fact that He was also killing hundreds of thousands of people we took him out. All the dems voted FOR the war. Now that it has become unpopular they are trying to back out of it, saying they were lied to and blaming the president who had the very same information these democrats had.

The dishonesty of Hillary is mind boggeling. THIS IS GEORGE BUSHES WAR, she says. Well than why the heck did ya vote for it? Why did you go on national Television after Sadam was captured saying that you voted for the war. Was it because it was popular at the time?

Now with the latest outrage of Nancy Palosi going over to Syria and sitting down with the man who ordered the execution of the Lebenese prime minister. Talking to the man who has terror in his state's yearly budget. Suggesting that we bow to AhmedJIHADdan who denied the Holocaust and calls for the destruction of Israel.


The fact that we blame the Democrats for the things they have done or failed to do, should not come as an insult to you. If it does, I think you are aproaching the issue of politics the wrong way. ITS NOT ABOUT YOU OR ME OR ZENOVIA. It's not about our pride, or yours. Given the facts in the meter, you and other Democrats are wrong, and time will prove you to be wrong.

Bush is not a rocket scientist, but He is a man of faith and honor. He may not be to smart, heck he comes across very dumb very often. But a liar he is not, unlike Bill Clinton who DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN.

Blaming the Zionists for all the problems in the world is not going to solve them either

"Separately, she's also on the record as saying the Democratic party needs to soften their rhetoric, not their stance, on abortion to woo back the Catholic vote."

It's not just the Catholics she would be wooing, but yes that's true. I have seen the same summaries of that biography, it's interesting. But I still won't buy the book or spend my time reading about her life. I'd rather read up on Stalin, but then I like Soviet history and am interested in the evolution of the interpretation/praxis of Marxist ideals.

Terry, if you are interested in Marxist ideals you SHOULD buy the book by Hilary Clinton, you know... It takes a Village or whatever.

Carl Marx would be proud of her!

I should clarify. I am interested in how Marxist ideals influenced dictators and their attempts at reaching a utopia or justified purging their "enemies". Stalin learned a lot from Lenin, but he happened to take the purgings a step further and eliminated the old guard (many of Lenin's trusted associates), the kulaks, and other groups which he could not control.

She is not yet a dictator, and probably cannot become one, and the Socialism she latches on to is of a different strain than what I'm reading up on right now.

I am familiar enough with modern Socialism as it exists in America that reading the book may not be fruitful.

Subdeacon Borislav:

Let me say this one more time. In my opinion, President Bush is a liar. Nothing that you have said will change my opinion. No one denies that Hussein had at one time been in possesion of WMD and had used them. President Bush claimed that he had them at what was then the present, was stockpiling them, and would use them again. I am yet to see the vindication of all the claims he made on the basis of cherry-picked evidence. As for the Democrats, it is not true that all of them voted for the war, though certainly a majority did. Also, they were depending on information provided by President Bush. Furthermore, quite a few Republicans, including most of those currently running for President, are sounding a great deal like the Democrats as far as trying to backpedal on their support for the war. You keep saying that I'm disagreeing with what you call "cold, hard facts." For one, I don't see historical intepretation in such black and white terms as it seems to me you do. I see lots of room for many shades of grey. In spite of that, I don't reject a lot of your "cold, hard facts." I just have serious questions about those "cold, hard facts" amounting to a Christian justifiction for this particular war. The only possible Christian justification I can see for this war is the threat Hussein posed to the Kurds. But at the time we actually went to war, was Hussein in fact attacking the Kurds? I'm not saying for certain that he wasn't because I don't actually know. But as I recall, his threat to the Kurds played little role in the case made for this war. I heard a lot more about the possession of these WMD (which does not in itself oblige us to go to war-if it were, we would be obliged to go to war against ourselves and many of our allies and I speak of obligation, because a just war is a war for which there is an obligation to fight, not just a mere justification), and the alleged threat Hussein posed to the stability of the Middle East. From a utilitarian, pragmatic standpoint, there were plenty of good reasons to go to war. But Christianity is not about pragmatism and utilitarianism-just read through the Gospels and you will see that. The justifications I keep hearing from you and Zenovia are, in my opinion, more of the pragmatic, utilitarian sort. From that perspective, you have made very good arguments, and stepping into that perspective for a moment, I applaud your good efforts in making a case for the war. You have done a far better job of making a good case for the war than President Bush and his inept circle of cronies. I submit to you that he and his administration are not worthy of your efforts to justify their myriad mistakes. From the perspective of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and from Church teachings, I see almost nothing in your arguments, and even less in the arguments of President Bush, to persuade me that we have come anywhere near satisfying the conditions of just war teaching for this war, and for almost every other war of the 20th and 21st centuries. Now I understand that you are not Catholic, and neither is Zenovia, and so are not bound by the teachings of the Catholic Church. However, I am Catholic. As a Catholic Christian, I do not believe that the criteria taught by the Catholic Church for when there is justification/obligation to go to war have been satisfied-not by a long shot. Until such time as I'm persuaded otherwise, I will not back down in my opposition to this war. I would appreciate if you would consider that my opposition to the war is not based in my dislike for President Bush (which is certainly not lacking), but in my understanding of the Church's teaching concerning what constitutes just war.

Sincerely,

Ryan

My instinct is that Senator Clinton will win in 2008. None of the Republicans have enough momentum at the moment to win nationally. If Giuliani wins the nomination enough grassroot conservatives will be angry that he may not win nationally. If Gov. Romney wins the primary, he has his work cut out for him to gain the momentum which can defeat the name recognition Senator Clinton has.

Many people don't pay attention to politics up to a few weeks from the vote, or a few moments before they cast the ballot. That mindset is common enough that name recognition plays a significant role in their choice.

I would disagree with the claim that she's Marxist. Her justifications in her call to raise taxes on the rich can give a reason to suspect she has a Marxist worldview. But one can have a Marxist worldview without being a Marxist. Her actions and words point to her being more of a materialist than a Marxist.

A Marxist would consider her bourgeoisie.

"I just have serious questions about those 'cold, hard facts' amounting to a Christian justifiction for this particular war."

Ah, but this is not a Christian war.

Relying on the media for justifications leads one down the same hole as everybody else. It is very difficult to soundly justify the justifications of this war. Personally I would not offer an opinion on the matter, as it is not nor has it ever been informed by the dossier of classified documents on the subject.

Ryan,

Very well said. I have enjoyed all of you many rationally justified and fair posts on this thread.

Joe

Terry, I was saying the Marxist thing half jokingly although Hillary does sound like a hard core socialist more often than not.

Dear Borislav,

I agree with you except for one thing. Although President Bush might not be 'glib' tongued, he was capable of getting into Harvard...not an easy feat.

When people call Pres. Bush a liar without proving it, and then rather than realizing that they are slandering him, say that they have been insulted and that they are being unjustly accused of slander, it boggles my mind.

As for calling Pres. Bush a liar, I guess there must be truth in the following: "If you say something often enough, people will believe it."

God Bless,

Zenovia

My two kopecks on this. [sergesblog.blogspot.com]