The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Atomic Parakeet 1, Anna777, HeraclitusTheObscu, Charbelknox, Andreas_Iacobus
5,828 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
2 members (longinus, 1 invisible), 62 guests, and 15 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,136
Posts414,726
Members5,828
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
Quote
almost $3 million in direct aid

Most of which has been humanitarian, and by the scale of the conflict, probably covered expenses for about a day and a half.

Quote
What has been called the "Arab Spring" in Syria has become the Christian Nightmare and it is high time that the United States government realize the part it has played and continues to play in this ethnic cleansing, genocide, holocaust whatever word you choose to describe what is being perpetrated on the religious minorities in Syria as well as Egypt.

And in return, do what, precisely? You seem to be saying that repression in Arab society is OK, as long as Christians are only repressed as much or less than Muslims (I'd say Muslims or Jews, but there are no Jews left in Arab states--funny thing that, no?). What happened in Egypt happened largely because we kept a hands-off attitude there. The same thing is true in Syria. Allow a vacuum to emerge, and the forces of chaos will fill it. As for Iraq, funny thing--the official statistics compiled by Ron Roberson for the USCCB show Catholic Christian communities rebounding there. Maybe people are going back home because--thanks to the U.S. intervention--Iraq is becoming a better place to live (certainly, it's a lot less violent there than in Chicago).

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
almost $3 million in direct aid

Most of which has been humanitarian, and by the scale of the conflict, probably covered expenses for about a day and a half.

Quote
What has been called the "Arab Spring" in Syria has become the Christian Nightmare and it is high time that the United States government realize the part it has played and continues to play in this ethnic cleansing, genocide, holocaust whatever word you choose to describe what is being perpetrated on the religious minorities in Syria as well as Egypt.

And in return, do what, precisely? You seem to be saying that repression in Arab society is OK, as long as Christians are only repressed as much or less than Muslims (I'd say Muslims or Jews, but there are no Jews left in Arab states--funny thing that, no?). What happened in Egypt happened largely because we kept a hands-off attitude there. The same thing is true in Syria. Allow a vacuum to emerge, and the forces of chaos will fill it. As for Iraq, funny thing--the official statistics compiled by Ron Roberson for the USCCB show Catholic Christian communities rebounding there. Maybe people are going back home because--thanks to the U.S. intervention--Iraq is becoming a better place to live (certainly, it's a lot less violent there than in Chicago).
Is that saying anything?

The problem in Egypt was that the US was so hands on so Mubarak could keep a grip. His fall was coming long before the US decided to recognize that fact, and it had to "lead from behind" instead of getting ahead of that fact.

I'll been to Auschwitz, but not in the Arab World--funny thing that, no?

They have lots of Jews in Palestine. It a source of problems.

The Catholic Christians rebounding from Saddam, or the US?

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 357
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 357
Vietnam was many things. Civil war it was not. Besides, a limited operation to destroy a limited selection of military assets is not "getting involved". It's called a "punitive expedition".
[/quote]

And how I love the "punitive expeditions." They always seem to originate with a civilian and end at the FEBA.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
FEBA? How quaint. The very idea of FEBA kinda sorta disappeared in 1993.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 357
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 357
That might be true for a desk jockey. But for us, it always started at the muzzle and ended at whatever was the backstop for the bullet.

I see you are beating the war drums again Stuart. Looking to send another generation to their deaths? I can get you a lucrative contracting job so you can join in.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
FEBA assumes that there's a front line. Today, there is no front line, no flanks, no rear.

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Quote
Today, there is no front line, no flanks, no rear.

How convient for people who seem to advocate war and intervention in every single international conflict. It seems that there are some in America who go looking for "monsters to destroy" at every turn.

Oh, how if only we listened to President Adams:

Quote
America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.

And now insert generic response "the world has changed" and "you isolationist need to get your heads out of the sand."

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
Si vis pacem preparat bellum.

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by StuartK
Si vis pacem preparat bellum.
Saying it in Latin make it truer?
solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Quote
Si vis pacem preparat bellum.

Like I said insert generic response.

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
And now some commentary from Patrick Buchanan, a noted traditional Conservative:

Quote
“The worst mistake of my presidency,” said Ronald Reagan of his decision to put Marines into the middle of Lebanon’s civil war, where 241 died in a suicide bombing of their barracks.

And if Barack Obama plunges into Syria’s civil war, it could consume his presidency, even as Iraq consumed the presidency of George W. Bush.

Why would Obama even consider this?

Because he blundered badly. Foolishly, he put his credibility on the line by warning that any Syrian use of chemical weapons would cross a “red line” and be a “game changer” with “enormous consequences.”

Not only was this ultimatum unwise, Obama had no authority to issue it. If Syria does not threaten or attack us, Obama would need congressional authorization before he could constitutionally engage in acts of war against Syria. When did he ever receive such authorization?

Moreover, there is no proof Syrian President Bashar Assad ever ordered the use of chemical weapons.

U.S. intelligence agencies maintain that small amounts of the deadly toxin sarin gas were likely used. But if it did happen, we do not know who ordered it.

Syrians officials deny that they ever used chemicals. And before we dismiss Damascus’ denials, recall that an innocent man in Tupelo, Miss., was lately charged with mailing deadly ricin to Sen. Roger Wicker and President Obama. This weekend, we learned he may have been framed.

It is well within the capacity of Assad’s enemies to use or fake the use of poison gas to suck us into fighting their war.

Even if elements of Assad’s army did use sarin, we ought not plunge in. And, fortunately, that seems to be Obama’s thinking.

Why stay out? Because it is not our war. There is no vital U.S. interest in who rules Syria. Hafez Assad and Bashar have ruled Syria for 40 years. How has that ever threatened us?

Moreover, U.S. intervention would signal to Assad that the end is near, making his use of every weapon in his arsenal, including chemical weapons, more — not less — likely.

U.S. intervention would also make us de facto allies of Assad’s principal enemies, the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Nusra Front, Syria’s al-Qaida. As The New York Times reported Sunday, “Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.”

Do we really wish to expend American blood and treasure to bring about a victory of Islamists and jihadists in Syria?

If Assad’s chemical weapons threaten any nation, it is Israel. But Israel knows where they are stored and has an air force superior to our own in the Med. Israeli troops on the Golan are as close to Damascus as Dulles Airport is to Washington, D.C. Yet Israel has not attacked Syria’s chemical weapons.

Why not? Israel is well aware that Syria’s air defense system is, as The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday, “one of the most advanced and concentrated barriers on the planet.”

And if Israel does not feel sufficiently threatened by Syria’s chemical weapons to go after them, why should we, 4,000 miles away?

Then there is Turkey, with three times Syria’s population, NATO’s second-largest army and a 600-mile border. Why is ridding the Middle East of Assad our assignment and not Ankara’s?

Surely the heirs of the Ottomans have a larger stake here.

And if we get into this war, how do we get out?

For the war is metastasizing. Hezbollah is sending in fighters to help the Alawite Shia. Other Lebanese are assisting the Sunni rebels. The war could spread into Iraq, where the latest clashes between Sunni and Shia are pulling the country apart. Young Muslims are coming in from Europe.

Iran and Russia are aiding Damascus. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are aiding the Islamists. The United States, Jordan and Turkey are aiding the secularists. Syria could come apart, and a sectarian and ethnic war of all against all erupt across the region.

Do we really want the U.S. military in the middle of this?

Because his “red line” appears to have been crossed, Obama is being told he must attack Syria to maintain his credibility with Iran and North Korea.

Nonsense. To attack Syria would compound Obama’s folly in drawing the red line. Better to have egg on Obama’s face than for America to be dragged into another unnecessary war.

Obama would not be alone in having his bluff called. George Bush proclaimed that no “axis of evil” nation would be allowed to acquire the “world’s worst weapons.” North Korea now has those weapons.

Congressional war hawks, led by Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, are cawing for air strikes and no-fly zones, which would mean dead and captured Americans and many more dead Syrians.

Time for Congress to either authorize Obama to lead us into a new Middle East war, or direct him, in the absence of an attack upon us, to keep America out of what is Syria’s civil war.

Before we slide into another war, let the country be consulted first.

Where's Congress's "Red Line'?

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186
One of the lessons we learned in our attack upon Saddam Hussein was that we killed the only one who could protect Christians. His protection wasn't perfect but it was protection. The Syrian government has had to absorb Christians fleeing the now "liberated" Iraq because Christians are now defenseless in Iraq. It is true that Christians cannot work in Syria but at least they weren't under attack until we decided to support Al Quada and whoever else the Rebels comprise against the government. Now Christians are defenseless in Syria. One wonders if Obama knew this would happen.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
So, let me get this straight, Carson: as long as a dictator protects Christians, he can butcher whomever else he wishes?

Cool.

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by StuartK
So, let me get this straight, Carson: as long as a dictator protects Christians, he can butcher whomever else he wishes?

Cool.
Didn't work for Milasovich.

And here we see on full display, how the US armed the "Freedom Fighters" who blew up the Twin Towers...

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
Nice try, Issa, but that canard has long since been relegated to those who line their klobuks with tin foil.

Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5