T
twiztedseraph
Guest
Just curious whats the American Catholic feeling on the iraqi war? Also the Abu Grahib torture incidents.
- Status
G
geezerbob
Guest
There are several threads on this subject in the News forum. Start here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=58438
From reading the posts, you can easily tell that feelings run from strongly against to strongly for.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=58438
From reading the posts, you can easily tell that feelings run from strongly against to strongly for.
L
Lisa_N
Guest
The Iraq war removed one of the world’s most evil men from absolute power. The Abu Grahib incidents were over reported, overblown and hardly on the same radar screen as the public beheadings by Zarqawi and his minions.
That is what this American Catholic thinks. As Bob stated the feelings run in both directions.
Lisa N
R
Richardols
Guest
Yes, they do. Regarding the war, Catholics are on both sides of the issue. But, there’s not the same mix regarding the torture of prisoners. There, most Catholics were against.
G
gilliam
Guest
Lisa N:
I agree with Lisa.
J
jlw
Guest
Me too.
D
Dj_Roy_Albert
Guest
- There is no such thing as an “American Catholic”. One is either Catholic & obedient to Rome or a heretic & in fact nothing at all.
- “America” does not exsist. There is North, Central, & South America, but “America” in and of itself does not exsist. The United States OF America exsists, but not “America”. Look at a map & see for yourself.
As far as the prison torture… forcing men to pose naked isn’t exactly the same as beheading them now is it?
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I agree with Lisa, too.
There are a wide range of opinions, ranging from correctly agreeing with me to being totally wrong.
You may refer to us as “America the Beautiful” and I will let you get away with it even though it may not be technically correct. There is a beautiful song with that title that stirs the hearts of most Americans (oops I meant United Statesians) which I was privileged to play as exit song for Mass the other day.
Alan
There are a wide range of opinions, ranging from correctly agreeing with me to being totally wrong.
You may refer to us as “America the Beautiful” and I will let you get away with it even though it may not be technically correct. There is a beautiful song with that title that stirs the hearts of most Americans (oops I meant United Statesians) which I was privileged to play as exit song for Mass the other day.
Alan
T
twiztedseraph
Guest
Wow, so now that the enemy who’s homes are being burned, kids bombed, behead (which in certain cultures is considered humane eg St Paul was beheaded as he was a Roman Citizen else a more gruesome form of death employed) makes it ok for guys who outgun and outnumber them to torture them? I thought the marines were the good guys? More to the point, do any Catholics over in the United States feel betrayed by Bush? No weapons, no Alqaida links to iraq, just lies?
Also you guys are predominantly Christian right? But those guys were SMILING in the photos of arab men (some innocent) being tortured. But i wanna point out I’m not anti american. I mean if for nothing else Catholic answers is proof of the goodness over there. I just want to see how many educated Catholics feel about the war considering it was founded on well lets face it fallacies.
Also you guys are predominantly Christian right? But those guys were SMILING in the photos of arab men (some innocent) being tortured. But i wanna point out I’m not anti american. I mean if for nothing else Catholic answers is proof of the goodness over there. I just want to see how many educated Catholics feel about the war considering it was founded on well lets face it fallacies.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Certainly there is a whole Bush-hating contingent, but the funny thing is the people who have led the charge on it being an “unjust war” were just as pro-war that Bush was, if not more, than Bush himself.
Just to give you a sample of what those accusing Bush of war-mongering said at the time:
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
And of course, President Bill Clinton, who undoubtedly lusted after the initial popularity (before the media spin) of the war that Bush gained after 9/11, had these things to say at the time:
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
It is sad that partisan misinformation is so rampant that the world views us as being a party of war-mongering Republicans in power, and compassionate Democrats out of power. Don’t believe it; I’ve met with political leaders of both parties and neither side has a corner on the righteousness market.
QUOTE]
Also you guys are predominantly Christian right? But those guys were SMILING in the photos of arab men (some innocent) being tortured. But i wanna point out I’m not anti american. I mean if for nothing else Catholic answers is proof of the goodness over there. I just want to see how many educated Catholics feel about the war considering it was founded on well lets face it fallacies.
There are idiots everywhere, even on “our side.”
Founded on fallacies? Highly debatable but solved in the minds of the press, over 80% of whose editors are registered Democrats.
Alan
D
Dj_Roy_Albert
Guest
Wow, having them pose naked & “allegedly” flushing their book of lies down a toilet- how awful?
Yes, what a great lie that Saddam was a THREAT, & how his followers prove that they are not a threat following his tyranny in their own country & among their own countrymen. Suicide bombers are so admriable, aren’t they?
Had the cowards that beheaded IN FACT SAWED THE HEADS OFF OF THEIR PRISONERS - several that were also innocent (not military) not worn masks while they murdered IN COLD BLOOD were smiling, but we will never know now will we.
I do not support any war, but I would rather the U.S. military fight (as military is supposed to do) in another country & not here in the U.S.
D
David_Paul
Guest
Democrats supported Bill Clinton’s invasion of Haiti (done without congressional authorization but with a U.N. Security Council resolution in support–passed after 20,000 US troops were already on their way to the island).
On June 26, 1993, Clinton, without consulting Congress, ordered air strikes on Baghdad.
Clinton ordered over 35,000 air strikes on Serbian forces and the deployment of U.S. troops to Bosnia and Kosovo.
Clinton ordered the following additional military actions against Iraq:
“Operation Vigilant Warrior”(October, 1994), “Operation Desert Strike” (September, 1996), and “Operation Desert Fox” (December, 1998)
In 1998, Democrats voted unanimously in the Senate and with less than half a dozen dissents in the House for the “Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998”. On the basis of that act, Clinton tossed over 400 cruise missiles into Iraq.
In addition, Clinton ordered cruise missile attacks on the Sudan and Afghanistan.
And now the party which supported all the above actions is for peace?
Pshaw…it is all political with Democrats. Nearly all of them supported the war in Iraq until early winter of 2003 when we were on the verge of invasion. Having nothing to run on in 2004 and seeing the modest success of marxist A.N.S.W.E.R. anti-war rallies in D.C. (which were planned in Dec of 2002 at a meeting in Egypt between the Iraqi Ambassador to the Arab League, Ramsey Clark, Boris Becker and other Baathists) the Democratic party decided to switch positions and has attempted ever since to turn Iraq into another Vietnam.
On June 26, 1993, Clinton, without consulting Congress, ordered air strikes on Baghdad.
Clinton ordered over 35,000 air strikes on Serbian forces and the deployment of U.S. troops to Bosnia and Kosovo.
Clinton ordered the following additional military actions against Iraq:
“Operation Vigilant Warrior”(October, 1994), “Operation Desert Strike” (September, 1996), and “Operation Desert Fox” (December, 1998)
In 1998, Democrats voted unanimously in the Senate and with less than half a dozen dissents in the House for the “Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998”. On the basis of that act, Clinton tossed over 400 cruise missiles into Iraq.
In addition, Clinton ordered cruise missile attacks on the Sudan and Afghanistan.
And now the party which supported all the above actions is for peace?
Pshaw…it is all political with Democrats. Nearly all of them supported the war in Iraq until early winter of 2003 when we were on the verge of invasion. Having nothing to run on in 2004 and seeing the modest success of marxist A.N.S.W.E.R. anti-war rallies in D.C. (which were planned in Dec of 2002 at a meeting in Egypt between the Iraqi Ambassador to the Arab League, Ramsey Clark, Boris Becker and other Baathists) the Democratic party decided to switch positions and has attempted ever since to turn Iraq into another Vietnam.
D
didymus
Guest
The Marines Are the good guys. That doesn’t mean there are no bad guys among them.
You will notice I trust that people have been and are in the process of being court-martialled for what happened at Abu Ghraib. I am not totally satisfied that the investigation went far enough up the chain of command.
No, I don’t feel betrayed by Bush because I never trusted him in the first place
HOWEVER I am glad that I don’t have his job and the responibilities that go with it. He has to make decisions based on the information available to him, much of which cannot be made public, and some of which may later turn out to be wrong.
I can’t believe I’m actually sticking up for W. Okay, here’s my verdicy, Bush taking us into Iraq may have been justified but it certainly wasn’t wise.
One unfortunate aspect of military training is that it teaches you to dehumanise the enemy. Prisons are degrading both to prisoners and guards. Add to that that discipline at Abu Ghraib was notoriously lax and Ithink we can see what led to the abuses. On top of all that there were interrogators both military and civilian contractors who were authorised to use humiliation as a tactic, though not in the ways the troops came up with.
I don’t think anyone here approves of or condones the torture – I certainly don’t. It concerns me that there are some in our government who appear to be tryng to justify it or make provision for it in future “in extremem cases”.
It is gratifying that some of the strongest voices raised against this (and the ones leaking to the press) are career military men, the West Point types saying, “This isn’t what we do.”
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Do you think this problem could have been solved internally, and didn’t have to become a media circus which does nothing positive for anybody?
If this stuff happened, was found and reported, and stopped, then in that case does it do the world any good to know it? If it was found and reported, and continued, would that then justify publicizing it? Does the public really “need to know” all these things in order to claim to live under a free press?
Alan
R
Richardols
Guest
Nothing flushes rats out like shining a light into their holes.
Yes.
Yes.
Unless it involves military secrets vital to our operations, yes.
R
Richardols
Guest
Let’s just say that those of us on this Forum who consider ourselves liberals can hold meetings in telephone booths.
Some Catholics have never seen a war they didn’t like, others hold more closely to the Church’s revulsion against war. Either group can consider themselves orthodox Catholics.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
When you say “they need to know” are you talking on more of a basis that the information should not be obstructed, or that the information should be selectively decided for you that it needs to be called to your immediate awareness. The reason I mention is that by and large the same headlines get reported by most of the major news media. These headlines are, in effect, preselected for “cherry picking” so if you tune in, you’ll get something from this batch.
This is why I like the idea of news media that we can designate what information we want to receive. Internet makes it so easy to find exactly the news and source you want I think it’s exciting.
Alan
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
S
shockerfan
Guest
In most cases, I would agree with you. What I have trouble with is releasing information to the press that everybody knows will cause riots, backlash, etc, in Arab countries, and thus put American lives in greater risk than before.
A free press is important to our freedom, and to keep the government in check. How do we maintain this, without putting American lives in greater risk???
In the case of the so-called Quran abuse, most cases were unintentional (i.e. accidental touching). How does it do anyone good by reporting this?
S
shockerfan
Guest
1] condeming the US military based on the actions of a few is the same as condemning all priests due to the actions of a few sexual abusers.
2] What is torture? Is college hazing torture? (like much of what happened at Abu Ghraib) or is it more like what was done under Saddam Hussein (feet first thru shredders, thrown from buildings, rape, being fed alive to hungry dogs). I don’t justify any of it, I just have a lot of trouble when people draw moral equivalencies when none exist.
3] Plenty of evidence exists that information may have been incorrect (but believed to be true) , but I don’t think it was out and out lies. People who try to use the “Bush Lied” mantra typically have a political axe to grind.
- Status