R
Richardols
Guest
J’espere que non!
- Status
R
Richardols
Guest
Okay. Just to be speaking the english from the henceforth.Arreter! Francais a Anglais traduction est excessivement temps por ce conservateur
M
Mot_Juste
Guest
Je suis néo-conservateur.
I am a neo-conservative. I don’t agree with the conclusions of the article, but it’s a fairly reasonable description of the thinking of the Buchanon-right.
One point I want to argue is the article’s use of a quote from then-Cardinal Ratzinger about preventative war. There was a lot of talk about pre-emptive war and preventative war, so it’s a fair topic for discussion, but it’s beside the point when it comes to the question of the justice of the Iraq War.
Quoting Paul Wolfowitz, then Deputy Defense Secretary, “there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people.” None of those three concerns was pre-emptive. None were things that might happen. They were on-going contermporary issues. The best intelligence at the time (not only ours, but also our allies’) said that Iraq still had and was developing WMDs in violation of the surrender terms of the first Gulf War. Support for terrorism was on-going, as seen in the payments to suicide bombers, and the existence of terrorist training camps.
That third point is the one that I wish was not so often overlooked – “the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people”. You had the gassing of the Kurds, the genocide of the Marsh Arabs, mass graves, torture and rape used as tools of state, etc.
I believe that the first two conditions of the just war doctrine are clearly met. Those being that “the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;” and “all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective”.
My biggest concern has to do with the other two just war criteria, that “there must be serious prospects of success;” and “the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.”
If you believe, as I do, that the humanitarian argument was a compelling one, then you have to do a naiveté check. First, was it naive to think that the Iraqis can form a civil society? I certainly don’t want to believe that. I stand with Bush when he said “It is mistaken, and condescending, to assume that whole cultures and great religions are incompatible with liberty and self-government.”
Second, was it naive to think that the American people would have the fortitude to watch their soldiers die for the liberty of a foreign land? This is the question that is playing out in the fields of Crawford.
–Bill
I am a neo-conservative. I don’t agree with the conclusions of the article, but it’s a fairly reasonable description of the thinking of the Buchanon-right.
One point I want to argue is the article’s use of a quote from then-Cardinal Ratzinger about preventative war. There was a lot of talk about pre-emptive war and preventative war, so it’s a fair topic for discussion, but it’s beside the point when it comes to the question of the justice of the Iraq War.
Quoting Paul Wolfowitz, then Deputy Defense Secretary, “there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people.” None of those three concerns was pre-emptive. None were things that might happen. They were on-going contermporary issues. The best intelligence at the time (not only ours, but also our allies’) said that Iraq still had and was developing WMDs in violation of the surrender terms of the first Gulf War. Support for terrorism was on-going, as seen in the payments to suicide bombers, and the existence of terrorist training camps.
That third point is the one that I wish was not so often overlooked – “the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people”. You had the gassing of the Kurds, the genocide of the Marsh Arabs, mass graves, torture and rape used as tools of state, etc.
I believe that the first two conditions of the just war doctrine are clearly met. Those being that “the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;” and “all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective”.
My biggest concern has to do with the other two just war criteria, that “there must be serious prospects of success;” and “the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.”
If you believe, as I do, that the humanitarian argument was a compelling one, then you have to do a naiveté check. First, was it naive to think that the Iraqis can form a civil society? I certainly don’t want to believe that. I stand with Bush when he said “It is mistaken, and condescending, to assume that whole cultures and great religions are incompatible with liberty and self-government.”
Second, was it naive to think that the American people would have the fortitude to watch their soldiers die for the liberty of a foreign land? This is the question that is playing out in the fields of Crawford.
–Bill
A
aimee
Guest
français isOkay. Just to be speaking the english from the henceforth.
A
aimee
Guest
I like trying out communicating in French…I’ll try and not do it too oftenfrançais is
M
Marie
Guest
aimee said:requires more thought
I like trying out communicating in French…I’ll try and not do it too often
icks nay neaken cray. Spreckens ze doitch.
A
aimee
Guest
don’t know that kind of latinicks nay neaken cray. Spreckens ze doitch.
german…? I could try…with help
M
Marie
Guest
aimeeway, igpay atinlay isway ealray easyway. Ouyay ustjaydon’t know that kind of latin
ypetay itway inway erehay andway anslattray itway.
J
Jeffrey
Guest
:clapping:
jlw:
J
JW10631
Guest
Buchanan is an isolationist. He has been for years. To Buchanan, isolationism is conservatism.
Trade? NO! Seal the borders!
Immigration? NO! Seal the borders!
Foreign policy? NO! Seal the borders!
Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been very delicate in relations with Islam.
The Vatican does not want to see the current exodus of Arab Christians from the Middle East continue. Lebanese Christians, Palestinian Christians, Syrian Chrisitans, Iraqi Chrisitians, Jordanian Chrisitans, Egyptian Christians - all face hostility, danger and death in their home countries. The Vatican has seen any war with a Middle Eastern or Islamic country as a threat to these people and has always advocated negotiations as a means of conflict resolution.
As if talking with the likes of bin Laden will accomplish anything.
As for The American Conservative giving a rat’s rear end about Catholics in Mexico, Ukraine or Iraq - I doubt it very much.
Trade? NO! Seal the borders!
Immigration? NO! Seal the borders!
Foreign policy? NO! Seal the borders!
Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been very delicate in relations with Islam.
The Vatican does not want to see the current exodus of Arab Christians from the Middle East continue. Lebanese Christians, Palestinian Christians, Syrian Chrisitans, Iraqi Chrisitians, Jordanian Chrisitans, Egyptian Christians - all face hostility, danger and death in their home countries. The Vatican has seen any war with a Middle Eastern or Islamic country as a threat to these people and has always advocated negotiations as a means of conflict resolution.
As if talking with the likes of bin Laden will accomplish anything.
As for The American Conservative giving a rat’s rear end about Catholics in Mexico, Ukraine or Iraq - I doubt it very much.
D
dumspirospero
Guest
Please tell me one time in history, backed by documentation where a Pope has openly endorsed a war prior to its onset, outside of The Crusades, and said something to the effect of “this is a necessary and just war…make Christianity proud”.
Richardols:
D
dumspirospero
Guest
Thats because in most cases, a blanket statement is appropriate.
Richardols:
R
Richardols
Guest
At least you qualified your sentence.
I encourage such civility from conservatives because that quality, I observe, is, more frequently than I’d like to see, in short supply among them. IMO, of course.
J
jlw
Guest
English please?? I would like to respond in kind, but I can’t.Non. Aussi peu de droitistes mettent le Catechisme au dessus du President.
An occasional french or spanish is ok, but if ya’ll need to post back and forth sans english for one-up-manship or something, PM each other for now on…please.
R
Richardols
Guest
In the english, I say like dis, “So few Rightists put the Catechism above the President.”
Nah, Aimee and I aren’t trying to one-up each other. She’s a far better French linguist than I. We were just playing around on the basis of a common interest - she’s a rightist and I a leftist, but we are both francophiles.
J
jlw
Guest
How many liberals put Kennedy, Kerry, Durbin, Biden, Leahy, Harkin, Pelosi, Murray, Cantwell, Rangel, or the other cast of pro-death pols above the Catechism??
Bottom line, there is wiggle room when it comes to how best to handle society’s ills, social justice, government and private sector responsibilites, etc, as well as handling questions about war and peace, BUT:
ABORTION IS ALWAYS WRONG.
Good Catholics, “liberal” or “conservative”, can disagree about the death penalty, military action, taxes, etc. But what the Church says about abortion is pretty straight forward. *Faithful *Catholics CANNOT materially cooperate with abortionists by voting for politicians who fund them and/or look the other way, democrat or republican.
R
Richardols
Guest
Er…The thread is about war and just war, not about abortion.
J
Jeffrey
Guest
Uh-huh. 
Richardols:
At least you qualified your sentence.
J
jlw
Guest
Quite true, but then you made an aside about the Right putting Bush above the Catechism. So I just followed you on this tangent, that’s all.
- Status