As Casualties Mount, Bush Ignores Reality

[vern_humphrey]

PiusXIII:

Korea and Vietnam didn’t happen during FDR’s presidency. The liberal Republicans that poster was referring to were Ike and Nixon.

The Korean War started in June of '50 – while Harry Truman was president. Eisenhower campaigned saying he would “go to Korea” and end the war. Which he did.

The Viet Nam War started under Johnson – who made a pig’s breakfast of it. Nixon ended it.

PiusXIII:

And they were indeed liberal by today’s standards. The Republican party would never nominate them today.

And you know that, how?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[trailblazer]

Vern: I too am a Vietnam Vet. I remember what it was like when me and my friends returned to the states. We were made by the media and public to feel like dirt! These soldiers desreve better, but the way the media and some people we know are talking about the war and America, I think these brave heroes will return to the same welcome we received.

Bob

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern: I too am a Vietnam Vet. I remember what it was like when me and my friends returned to the states. We were made by the media and public to feel like dirt! These soldiers desreve better, but the way the media and some people we know are talking about the war and America, I think these brave heroes will return to the same welcome we received.

Bob

It’s up to us, you and me and our fellow veterans to prevent it.

These people killed our brothers in arms by giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They’re not going to do it again to this generation.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

oat soda:

is this war really about freedom, or materialism? i keep hearing about “freedom isn’t free”. true freedom only exists when we fully and freely consent to God’s will. i don’t see how free we are when we kill 4,000 babies a day based on conveniance. in fact, we are really slaves to sin -selfishness and materialism.

I think you’re right on with this. Freedom is not the same thing as democracy, not the same as liberty, not the same as capitalism, not the same as absence of a tyrant or dictator or torture or oppression. All those things are good things, and can lead to a more pleasant life. I think democracy and liberty are clearly preferable to tyranny. But they’re not an end in themselves. If they better allow people to give praise and glory to God, then all the better. But if not, then they are simply another route to sin and death, another shiny bauble, pleasing to the eye, that the enemy uses to deceive us. This is the trap that we have collectively fallen into, that “freedom” means living whatever lifestyle makes you happy, and that our intrinsic worth is based on our job title and salary, and the value of the goods and services we produce and consume, and that as long as the economy is growing and the stock market’s going up, then everything’s A-OK. Hopefully the Iraqis can do better than this with their new found liberty. In the meantime we could use some re-evangelization ourselves.

 

[jlw]

Freedom is not the same thing as democracy, not the same as liberty, not the same as capitalism, not the same as absence of a tyrant or dictator or torture or oppression. All those things are good things, and can lead to a more pleasant life. I think democracy and liberty are clearly preferable to tyranny. But they’re not an end in themselves.

Main Entry: lib·er·ty m-w.com/images/audio.gif
Pronunciation: 'li-b&r-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French *liberté, *from Latin *libertat-, libertas, *from *liber *free – more at LIBERAL
1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice
2 a : a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : PRIVILEGE b : permission especially to go freely within specified limits
3 : an action going beyond normal limits: as a : a breach of etiquette or propriety : FAMILIARITY b : RISK, CHANCE <took foolish *liberties *with his health> c : a violation of rules or a deviation from standard practice d : a distortion of fact
4 : a short authorized absence from naval duty usually for less than 48 hours
synonym see FREEDOM

• at liberty 1 : FREE 2 : at leisure : UNOCCUPIED

Main Entry: 1li·cense m-w.com/images/audio.gif
Variant(s): or li·cence m-w.com/images/audio.gif /'lI-s&n(t)s/
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French *licence, *from Latin *licentia, *from *licent-, licens, *present participle of *licEre *to be permitted
1 a : permission to act b : freedom of action
2 a : a permission granted by competent authority to engage in a business or occupation or in an activity otherwise unlawful b : a document, plate, or tag evidencing a license granted
3 a : freedom that allows or is used with irresponsibility b : disregard for standards of personal conduct : LICENTIOUSNESS
4 : deviation from fact, form, or rule by an artist or writer for the sake of the effect gained
synonym see FREEDOM

 

[Jeffrey]

walstan:

Of course they are , we have all read the results of the court cases where they were tried and convicted in accordance with the laws we insist others should follow, and the same laws we impose on those we invade. The laws that presume innocence until proven guilty. How stupid of any us to think that such laws are only for the selective few that agree with us; and to imagine that ANY administration would purposely ignore extending such fundemental human rights to anyone is herasy and should be ignored totally as lies and calumnies of the worst possible kind!!! Our wonderful western civilization would never stand for such a thing, would it? (or would it?)

 

[Celia]

vern humphrey:

Then pretty clearly the Republicans were right, and the Democrats who defended slavery were wrong.

After Reconstruction, the Bourbon Redemptionists assumed political control of the South, and it became the “Solid South” – all the old Confederate states were Democratic. So much so that whoever won the Democratic primary automatically won the election – there were no Republicans running in any election.

There was no “defense” to it – because there was no attack.

They wanted to leave in order to maintain “the Peculiar Institution” as they called slavery. Read the articles of secession, state by state, and see what a big deal they make of slavery. You don’t see them offering high-minded reasons for leaving – it was slavery that caused secession.

Hi again

In response to the first quote, I think you are missing my point. Read the sentence I wrote after the one that you posted. I was just offering clarification that the once democratic party of the south is actually more similar to the republican party of today…it’s like a role reversal…of course they were wrong about slavery, but I’m sorry I may not be the most scholarly person on here but every authentic history source I have read consistently proves the fact that there was plenty of other reasons for secession besides slavery. The republicans were not right to be threatening a newly formed nation. No.
Second- Yes, AFTER reconstruction is when the parties slooowly began to morph into more similar roles that we know today.
Third- I think they felt pretty attacked. And felt their safety was threatened. (Also, side note to any c.w. buffs out there, I thought the history regarding who started Fort Sumter in the first place was kinda sketchy. I must have missed something?)
Fourth- Like I mentioned in the first response, several other reasons for leaving. The north was trying to control who they sold their cotton/other crops too. Was trying to tax their land and profits unnecessarily. Just a couple thoughts. They wanted to preserve the southern way of life (that, unfortunately, did include slavery) that had been existing for 200 years till that time. I really believe that is why they seceded, not slavery. (Also, slavery wasn’t illegal in the northern states until what, 1862? If the northern republicans were so pure and gung-ho about emancipation, why didn’t that happen before?)

 

[vern_humphrey]

Celia:

Hi again

In response to the first quote, I think you are missing my point. Read the sentence I wrote after the one that you posted. I was just offering clarification that the once democratic party of the south is actually more similar to the republican party of today…

It is not. The Democratic Party of the South was the party of slavery. After the war, it was the party of Jim Crow and Segregation.

The Republican Party has never stood for these things – in fact, it has always opposed them.

Celia:

Second- Yes, AFTER reconstruction is when the parties slooowly began to morph into more similar roles that we know today.

What “morph?” The Democratic Party remained racially-based in the South. The Klu Klux Klan were basically an arm of the party. As late as the '70s the KKK desecrated and burned Catholic Churchs – including Saint Mary’s in Batesville, AR, where I went as a boy, and where my mother’s funeral mass was held.

Celia:

Third- I think they felt pretty attacked. And felt their safety was threatened. (Also, side note to any c.w. buffs out there, I thought the history regarding who started Fort Sumter in the first place was kinda sketchy. I must have missed something?)

How they “felt” is a poor excuse for starting a war.

Celia:

Fourth- Like I mentioned in the first response, several other reasons for leaving. The north was trying to control who they sold their cotton/other crops too.

How? What measures did the north take “to control who they sold their cotton/other crops to/” Give us a specific measure of that “control.”

Celia:

Was trying to tax their land and profits unnecessarily.

Are you claiming that before the Civil War there was a FEDERAL land tax? Or there was an income tax?

 

[Jeffrey]

Yes…Libs usually don’t take responsiblilty.

No ignorance on my part…Islam is evil. Looks at thier works. Read the Qur’an if ya don’t believe me.

Thekla:

A complete failure to take responsibility. It’s ALL spin; liberal and right wing corporate spin.

As a Catholic, I find your line about Islam equalling Satanism to be extremely offensive and anti-Catholic. The Holy Father has been clear on this point and I hope that you are operating from a position of ignorance and not one of hate and willful disregard for the Church’s position.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Jeffrey:

Yes…Libs usually don’t take responsiblilty.

No ignorance on my part…Islam is evil. Looks at thier works. Read the Qur’an if ya don’t believe me.

The Church does not agree that Islam is evil. From the Catechism:

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."330

There are, of course, evil men who happen to be muslims – and they often use their religion to justify their evil acts. There have been people of other religions like that – including Christianity.

 

[Jeffrey]

Sorry…but I want nothing to do with Islam after reading the excepts that have been posted here, and lots of articles I have read. Bascially, if you aren’t Muslim/Islamic they want you either dead – or a second class citizen.
vern humphrey:

The Church does not agree that Islam is evil. From the Catechism:

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."330

There are, of course, evil men who happen to be muslims – and they often use their religion to justify their evil acts. There have been people of other religions like that – including Christianity.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Jeffrey:

Sorry…but I want nothing to do with Islam after reading the excepts that have been posted here, and lots of articles I have read. Bascially, if you aren’t Muslim/Islamic they want you either dead – or a second class citizen.

That is not a Catholic position.

I might point out that if you are not of the majority religion in many countries you will suffer discrimination – even in that bastion of tolerance, India.

 

[gilliam]

vern humphrey:

The Church does not agree that Islam is evil. From the Catechism:

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."330

There are, of course, evil men who happen to be muslims – and they often use their religion to justify their evil acts. There have been people of other religions like that – including Christianity.

The Church’s positon is that Islam is in error. They are simply wrong on a number of points. There is really only one way to salvation and that is through Jesus Christ. You have to do a lot of double speak to get from what the Muslems teach to that fact.

 

[vern_humphrey]

gilliam:

The Church’s positon is that Islam is in error. They are simply wrong on a number of points. There is really only one way to salvation and that is through Jesus Christ. You have to do a lot of double speak to get from what the Muslems teach to that fact.

The Church’s position on Islam is stated in paragraph 841 of the Catechism:

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

Of course they are in error. So are the Jews, Baptists and so on. But the Church respects them and considers them worshipers of the same God we worship.

 

[gilliam]

vern humphrey:

Of course they are in error. So are the Jews, Baptists and so on. But the Church respects them and considers them worshipers of the same God we worship.

You can’t equate these faiths like this. Baptists are Christians and believe that salvation is through Jesus Christ, because of this, they are closer to the truth than Jews. Jews, are God’s choisen people, who have a true covenent with God, because of this, they are closer to the truth than Muslems. Muslems believe in one God, creater of heaven and earth, because of this, they are closer to the truth than Buddhists. Need cites?

 

[vern_humphrey]

gilliam:

You can’t equate these faiths like this. Baptists are Christians and believe that salvation is through Jesus Christ, because of this, they are closer to the truth than Jews. Jews, are God’s choisen people, who have a true covenent with God, because of this, they are closer to the truth than Muslems. Muslems believe in one God, creater of heaven and earth, because of this, they are closer to the truth than Buddhists. Need cites?

I gave the cite – paragraph 841 of the Catechism. The Church’s position is that the plan of salvation includes Muslims.

Now, are Baptists in error? Of course!

Are Jews in error? Of course.

All who reject the Catholic Church are in error.

 

[gilliam]

vern humphrey:

I gave the cite – paragraph 841 of the Catechism. The Church’s position is that the plan of salvation includes Muslims.

Now, are Baptists in error? Of course!

Are Jews in error? Of course.

All who reject the Catholic Church are in error.

The Church’s plan of salvation includes all of mankind.

Some more information:

Many find the first part of the quote perplexing: “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims.” To many this sounds like Muslims can be saved by adhering to Islam. That isn’t what it means, as shown by the original context.

If you look at Lumen Gentium (LG), the Vatican II document from which the quote is drawn, it becomes clear that the phrase is not meant to say that Islam is a method of salvation parallel to Christianity. The quote comes from LG 16, but it is part of a larger context in the document. To appreciate how it fits into the picture, one needs to go back at least as far as LG 13, which starts by proclaiming, “All men are called to belong to the new people of God”—i.e., to the Church. Section 13 concludes by stating, “All men are called to be part of this catholic unity of the people of God. . . . And in different ways to it belong, or are related: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, for all men are called by the grace of God to salvation.”

All mankind is called to the “Catholic unity of the people of God”—in other words, to become Catholics. Some have done so, and so LG states that some “belong to” the Catholic Church while others are related to it “in different ways.” Those who belong to it are “the Catholic faithful,” while those who are related in various ways include “others who believe in Christ” (who are related to the Church in one way) and “all mankind” (who are related to the Church in a different way).

there is more here:
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0207bt.asp

 

[CanonAlberic]

Sirach14:

Joe Conason I guess is saying President Bush should get real and stop pretending the war is going well, and as planned.
Joe also believes that “Most Americans no longer approve of administation policy.”

observer.com/pages/conason.asp

Joe is one of the few remaining true and actual “investigative reporters”. While not on the level of Robert Parry, and his Consortium News team, he well deserves the term “SMOKIN’ Joe Conason”. Everything I’ve read, even the items in the MSM where they do thier best to hide Dubya’s blunders bear Joe out. Thank God we still actually have newspeople who are interested in the truth!

Peace.

 

[Celia]

vern humphrey:

It is not. The Democratic Party of the South was the party of slavery. After the war, it was the party of Jim Crow and Segregation.

The Republican Party has never stood for these things – in fact, it has always opposed them.

What “morph?” The Democratic Party remained racially-based in the South. The Klu Klux Klan were basically an arm of the party. As late as the '70s the KKK desecrated and burned Catholic Churchs – including Saint Mary’s in Batesville, AR, where I went as a boy, and where my mother’s funeral mass was held.

How they “felt” is a poor excuse for starting a war.

How? What measures did the north take “to control who they sold their cotton/other crops to/” Give us a specific measure of that “control.”

Are you claiming that before the Civil War there was a FEDERAL land tax? Or there was an income tax?

I hope this is the last time I have to do this 'cause I’m getting really bored typing the same things over and over again. Anyway…
First- This is based on what I was taught in my United States history classes in college, plus a little of my own research. In everything that I have read considering core ideals and actions of both parties, the gauntlets taken up by the democratic party of the south is something more similar to what conservative republicans would take a stand on today as far as intrusion in government and states rights goes. NOT SLAVERY. (which was not the main casue of the war.) Ok? Ok.
Second- first answer pretty much sums this up. Ideals change. The party of Lincoln is not the Republican party of today. Don’t know what the KKK has to do with this…
Third- If the south did fire that first shot, I don’t see why they couldn’t. Bush felt “threatened” by Iraqs supposed store of WMD’s. Led to close to 2,000 GI’s deaths so far. If that’s ok, why isn’t this? (sorry, a shot out of left field, but I couldn’t help it)
Fourth, well, and Fifth- sorry, I did my homework in college. Not doing it again, my friend. Way too lazy to look that up. I seriously remember reading about the north putting taxes on the cotton that reached overseas and keeping those profits for the growth of industrialism in the north, and the south not seeing any of the money for improvements in their areas…if that’s not correct, I apologize, but that’s what I was taught.
We can talk about this stuff forever, but my main point is I think it is very closed-minded to have the belief that democrats are responsible for all the wars this country has ever seen. I mean, how do you explain our most recent conflicts with Iraq? Doesn’t add up.

 

[vern_humphrey]

CanonAlberic:

Joe is one of the few remaining true and actual “investigative reporters”. While not on the level of Robert Parry, and his Consortium News team, he well deserves the term “SMOKIN’ Joe Conason”. Everything I’ve read, even the items in the MSM where they do thier best to hide Dubya’s blunders bear Joe out. Thank God we still actually have newspeople who are interested in the truth!

Peace.

Over in another thread, you were attacking people for quoting Larry Kudrow – and here you are praising Joe Conason.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif