Bush vs Benedict

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sirach14
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think I will stick with the Pope and Bishops on this one. 🙂

If Bush was right then Jesus is wrong. :tsktsk:
 
It has been quite clear that the situation as it stands now requires us to finish what was started. Benedict XVI has stated we are obligated to stay till things are stabelized. Rome did not want us to go into Iraq. But since we are there this country and those of us that live here are obligated to finish what was started.God Bless us all and give us the wisdom to follow through with what was started.
 
40.png
Cathlicrat:
I think I will stick with the Pope and Bishops on this one. 🙂

If Bush was right then Jesus is wrong. :tsktsk:
Click to expand...
I guess I’ve only been Catholic for 29 years, but to my knowledge, the Pope is NOT Jesus.
 
GREAT THREAD.

Was Lincoln wrong? Was he wrong about WHAT? How much do you know about the Civil War and Mr. Lincoln’s prosecution of it? Would slavery have faded away, as it did in EVERY OTHER PART OF THE WORLD, without the American life-costliest war to date? Would it shock you to know the Pope at the time sent a crown of thorns to the leader of the SOUTH? Catholics fought on both sides, of course, and have always served in disproportionate numbers to their percentage of Americans, but Rome cautioned against Mr. Lincoln’s more aggressive side. Mr. Lincoln was brutal in many ways.

Was Roosevelt wrong? I can only assume you mean FDR. Was he wrong about WHAT? How much do you know about WWII? A contrary view, one not buffered by quaint songs and notions about American benevolence, suggests that war led empowering the most wicked regime EVER conceived, Soviet Russia. Once again, Rome cautioned and was ignored.

Was Truman wrong? Was he wrong about WHAT? How much do you know about THE ONLY NATION IN HISTORY TO HAVE EVER DROPPPED two nuclear weapons? Some say Mr. Truman solidified the killing of massive amounts of civilians AND the nightmare scenarios we’re now contemplating with terrorists getting their hands on such weaponry.

Where do you start and end your arguments? While Americans look at things in spans of fives years, in-between congratulating themselves with parades and back-slapping, Holy Mother Church thinks in centuries.

Isn’t it time we dropped our foolish pride?
 
I thought I read someplace that the Church says we should finish this thing in Iraq. Am I wrong about this?

-D
 
Darrel,

I dunno.

Many, many people have made just that assertion.

I’ll search for what I remember reading Pope Benedict XVI wrote, but for now I am paraphrasing: since the decision was made, and the warnings ignored, and since certain powers of the world have taken Iraq, those same powers are now responsible for what they’ve done.

Some say this means B16 is endorsing American policy in Iraq because he supports the US staying there.

I SERIOUSLY doubt that.

We’re there. We presumed to liberate people. When their society reacts with all the hiccups SO VERY MANY WARNED IT WOULD, we have to buckle up and hold on. No turning back.

Being responsible DOES NOT HAVE TO MEAN we continue the course as we’re now on it. It just means that Iraq is under our care, and that care must be handled with extreme gravity.

To my way of thinking, B16 offers no shelter for American hawks.
 
40.png
gilliam:
No your not. She does.

Statement on Moral Responsibilities for United States in Iraq
Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, June 22, 2004
Click to expand...
From your link:
The war and occupation in Iraq have raised fundamental questions about the U.S. role in the world. These include the need to find ways other than preventive war to deal with challenges posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism; to abide by strict limits on the use of military force; and to strengthen the United Nations and respect international law, including the Geneva Conventions. Our nation cannot accept a permissive interpretation of international law, the inevitability of civilian casualties or the abuse of human rights, or an over-reliance on military responses to the problem of global terrorism. The United States would contribute to an improvement in the international situation if it adopted a collaborative approach based on respectful consideration of the viewpoints of others, as part of a broader effort to develop a global system of cooperative security.
 
40.png
kelso:
How much do you know about the Civil War and Mr. Lincoln’s prosecution of it?.. How much do you know about WWII? … How much do you know about THE ONLY NATION IN HISTORY TO HAVE EVER DROPPPED two nuclear weapons?
Click to expand...
Your rhetoric is highly inflammatory, kelso. The posters on this thread and on others have given you no stimulus to question their knowledge of the Civil War, WWII, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This going off with both guns blazing is uncalled for, unfriendly, and does not further discussion. Perhaps it would be helpful for all concerned if you were to edit your statements before posting them in future.
 
Syn kobiety:
From your link:
The war and occupation in Iraq have raised fundamental questions about the U.S. role in the world. These include the need to find ways other than preventive war to deal with challenges posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism; to abide by strict limits on the use of military force; and to strengthen the United Nations and respect international law, including the Geneva Conventions. Our nation cannot accept a permissive interpretation of international law, the inevitability of civilian casualties or the abuse of human rights, or an over-reliance on military responses to the problem of global terrorism. The United States would contribute to an improvement in the international situation if it adopted a collaborative approach based on respectful consideration of the viewpoints of others, as part of a broader effort to develop a global system of cooperative security.
Click to expand...
So is this,

By its military intervention in Iraq, the U.S. government has taken on a moral obligation to engage in a difficult, long-term process of nation building. In resolving to restore sovereignty to the Iraqi people, it has embarked on an extraordinary effort at rebuilding a country after decades of a corrupt and brutal dictatorship and years of devastating sanctions. This effort will have to continue and be strengthened so that, in concert with the international community, our country can help empower the Iraqi people to create a society of peace and justice. In renewing our moral concerns and calling for our nation to recognize both its limitations and responsibilities, we also renew our call for prayer for those who serve our nation and their families, for the people of Iraq, and for a region and world broken by violence and longing for peace.

-D
 
Syn kobiety:
strengthen the United Nations and respect international law, including the Geneva Conventions.
Click to expand...
Yes. The United Nations should either be strengthened or replaced because…
Syn kobiety:
Our nation cannot accept a permissive interpretation of international law
Click to expand...
 
Since we are cherry picking from usccb.org/sdwp/international/iraqstatem.htm how about
A new Iraq cannot be imposed by the United States or any other occupying power. As the Holy Father said in his recent meeting with President George W. Bush, “It is the evident desire of everyone that this situation now be normalized as quickly as possible with the active participation of the international community and, in particular, the United Nations Organization, in order to ensure a speedy return of Iraq’s sovereignty, in conditions of security for all its people.” We are encouraged by the new efforts of the United States to work with the United Nations to ensure that Iraqis have the means and a clear plan for reassuming their sovereign responsibilities. Continued support for an active UN role seems critical to ensuring the success of this process.
Click to expand...
Inidentally there is a non-American Catholic Church, you can find this on the English and Welsh Bishops site catholic-ew.org.uk/cn/04/040610.htm
The United Nations Security Council voted unanimously on Wednesday to act as ‘Brokers of Peace’ in war-scarred Iraq. In welcoming this resolution I welcome above all the re-engagement of the United Nations in Iraq.
Click to expand...
If this resolution is to have any hope of success, it must mean what it says: the establishment of a stable and sovereign Iraq, and the ‘time-framed’ withdrawal of coalition forces so that the Iraqis will have the right to control their own destiny. Let us not underestimate the task ahead.
Click to expand...
The Iraqis are a beleaguered and bereaved people, having incurred enormous losses in this and in the first Gulf War. The tensions among the different communities in that country are real but for the Iraqi people themselves to resolve. They, too, will need to seek the way of peace and reconciliation.
Click to expand...
The lessons to be learned from this conflict are enormous. All too clearly we have seen the horrendous effects of modern weaponry, the ruthlessness of the suicide bomber, the awful degradation of prisoners. . . To counter all of this we can only point to the indomitable will of people everywhere, and not to be distracted from the way of peace. This surely is epitomised in an extraordinary way by the words and example of Pope John Paul II.
Click to expand...
 
That’s all well and good, Matt. Iraq has asked for UN help. Where is it? How do you get them moving? If they continue to do nothing the burden of restoring Iraq will fall on the volunteer countries which are currently there.
 
Ani Ibi:
Your rhetoric is highly inflammatory, kelso. The posters on this thread and on others have given you no stimulus to question their knowledge of the Civil War, WWII, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This going off with both guns blazing is uncalled for, unfriendly, and does not further discussion. Perhaps it would be helpful for all concerned if you were to edit your statements before posting them in future.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is. Hopefully it’ll inflame THOUGHT, and quality responses, rather than accusations.

I was questioning the questioner’s ability to deal with such an open-ended question. I was literally asking what the poster new and what the poster was asking, since the question left a lot, again, open.

My response was NOT addressed to you.
 
geezerbob said:
That’s all well and good, Matt. Iraq has asked for UN help. Where is it? How do you get them moving? If they continue to do nothing the burden of restoring Iraq will fall on the volunteer countries which are currently there.
Click to expand...

The reason that the UN cannot shoulder the burden in Iraq is that the US prefers to keep total control of the situation in that country. If the UN was to become the Occupying power then all its forces would be subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. The US does not wish its forces to be subject to International Law.
 
40.png
Matt25:
The reason that the UN cannot shoulder the burden in Iraq is that the US prefers to keep total control of the situation in that country. If the UN was to become the Occupying power then all its forces would be subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. The US does not wish its forces to be subject to International Law.
Click to expand...
And with all humility may I ask what the UN’s excuses were prior to the war? Also is giving control to the UN going to amke thing better for Iraq or worse. We need to remember the lessons learned in the Food for Oil situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top