Bush vs Benedict

[Matt25]

gilliam:

Iraq’s Sunnis asked for UN help again today, let’s see if they get it.

Not if the USA does not allow it.

BTW guess which country has vetoed more UN resolutions than any other.

 

[gilliam]

kelso:

Not me. Not anything I’ve written. Re-read my post and maybe what I am writing will become clearer.

Not accusing you of anything…

'cept your picture of our Holy Father does get in the way of reading your posts. You might want to make it smaller.

 

[Matt25]

gilliam:

. The difference today, is many who were on the side of the fascists in the middle east (e.g., Baathists), and against the US getting them out of the middle east, are still siding with the fascists.

Do you mean opponents of the invasion like Pope John Paul II, the then Cardinal Ratzinger, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops etc etc? If not then who do you mean.

 

[gilliam]

Matt25:

Not if the USA does not allow it…

I haven’t seen the US do anything since the Liberation except encourage the UN to get involved in Iraq.

.

BTW guess which country has vetoed more UN resolutions than any other.

Many of them resolutions attempting to hurt Jews or Israel. Or to further the communist system (back in the cold war), or get into the American Citizen’s pocket book (probably most of them here).

 

[thestickman]

Matt25:

Not if the USA does not allow it.

BTW guess which country has vetoed more UN resolutions than any other.

The USA I hope. Considering the lunacy of the Useless Nations the last 20 years I thankful to God Almighty the US has been able to veto much of the corrupt madness the UN has tried to bamboozle the world with.

 

[gilliam]

Matt25:

Do you mean opponents of the invasion like Pope John Paul II, the then Cardinal Ratzinger, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops etc etc? If not then who do you mean.

No, they changed after the liberation and are now telling us it is our moral duty to say.

No, I was talking about those who are so anti-semitic that they would rather see fascism in Iraq than more Americans die for what they see as a war for Israel.

 

[Matt25]

gilliam:

I haven’t seen the US do anything since the Liberation except encourage the UN to get involved in Iraq…

US soldiers can come under the command of non-US officers then?

.

gilliam:

Many of them resolutions attempting to hurt Jews or Israel. Or to further the communist system (back in the cold war).

The answer to the question who vetoes most resolutions being the USA then. If the UN is hamstrung in its activities by one country it is a tad perverse of that same country to complain that the UN fails to act decisively very often.

 

[Matt25]

gilliam:

No, they changed after the liberation and are now telling us it is our moral duty to say.

Can you link me to a statement from the Pope, any Pope, saying that the US has a moral duty to occupy Iraq other than as an agent of the UN

 

[Matt25]

The USA I hope. Considering the lunacy of the Useless Nations the last 20 years I thankful to God Almighty the US has been able to veto much of the corrupt madness the UN has tried to bamboozle the world with.

The Catholic Church, on the contrary is thankful to God Almighty for the United Nations, see vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1995/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_05101995_address-to-uno_en.html

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS *** POPE JOHN PAUL II
TO THE FIFTIETH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OF THE UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION

---

It is an honour for me to have the opportunity to address this international Assembly and to join the men and women of every country, race, language and culture in celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations Organization. In coming before this distinguished Assembly, I am vividly aware that through you I am in some way addressing the whole family of peoples living on the face of the earth. My words are meant as a sign of the interest and esteem of the Apostolic See and of the Catholic Church for this Institution. They echo the voices of all those who see in the United Nations the hope of a better future for human society…

The Holy See, in virtue of its specifically spiritual mission, which makes it concerned for the integral good of every human being, has supported the ideals and goals of the United Nations Organization from the very beginning. Although their respective purposes and operative approaches are obviously different, the Church and the United Nations constantly find wide areas of cooperation on the basis of their common concern for the human family. It is this awareness which inspires my thoughts today; they will not dwell on any particular social, political, or economic question; rather, I would like to reflect with you on what the extraordinary changes of the last few years imply, not simply for the present, but for the future of the whole human family…

1. As we face these enormous challenges, how can we fail to acknowledge the role of the United Nations Organization? Fifty years after its founding, the need for such an Organization is even more obvious, but we also have a better understanding, on the basis of experience, that the effectiveness of this great instrument for harmonizing and coordinating international life depends on the international culture and ethic which it supports and expresses. The United Nations Organization needs to rise more and more above the cold status of an administrative institution and to become a moral centre where all the nations of the world feel at home and develop a shared awareness of being, as it were, a “family of nations”. The idea of “family” immediately evokes something more than simple functional relations or a mere convergence of interests. The family is by nature a community based on mutual trust, mutual support and sincere respect. In an authentic family the strong do not dominate; instead, the weaker members, because of their very weakness, are all the more welcomed and served.

Raised to the level of the “family of nations”, these sentiments ought to be, even before law itself, the very fabric of relations between peoples. The United Nations has the historic, even momentous, task of promoting this qualitative leap in international life, not only by serving as a centre of effective mediation for the resolution of conflicts but also by fostering values, attitudes and concrete initiatives of solidarity which prove capable of raising the level of relations between nations from the “organizational” to a more “organic” level, from simple “existence with” others to “existence for” others, in a fruitful exchange of gifts, primarily for the good of the weaker nations but even so, a clear harbinger of greater good for everyone.

 

[gilliam]

Matt25:

Can you link me to a statement from the Pope, any Pope, saying that the US has a moral duty to occupy Iraq other than as an agent of the UN

“The child has been born,” Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican secretary of state declared on behalf of the Vatican. “It may be illegitimate, but it’s here, and it must be reared and educated.”

Cardinal Camillo Ruini, the Pope’s own vicar, as a board member, called for “tens of thousands of Nato troops” to be sent to Iraq to assist the interim government and ensure free elections. Of course, our allies in NATO oppted out.

The prominent theologian, Vittorio Parsi, criticises the “laziness” of countries that have refused to commit troops to Iraq unless all occupation soldiers are removed. The Telegraph has learnt that the editorial was almost certainly commissioned by Cardinal Ruini.

“Even the European countries that opposed the American decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime know well that an Iraq in the hands of the worst terrorists and criminals goes against the interests of all,” wrote Mr Parsi.

telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/10/wirq10.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/10/10/ixportal.html

 

[thestickman]

Matt25:

The Catholic Church, on the contrary is thankful to God Almighty for the United Nations, see vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1995/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_05101995_address-to-uno_en.html

Another fallacious argument. The Holy Father wrote this article without any knowledge of oil-for-fraud, nor had Sudan been named to the UN’s human right’s commission by that point. Also, I don’t believe the horror and failure of Rhwanda had occured.

Like I said earlier:

 

[kelso]

“The child has been born,” Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican secretary of state declared on behalf of the Vatican. “It may be illegitimate, but it’s here, and it must be reared and educated.”

g,

Boy, I can take and run with the illegitimate child analogy.

DO YOU REALLY THINK THOSE YOU’VE QUOTED supported the manner by which the US is going about things in Iraq NOW?

Puhleeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasssssssssseeeeeeeeeeee.

 

[Matt25]

“The child has been born,” Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican secretary of state declared on behalf of the Vatican. “It may be illegitimate, but it’s here, and it must be reared and educated.”

Cardinal Camillo Ruini, the Pope’s own vicar, as a board member, called for “tens of thousands of Nato troops” to be sent to Iraq to assist the interim government and ensure free elections. Of course, our allies in NATO oppted out.

The prominent theologian, Vittorio Parsi, criticises the “laziness” of countries that have refused to commit troops to Iraq unless all occupation soldiers are removed. The Telegraph has learnt that the editorial was almost certainly commissioned by Cardinal Ruini.

“Even the European countries that opposed the American decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime know well that an Iraq in the hands of the worst terrorists and criminals goes against the interests of all,” wrote Mr Parsi.

telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/10/wirq10.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/10/10/ixportal.html

You did infer that Popes John Paul and Benedict said that the USA had a moral duty to remain in occupation (other than as an agent of the UN) so where did those particular persons say that?

 

[Matt25]

thestickman:

Another fallacious argument. The Holy Father wrote this article without any knowledge of oil-for-fraud, nor had Sudan been named to the UN’s human right’s commission by that point. Also, I don’t believe the horror and failure of Rhwanda had occured.

Like I said earlier:

How about this then vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2005/documents/rc_seg-st_20050509_ii-world-war_en.html

INTERVENTION OF THE HOLY SEE
AT THE 59th GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS
ON THE OCCASION OF THE SIXTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE END
OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR STATEMENT BY H.E. MONS. CELESTINO MIGLIORE

*New York

Monday, 9 May 2005
*

…the Second World War, as with all the wars of the 20th century, illustrates how war termination policies and post war operational planning are essential to the aim of restoring justice and peace and of protecting. In the past, much attention was rightly paid to the ius ad bellum, that is the necessary conditions for justifying the use of force, and to the * ius in bello*, the legal parameters of ethical behaviour during war. In the light of the material and moral devastations of World War II and the nature of war since, the time has now come to focus on and develop a third dimension of the law of war, that of the ius post bellum, or how to achieve quickly and effectively the establishment of a just and lasting peace, which is the only admissible goal for the use of force. Thus, the existing international legal instruments covering conduct and activities after war need to be reinforced and extended with reference to our rapidly changing times, while also taking into consideration the ethical parameters that the modern conscience and sensitivities have developed, such as reconciliation, to help all the parties involved re-knit bonds of friendship and neighbourliness; assurance of the security and stabilization of nations emerging from war; international solidarity in the process of socio-economic reconstruction of the fabric of those societies; restoration of the environment after fighting has ceased; and justice at every level, since, if force has been employed for justice’s sake, justice must surely influence every aspect of the peacebuilding process.

…recently, new emphasis has been placed upon the role of the UN as a peacebuilder. The Holy See shares the Secretary-General’s concern that the United Nations system fully address the challenge of helping countries with the transition from war to lasting peace, and once again expresses full support for the creation of an intergovernmental Peacebuilding Commission.

This commemoration, therefore, is a welcome reminder of the very raison d’être of the United Nations. Although nowadays it exercises its functions in a broad variety of fields, these activities should not distract us from the sine qua non of this Organization’s existence, that is, peace among nations.

 

[thestickman]

Matt25:

How about this then vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2005/documents/rc_seg-st_20050509_ii-world-war_en.html

How about it? Does it make oil-for-fraud vanish? Does it change the reality of not ending the Balkan War? Also, I don’t see the Holy Father speaking via his papal infallibility in this post.

Ideally, the Useless Nations was a great idea that’s been crushed by corruption and such. The fact you’re trying to spin a release from the Vatican without addressing the issues of oil-for-fraud and Rhwanda tells me ya got zip from the Vatican to actually justify the position you want to claim.

 

[gilliam]

kelso:

g,

Boy, I can take and run with the illegitimate child analogy.

DO YOU REALLY THINK THOSE YOU’VE QUOTED supported the manner by which the US is going about things in Iraq NOW?

Puhleeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasssssssssseeeeeeeeeeee.

Your post is insulting to them and to me. Why are you saying what they said is not what they meant without giving any evidence? Tone it down and cite contratictions instead of simply saying they can’t possibly be in favor of us staying in Iraq, when Iraqi bishop after bishop has encouraged us to stay.

 

[gilliam]

Matt25:

How about this then vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2005/documents/rc_seg-st_20050509_ii-world-war_en.html

Great, can you give that to the terrorists and tell them to follow the Geneva convention, please?

 

[geezerbob]

kelso:

I have, indeed, geeze.

It is certainly the way I was taught. SHOOT, even Peter Jennings agreed with you. Yours is the dominant position.

Again, it all depends WHERE in history you start your analysis. If you begin as if the world hadn’t existed prior to WWII, then yes, America saved the Europe and all that (though I’d still be able to argue reasonably otherwise). Hooray for us. Shish boom bah!

Who was our friend in Germany PRIOR to World War II’s start?

I’ll give you a minute to google that.

Give up?

Adolph Hitler, that’s who. At the time, we’d rather go with him than the dirty Commies, according to the US Dept. of State. Just think of the historical implications.

Who were our BESTEST BUDDIES in the Middle East prior to their getting out of line?

Give up?

Osama ‘gonna kill your mamma’ and Saddam.

We’re not nearly the Golly-gee-shucks innocents we pretend.

Weird parallels, no?

What does all that have to do with my statement that if we hadn’t entered WWII, Europe would have been dominated by the Commies or the Nazis. I’ll give you a hint: absolutely nothing. I suppose, according to your reasoning, that the US siding with Hitler, who later turned on our allies, against Stalin, makes us the bad guys in that era, also. And, on one of the Sheehen threads, didn’t you argue that association with undesirables in order to achieve a desirable goal was okay? What’s the difference if it’s done on an individual basis or on a national basis? You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.

 

[kelso]

geezerbob:

What does all that have to do with my statement that if we hadn’t entered WWII, Europe would have been dominated by the Commies or the Nazis. I’ll give you a hint: absolutely nothing. I suppose, according to your reasoning, that the US siding with Hitler, who later turned on our allies, against Stalin, makes us the bad guys in that era, also. And, on one of the Sheehen threads, didn’t you argue that association with undesirables in order to achieve a desirable goal was okay? What’s the difference if it’s done on an individual basis or on a national basis? You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.

No, no, no, no.

The calculus for the US is THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY FRIEND. I am not endorcing such an idea, I am merely pointing it out. Such an idea has lead the US to where we are: all tangeled up.

Remember this chestnut: “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” —President Bush, speaking underneath a “Mission Accomplished” banner aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003

My point(s) seem to revolve around this idea that the US is too short-sighted.

geeze, find that post or apologize.

 

[bones_IV]

Folks there is no comparison between Bush and Benedict. Bush is pro-life with exceptions and is a pro-choice president. Benedict stands for all life, yes that means 100% pro-life. And I wish people would stop putting the pro-life label on Bush, when he isn’t. He’s a liar and a deciever. Period! I have no use for him, and just because I follow Pope Benedict XVI does not mean that I endorse President Bush nor the republican party. The republican party preaches but they do not practice. John Paul never actually opposed the war, but he did say we should have went through the U.N. first. Their is no such thing as a pre-emptive war.