G
gilliam
Guest
tinypic.com/21sfvbWonderful! Just wonderful!!! 
- Status
I
IsaacSheen
Guest
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg
âThe infidels have been crushed, democracy has not been established. The Americans are retreating, the evil satan George Bush was not correct. Sadam is still running the country. We have won the war.â
âThe infidels have been crushed, democracy has not been established. The Americans are retreating, the evil satan George Bush was not correct. Sadam is still running the country. We have won the war.â
W
wabrams
Guest
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg
âThere are no troops leaving Lebanon. Praise be to Allah, we are still in Beirut. Do not believe the infidel press.â
âThere are no troops leaving Lebanon. Praise be to Allah, we are still in Beirut. Do not believe the infidel press.â
J
jim_orr
Guest
Isacc Sheen and Wabrams, GREAT STUFF! 
Thatâs what to remember.
Thatâs what to remember.
M
Matt25
Guest
news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=617840
How much Mr Bush is responsible for these development is debatable. The peaceful uprising in Lebanon was provoked by outrage at the assassination of the former prime minister Rafik Hariri, in which a Syrian hand is suspected, although not proven. Then the man who insisted on elections in Iraq when the US wanted to postpone or dilute them was Ayatollah Ali al- Sistani, leader of Iraqâs majority Shia community. And the death from old age of Yasser Arafat, not machinations in Washington, led to the election that might break the Israeli-Palestinian deadlock.
The neoconservatives are predictably triumphalist. âWhat changed the climate in the Middle East was not just the US invasion and show of arms,â exults the commentator Charles Krauthammer in *Time *magazine. âIt was US determination and staying power, and the refusal of its people last November to turn out a president who rejected an âexit strategyâ.â
Beyond argument, old certainties in the region are less certain; old equations of power are having to be recalculated. It is, of course, only a start, and things could go dreadfully wrong. Today the pro-Syrian Hizbollah party, regarded as a terrorist group, by Washington, holds a massive demonstration. Some see the spectre of Lebanonâs 1975-1990 civil war and this time, they predict Syria could be thrown into bloody chaos.
Success in Iraq, too, is anything but assured and there is the wild card of Iran, locked in dispute with the European Union and the United States over its suspected nuclear ambitions, and with huge mischief-making potential in both Iraq and Lebanon.
The moves by Saudi Arabia and Egypt may yet be tactical, a controlled release of steam before the lid is screwed down once more. There is no guarantee that the Islamic Brotherhood, the most powerful opposition party, will be allowed to take part in the Egyptian vote.
Then there is the law of unintended consequences. The maddening thing about democracy, from the viewpoints of Mr Bush and Mr Mubarak alike, is that you cannot be sure of what you will get. A Shia-dominated government will emerge in Iraq, but no one knows whether it will be secular or theocratic. What will Washington do if Islamic movements threaten repressive but reliable autocrats such as Mr Mubarak? And for all Mr Bushâs argument that the survival of liberty in the US depends on liberty abroad, there is no guarantee that democracy will end terrorism.
Some US officials compare the situation in the Arab world with that of eastern Europe in 1989, when the peopleâs discontent with their rulers reached boiling point, and repressive regimes simply lacked the will to repress any longer.
The same happened with the Soviet Union in 1991. But that year offers two other, more depressing parallels. One was the futile insurrection by Iraqi Kurds and Shias against Saddam Hussein. Then in Algeria, the US and the West sat silent as the military regime, faced with the victory of the Islamist FIS movement in elections, simply cancelled them. The result was a brutal civil war in which more than 100,000 died.
When push has come to shove in the Middle East before, the US has invariably sided with the devil it knows, true to the philosophy: âHe may be a sonofabitch, but at least heâs our sonofabitch.â Will this President Bush be as good as his soaring words on that icy morning in January? Lebanon may provide the first test.
How much Mr Bush is responsible for these development is debatable. The peaceful uprising in Lebanon was provoked by outrage at the assassination of the former prime minister Rafik Hariri, in which a Syrian hand is suspected, although not proven. Then the man who insisted on elections in Iraq when the US wanted to postpone or dilute them was Ayatollah Ali al- Sistani, leader of Iraqâs majority Shia community. And the death from old age of Yasser Arafat, not machinations in Washington, led to the election that might break the Israeli-Palestinian deadlock.
The neoconservatives are predictably triumphalist. âWhat changed the climate in the Middle East was not just the US invasion and show of arms,â exults the commentator Charles Krauthammer in *Time *magazine. âIt was US determination and staying power, and the refusal of its people last November to turn out a president who rejected an âexit strategyâ.â
Beyond argument, old certainties in the region are less certain; old equations of power are having to be recalculated. It is, of course, only a start, and things could go dreadfully wrong. Today the pro-Syrian Hizbollah party, regarded as a terrorist group, by Washington, holds a massive demonstration. Some see the spectre of Lebanonâs 1975-1990 civil war and this time, they predict Syria could be thrown into bloody chaos.
Success in Iraq, too, is anything but assured and there is the wild card of Iran, locked in dispute with the European Union and the United States over its suspected nuclear ambitions, and with huge mischief-making potential in both Iraq and Lebanon.
The moves by Saudi Arabia and Egypt may yet be tactical, a controlled release of steam before the lid is screwed down once more. There is no guarantee that the Islamic Brotherhood, the most powerful opposition party, will be allowed to take part in the Egyptian vote.
Then there is the law of unintended consequences. The maddening thing about democracy, from the viewpoints of Mr Bush and Mr Mubarak alike, is that you cannot be sure of what you will get. A Shia-dominated government will emerge in Iraq, but no one knows whether it will be secular or theocratic. What will Washington do if Islamic movements threaten repressive but reliable autocrats such as Mr Mubarak? And for all Mr Bushâs argument that the survival of liberty in the US depends on liberty abroad, there is no guarantee that democracy will end terrorism.
Some US officials compare the situation in the Arab world with that of eastern Europe in 1989, when the peopleâs discontent with their rulers reached boiling point, and repressive regimes simply lacked the will to repress any longer.
The same happened with the Soviet Union in 1991. But that year offers two other, more depressing parallels. One was the futile insurrection by Iraqi Kurds and Shias against Saddam Hussein. Then in Algeria, the US and the West sat silent as the military regime, faced with the victory of the Islamist FIS movement in elections, simply cancelled them. The result was a brutal civil war in which more than 100,000 died.
When push has come to shove in the Middle East before, the US has invariably sided with the devil it knows, true to the philosophy: âHe may be a sonofabitch, but at least heâs our sonofabitch.â Will this President Bush be as good as his soaring words on that icy morning in January? Lebanon may provide the first test.
G
gilliam
Guest
âIndubitably, however, even his most grudging domestic opponents and his harshest critics in the region admit that Mr Bush is also in part responsible. The 2003 invasion of Iraq may have been justified by a giant fraud, but that, and above all the January election to which it led, transfixing the Arab world, has proved a catalyst.â
J
jim_orr
Guest
"Peace is the outcome of a long and demanding battle which is only won when evil is defeated by good."JPII
Matt25, was Europe saved by âgoodâ or âevilâ when Hitlerâs NAZI Germany was defeated?
Matt25, was Europe saved by âgoodâ or âevilâ when Hitlerâs NAZI Germany was defeated?
M
Michael_C
Guest
I have anxiously been awaiting Baghdad Bobs TV show on MTV or Comedy Central. If democracy breaks out all over the middle east George Bush will go down as one of the greats.
C
Catholicvegan
Guest
No, he was not. Thousands of brave Americans and innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed. And there shouldnât be a question about a war. Sure, there will always, always be opponents of war, but a war that has so many questions that have been left unanswered by the administration. Next time, Bush, be sure the motive is there before you bait the American people. Also, as we go further into an economic disaster, the war (costing around 6 billion a week) is a problem. Now, the Bush machine would call me a âpessimistâ because I donât support the war. They would call me âunpatrioticâ because I donât support the war. They are wrong.
M
Matt25
Guest
jim orr said:
That would be the same Pope John Paul II that opposed the invasion of Iraq would it?
jim orr:
Do you think Stalin was âgoodâ Jim? Or had you carelessly forgotten the eight and a half million Red Army soldiers that were killed in the war? Only the three hundred thousand American casualties were important after all.
BTW George W Bush did not fight in WW2, or indeed Vietnam.
J
jim_orr
Guest
Let me try to ask you again and be more clear since you didnât answer the first time.
âViolence is a lie, for it goes against the truth of our faith, the truth of our humanity. Violence destroys what it claims to defend: the dignity, the life, the freedom of human beingsââ John Paul II. Matt25, this quote must mean something to you since you posted it at the bottom of your message.
"Peace is the outcome of a long and demanding battle which is only won when evil is defeated by good."JPII
I wonder, Matt25, was Europe saved by âgoodâ or âevilâ when Hitlerâs NAZI Germany was defeated? Is there not âgoodâ violence and âevilâ violance?
M
Matt25
Guest
jim orr:
jim orr:
I think you will find that the Catholic church does not recognise the concept of âgood violenceâ. It finds it acceptable under certain cirumstances (as a Pacifist I dissent from this) but never refers to it as âgoodâ.
catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0264xa.htm
Pope John Paul II - Address Before Recitation of Angelus - 27 January 2002 catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0264a.jpg Dear Brothers and Sisters!
WasStalin good?
jim orr:
There is no such a thing as good violence. All violence, even âJust Warâ is the fruit of human sin. If humans did not sin there would be no violence.
I think you will find that the Catholic church does not recognise the concept of âgood violenceâ. It finds it acceptable under certain cirumstances (as a Pacifist I dissent from this) but never refers to it as âgoodâ.
catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0264xa.htm
Pope John Paul II - Address Before Recitation of Angelus - 27 January 2002 catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0264a.jpg Dear Brothers and Sisters!
- I am still feeling very intensely the emotion I experienced last Thursday on the Day of Prayer for Peace: âViolence never again! War never again! Terrorism never again! In the name of God, may every religion bring upon earth justice and peace, forgiveness and life, love!â This is the solemn appeal that, together with the leaders of various religions, I addressed to the men of our time, forcefully rejecting the temptation to resolve humanity´s grave problems with the use of arms and violence. Thus, we have achieved a milestone on the way to building a civilization of peace and love.
G
gilliam
Guest
Matt,
Maybe this should be on a separate thread, but what would you have done if you were PM of England during WWII?
Maybe this should be on a separate thread, but what would you have done if you were PM of England during WWII?
F
Fiat
Guest
Dear Matt25:
Iâm not sure why youâre trying to elicit our judgment on whether or not Stalin âwas good.â Certainly Stalin committed crimes and sins as we all have. The question is specific to Stalinâs response to Hitler. So, I ask youâŚWas Stalinâs response to Hitlerâs Nazi Germany good or evil?
Fiat
Iâm not sure why youâre trying to elicit our judgment on whether or not Stalin âwas good.â Certainly Stalin committed crimes and sins as we all have. The question is specific to Stalinâs response to Hitler. So, I ask youâŚWas Stalinâs response to Hitlerâs Nazi Germany good or evil?
Fiat
G
gilliam
Guest
Me! Me! Me! Can I answer? Pleeeeese?
Stalin set out to defend the USSR and defeate Hitler using whatever worked. He actually positioned armor divisions behind the lines to shoot any soldiers or civilians who retreated to force them to fight. Once in Germany they plundered and raped.
Even though he helped to distroy an evil, the ends do not justify the means in this case. By the way, this is standard Catholic natural law theology.
Also see the post: Donât forget the USSRâs evil legacy
I
IsaacSheen
Guest
Vegan,
You seem like you mean well. Iâve seen a couple of your posts and I know where you are coming from. I do disagree though.
Brave American soldiers have died. Brave soldiers also died in many other wars. Does brave American soldiers dying mean that the war is wrong? Also, ask the soldiers if they believe in their cause. Unlike most of us sitting on the sidelines (many of us afraid to join) they actually believe in their mission.
Also, Iraqi civilians have died. Mainly at the hands of terrorists and Sadamâs old regime. Our troops make every effort possible not to injure civilians. They love us more than the terrorists and Sadam. (In contrast, terrorists make every effort to target civilians).
You call our troops brave but then you say that we kill civilians. Are they brave war criminals then? Is that what you are implying? The Iraqi people would mostly disagree with you.
As for the thousands of deaths, (just to give you a little insight) the number of soldiers killed each year just got over the number killed each year in the Detroit area. (Check other major cities as well). Iâm not trying to say that the losses arenât tragic. I just feel the media and many left-leaning people like to make us feel like our people are getting butchered. We are winning in a serious way.
Lastly, George Bush lying. Iâm so sick of this debate. It is too soon to tell. There are so many reports both for and against him being mistaken that it almost gives me a headache trying to sort the facts. Time will tell.
Last foot note, the NY Times (trash newspaper), released a set of recordings that a person made of George Bush. To most liberalâs âsurpriseâ, what Bush says to the media is what he says behind closed doors. Doesnât sound like a liar to me.
Check some of my information out, donât just use liberal sources. (In other words, try and find an even mix). Then please let me know how you feel. I offer all of this with TOTAL respect towards you.
Isaac
You seem like you mean well. Iâve seen a couple of your posts and I know where you are coming from. I do disagree though.
Brave American soldiers have died. Brave soldiers also died in many other wars. Does brave American soldiers dying mean that the war is wrong? Also, ask the soldiers if they believe in their cause. Unlike most of us sitting on the sidelines (many of us afraid to join) they actually believe in their mission.
Also, Iraqi civilians have died. Mainly at the hands of terrorists and Sadamâs old regime. Our troops make every effort possible not to injure civilians. They love us more than the terrorists and Sadam. (In contrast, terrorists make every effort to target civilians).
You call our troops brave but then you say that we kill civilians. Are they brave war criminals then? Is that what you are implying? The Iraqi people would mostly disagree with you.
As for the thousands of deaths, (just to give you a little insight) the number of soldiers killed each year just got over the number killed each year in the Detroit area. (Check other major cities as well). Iâm not trying to say that the losses arenât tragic. I just feel the media and many left-leaning people like to make us feel like our people are getting butchered. We are winning in a serious way.
Lastly, George Bush lying. Iâm so sick of this debate. It is too soon to tell. There are so many reports both for and against him being mistaken that it almost gives me a headache trying to sort the facts. Time will tell.
Last foot note, the NY Times (trash newspaper), released a set of recordings that a person made of George Bush. To most liberalâs âsurpriseâ, what Bush says to the media is what he says behind closed doors. Doesnât sound like a liar to me.
Check some of my information out, donât just use liberal sources. (In other words, try and find an even mix). Then please let me know how you feel. I offer all of this with TOTAL respect towards you.
Isaac
J
jim_orr
Guest
So, if a policeman uses violence to stop you from being robbed, mugged and murdered, that is not âgood?â Was the policeman sinning?
If bolts and screws were candy and nuts we all would have a better Christmas.
G
gilliam
Guest
And Bosnia
M
Matt25
Guest
England does not have a PM. The United Kingdom does. As a Scot I feel that is an important point to make. It is a bit like referring to the US as Texas.
The UK would not have had a Catholic PM in 1939, it would not have been possible. And I would have not joined the British Conservative Party any time before Hell had frozen over.
But addressing your main point. I donât know.
M
Matt25
Guest
jim orr:
jim orr:
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. âStructures of sinâ are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a âsocial sin.â
2534 The tenth commandment unfolds and completes the ninth, which is concerned with concupiscence of the flesh. It forbids coveting the goods of another, as the root of theft, robbery, and fraud, which the seventh commandment forbids. âLust of the eyesâ leads to the violence and injustice forbidden by the fifth commandment.319 Avarice, like fornication, originates in the idolatry prohibited by the first three prescriptions of the Law.320 The tenth commandment concerns the intentions of the heart; with the ninth, it summarizes all the precepts of the Law.
The Encyclical ***PACEM IN TERRIS ***begins
Peace on Earthâwhich man throughout the ages has so longed for and sought afterâcan never be established, never guaranteed, except by the diligent observance of the divinely established order.
The robbery was a consequence of sin. The response to the robbery is therefore a consequence of sin.
jim orr:
I am surprised that you have such contempt for the teachings of the Catholic Church. Perhaps this is the wrong forum for you.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. âStructures of sinâ are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a âsocial sin.â
2534 The tenth commandment unfolds and completes the ninth, which is concerned with concupiscence of the flesh. It forbids coveting the goods of another, as the root of theft, robbery, and fraud, which the seventh commandment forbids. âLust of the eyesâ leads to the violence and injustice forbidden by the fifth commandment.319 Avarice, like fornication, originates in the idolatry prohibited by the first three prescriptions of the Law.320 The tenth commandment concerns the intentions of the heart; with the ninth, it summarizes all the precepts of the Law.
The Encyclical ***PACEM IN TERRIS ***begins
Peace on Earthâwhich man throughout the ages has so longed for and sought afterâcan never be established, never guaranteed, except by the diligent observance of the divinely established order.
- Status