You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
JW10631
Guest
I don’t agree that Iraq is worse off now than it was under Hussein, but for Iraqi Catholics, the Bush Administration let them down in a big way. They have been targeted by extremists and have been harassed, demonized, injured and killed with impunity.
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
Most of the Christians left as soon as they could. Those that didn’t weren’t given any seat at the table. I doubt there are too many left in the country.I don’t agree that Iraq is worse off now than it was under Hussein, but for Iraqi Catholics, the Bush Administration let them down in a big way. They have been targeted by extremists and have been harassed, demonized, injured and killed with impunity.
D
Dale_M
Guest
Quite a few did leave, but there seem to be a lot more remaining in the country.Most of the Christians left as soon as they could. Those that didn’t weren’t given any seat at the table. I doubt there are too many left in the country.
usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2010-06-01-iraq-christians_N.htmBefore the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 there were about 1.4 million Christians in Iraq, a Muslim-dominated nation of nearly 30 million. Since then, about 50% of Iraq’s Christians have fled the country, taking refuge in neighboring Jordan, Syria, Europe and the USA, according to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).
If that estimate is correct, then during the first part of 2010 approximately 700,000 Christians are still present in the country.
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
thanks for the info. My neighbor is an Iraqi Catholic. He may have overestimated the migration.Quite a few did leave, but there seem to be a lot more remaining in the country.
usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2010-06-01-iraq-christians_N.htm
If that estimate is correct, then during the first part of 2010 approximately 700,000 Christians are still present in the country.
M
MugenOne
Guest
My cubicle mate is a Chaldean Christian. He just told me that there are no more than 500,000 Christians in Iraq. I showed him this thread. According to him, secular west doesn’t give a damn about Christians in Iraq. Muslims are on a quest to exterminate Christians in Iraq once and for all, but nobody speaks up or says anything about it.
D
Dale_M
Guest
He may be right about the willful disinterest of the West. The abuse of Christians and their subsequent flight has been reported on repeatedly. I know I have started two or three threads here about the topic. But very few people seem to care - at least very few people in a position to do anything.According to him, secular west doesn’t give a damn about Christians in Iraq. Muslims are on a quest to exterminate Christians in Iraq once and for all, but nobody speaks up or says anything about it.
Here is a PBS news report from last month which gives a hint of what Christians have been experiencing there:
pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/july-23-2010/disappearing-christians-of-iraq/6701/
D
Dale_M
Guest
Well, yes, that does sound like something Kissinger would say. He was the master of Realpolitik.Henry Kissinger once said speaking about Iraq that covert action should not be confused with missionary work, and neither should US foreign policy in general.
However, human rights are important to many people, and certainly to Catholics. Naturally we would regard such matters as an appropriate issue for the foreign policy of our country.
K
Kadaveri
Guest
I don’t disagree with you, I think US foreign policy (or that of any country) should ideally defend human rights. It’s just the tone of this thread gives me the impression that people are *surprised *that the US doesn’t care about Iraqi Christians. US interests in Iraq are primarily about controlling its oil, the plight of Iraqi Christians is so irrelevant I doubt most US planners are even aware of it.However, human rights are important to many people, and certainly to Catholics. Naturally we would regard such matters as an appropriate issue for the foreign policy of our country.
J
JW10631
Guest
The US does not control Iraqi oil. If the US did control Iraqi oil, then tanker after tanker would be filled in Basra and brought to the USA without paying Iraq for any of it.I don’t disagree with you, I think US foreign policy (or that of any country) should ideally defend human rights. It’s just the tone of this thread gives me the impression that people are *surprised *that the US doesn’t care about Iraqi Christians. US interests in Iraq are primarily about controlling its oil, the plight of Iraqi Christians is so irrelevant I doubt most US planners are even aware of it.
The world doesn’t give a damn when Catholics - or Orthodox - are suppressed, and that goes back centuries. Islam long bullied Orthodoxy in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Copts have it very bad in Egypt. The Maronites may be forced to abandon Lebanon. Turkey oppresses the Ecumenical Patriarch.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
For a very long time, Christians in Iraq (also in Syria) were protected by the governments because, having no strong tribes behind them, they could not seize power or even combine with Muslim forces that wanted to seize power. Therefore, they were “trusted” because their very weakness made them trustworthy to whomever was in power. Jews were similarly “trusted” in Elizabethan England and in other times and places. That was particularly important in the Middle East when, as with Saddam’s regime, and with the Assad regime in Syria, the dominating power is a minority itself; strong enough to ally itself with other tribal groups but not strong enough to trust its allies.The US does not control Iraqi oil. If the US did control Iraqi oil, then tanker after tanker would be filled in Basra and brought to the USA without paying Iraq for any of it.
The world doesn’t give a damn when Catholics - or Orthodox - are suppressed, and that goes back centuries. Islam long bullied Orthodoxy in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Copts have it very bad in Egypt. The Maronites may be forced to abandon Lebanon. Turkey oppresses the Ecumenical Patriarch.
With Saddam gone, Muslim tribal groups, particularly the Shia, dominate the country. Ironically, “majority rule” in Islamic countries means the formerly useful minorities are no longer useful to the regime. In short, Muslim countries always oppress Christians unless there is some reason why the government needs them.
I know an Iraqi Christian, a Chaldean who is a close relative of Tariq Aziz. Aziz was certainly complicit with Saddam’s regime, but he also lived in fear of his life and that of his family every single day. Many were the Christians, including my friend, who left Iraq out of fear of Saddam, long before the Gulf War.
T
Trebor135
Guest
I agree with Kissinger. But protecting the lives and property of religious minorities like Iraq’s Chaldeans isn’t the same thing as attempting to change the faith of the majority. The U.S. military should not, and does not, do this–and we should thank heavens, because opposition to its presence and conduct would inevitably lead to the tarnishing of the Christian faith’s good name in the eyes of the occupied. But then, special protection for religious minorities would likely lead to the tarnishing of their own reputations, making them look like collaborators. So, a lose-lose situation.Henry Kissinger once said speaking about Iraq that covert action should not be confused with missionary work, and neither should US foreign policy in general.
Unfortunately, I think many Middle Eastern Christians–especially those in Iraq and Egypt–would be much better off immigrating to North America and Europe than remaining precariously in their native countries. The words of the bishop about its “flight from responsibility” aside, Washington is drowning in debt, its economy has of course fallen into deep recession, and it has to live up to its Status of Forces Agreement with Baghdad and withdraw all U.S. troops by the end of 2011. Even if this were not reality and the U.S. could afford to stay in Iraq financially, economically, and politically for several more years, what good would this do Iraqi Christians? They would have to rely on the goodwill of a foreign power to remain in their homeland and be protected from the ravages of their violent Islamist compatriots.
T
Trebor135
Guest
Very good observations. This highlights the need for more people like the Coptic Egyptian Father Zakaria Boutros. Through their work and divine help, the Middle East can be won over (or won back, if you look at it from the perspective of the seventh century CE) to Christ. If only the death penalty in Shari’a law for conversion from Islam could be abolished…For a very long time, Christians in Iraq (also in Syria) were protected by the governments because, having no strong tribes behind them, they could not seize power or even combine with Muslim forces that wanted to seize power. Therefore, they were “trusted” because their very weakness made them trustworthy to whomever was in power. Jews were similarly “trusted” in Elizabethan England and in other times and places. That was particularly important in the Middle East when, as with Saddam’s regime, and with the Assad regime in Syria, the dominating power is a minority itself; strong enough to ally itself with other tribal groups but not strong enough to trust its allies.
With Saddam gone, Muslim tribal groups, particularly the Shia, dominate the country. Ironically, “majority rule” in Islamic countries means the formerly useful minorities are no longer useful to the regime. In short, Muslim countries always oppress Christians unless there is some reason why the government needs them.
I know an Iraqi Christian, a Chaldean who is a close relative of Tariq Aziz. Aziz was certainly complicit with Saddam’s regime, but he also lived in fear of his life and that of his family every single day. Many were the Christians, including my friend, who left Iraq out of fear of Saddam, long before the Gulf War.
C
CathFaith1
Guest
US interests are very much with the people of good will as well. Unfortunately in many middle eastern countries when political Islam reins it perpetrates bigotry, inequality, violence and religious intolerance. Pope Benedict XVI’s speech at University of Regensburg explained it quite well.US interests in Iraq are primarily about controlling its oil, the plight of Iraqi Christians is so irrelevant I doubt most US planners are even aware of it.
D
Dale_M
Guest
To say that, I wonder if perhaps you have a limited understanding of US foreign policy in the 20th century Often our government backed oppressive regimes simply because it advanced our national interests. Doing so, however, did not necessarily advance the good people in those countries. The Islamic Revolution of Iran, for example, happened in part because we backed the Shah of Iran, who was not at all a nice guy. Similarly, we have backed a number of despotic regimes in Central America and Africa because it advanced US interests, but not necessarily the interests of the people of those countries.US interests are very much with the people of good will as well.
Kadveri quoted Henry Kissinger, and Kissinger’s thinking certainly dominated US foreign policy in the 1970s. But similar thinking pervaded much of US foreign policy before and after. Think of how the US abandoned the Kurds, who were poison gassed by Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, but since Saddam was our buddy at the time, we were willing to look the other way.
M
MugenOne
Guest
The only Chaldean Catholic Church in Basra, Iraq requires 24/7 security. Is there any mosque in the good US of A that equires that much security? Islam tolerance at its finest.
C
CathFaith1
Guest
The U.S. and many times British cooperative efforts to rid parts of the globe of communism, socialistic ideologies and soviet expansion was not void of helping those of good will. It helped all people who were opposed to these evils.To say that, I wonder if perhaps you have a limited understanding of US foreign policy in the 20th century Often our government backed oppressive regimes simply because it advanced our national interests. Doing so, however, did not necessarily advance the good people in those countries. The Islamic Revolution of Iran, for example, happened in part because we backed the Shah of Iran, who was not at all a nice guy. Similarly, we have backed a number of despotic regimes in Central America and Africa because it advanced US interests, but not necessarily the interests of the people of those countries.
That’s not to say the efforts to do such - especially since the late 1940’s have ever been successful. Unfortunately I am aware that intelligence agencies supported horrific acts that left many to suffer and die. Humanity, being in a fallen state, leaves much to be desired in our fight for justice. But the fight goes on…
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I think those who get the vapors over U.S. support of unappetizing regimes during the Cold War ought to ask themselves how many Pol Pots and Gulags they were willing to see established in the world in order to avoid the U.S. “advancing its national interests” and just how establishment of such regimes would have “necessarily advanced the good people in those countries.”To say that, I wonder if perhaps you have a limited understanding of US foreign policy in the 20th century Often our government backed oppressive regimes simply because it advanced our national interests. Doing so, however, did not necessarily advance the good people in those countries.
T
Trebor135
Guest
This is going very off-topic, but…I think those who get the vapors over U.S. support of unappetizing regimes during the Cold War ought to ask themselves how many Pol Pots and Gulags they were willing to see established in the world in order to avoid the U.S. “advancing its national interests” and just how establishment of such regimes would have “necessarily advanced the good people in those countries.”
Anger at U.S. support of authoritarian regimes during the Cold War, at least for me, derives from a desire not to see U.S. financial and moral support go to any party made unworthy of it by reprehensible conduct, whether the regime be pro-Western or Marxist in orientation. Being an accessory to or aider and abeter of murder is quite distasteful no matter how many actually die. And is it really possible to know for certain in most cases that any authoritarian regime the U.S. backed was actually less vicious than a hypothetical communist substitute? (One counterexample that comes to mind, however, is that of 1940s China–Chang-Kai Chek would have been infinitely preferable to the bloodthirsty Mao Zedong.)
And it’s ironic you bring up Pol Pot and his henchmen to make your point. It was full-scale U.S. military intervention in Vietnam–and more specifically, the huge bombing campaign over Cambodia that followed–which eventually set the stage for the Khmer Rouge to come to power in 1975.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.