M
mikew262
Guest
- Status
A
AndyF
Guest
AndyF:
Angry?, Nawww, a little sad how patriotism blinds people to national caution and apathy.
Although, I don’t think you are thinking this through clearly. The events you describe is not Gospel, or written down like some code of conduct. It is in fact a case of immorality.
The genocide that the potential ally is committing would morally override the desire to have Saddam assist Reagan in his strategy. If the global mission is to save those in oppression, and that overrides every man’s/nation’s personal mission, then on Reagan’s first discovery of Saddam’s corruption, he would have first taken care of the Kurd problem involving thousands, then the Iran hostages. God wants us to do things with the power He gives man/nations.
In fact this event trumps up any position the US makes in it’s argument on human rights. It tables it’s views with the conclusion that “one of ours, is worth more than thousands of yours”, and goes on with the crusade of hunting down those for human rights violations. Chivalrous indeed, what a farce.
Your concuring with this decision is astounding coming from a Global Catholic.
What of the time between his knowing about it and his success with the Iranian hostages? Did all those Kurds who took a bullet agree that Reagan had to save a few first no matter how long it takes? Did they understand Reagan’s tea parties and diplomatic luncheons?, of course they did, as everyone is bound to the “US Gospel”.
You are trying to advance the US doctrine of “Our Way is the Devine Way”, but the reality is the history of overthrows and deceptions the US has intiated reads more like the Book of Necromacy.
I would recommend you read “Body of Secrets” by Bamford. If you still feel the same fine, but uncover the complete truth first, then make a decision.
Actually, no, and you make my point again. There is an American appointed judge. Power corrupts absolutley, why stop now when your on a roll.
Better get informed man.
Andy
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Please do that. Until then, we will file this as an “unproven allegation.”
Please give us a cite for this, as well.
Then you should be able to easily find cites.
C
cargau
Guest
cargau:
Angry?, Nawww, a little sad how patriotism blinds people to national caution and apathy.
That’s a pretty condescending attitude…
Although, I don’t think you are thinking this through clearly. The events you describe is not Gospel, or written down like some code of conduct. It is in fact a case of immorality.
The genocide that the potential ally is committing would morally override the desire to have Saddam assist Reagan in his strategy. If the global mission is to save those in oppression, and that overrides every man’s/nation’s personal mission, then on Reagan’s first discovery of Saddam’s corruption, he would have first taken care of the Kurd problem involving thousands, then the Iran hostages.
Reagan was the president of the United States, not the world! No national leader can assume accountability for every attrocity wrought by tyrants. Was FDR responsible for Hitler? The second world war may have freed the Jews, but the reason for going to war to to stop Germany’s aggression. The reason we went to war was for National Security, not some noble ideal like saving mankind…Get real, people die at the hands of thugs every day and as tragic as that is, very few national leaders will rise to stop it unless there is something that benefits the aiding country.
God wants us to do things with the power He gives man/nations.
You know, I am not convinced that the US’s strategy to go into Iraq was the best one. I hope that those you chastise will one day be vindicated as the turmoil in the Middle East subsides. I don’t know if history will prove that the sacrifices Americans are making to win this war on terror are worth the cost in lives and dollars, but, I am willing to see this through in the hope that a better world will exist for all of humanity.
In fact this event trumps up any position the US makes in it’s argument on human rights. It tables it’s views with the conclusion that “one of ours, is worth more than thousands of yours”, and goes on with the crusade of hunting down those for human rights violations. Chivalrous indeed, what a farce.
Every nation’s leaders has the duty to protect it’s own citizens. It would be silly if Paul Martin did more for the Chinese than he did for Canadiens. Of course, they will put the rights and needs of their own people ahead of others. That’s only natural…
Your concuring with this decision is astounding coming from a Global Catholic.
What exactly is a “Global” Catholic and how do you know that I am one?
What of the time between his knowing about it and his success with the Iranian hostages? Did all those Kurds who took a bullet agree that Reagan had to save a few first no matter how long it takes? Did they understand Reagan’s tea parties and diplomatic luncheons?, of course they did, as everyone is bound to the “US Gospel”.
I never heard of the term “US Gospel”. If you are somehow implying that I am incapable of thinking this through without the benefit drinking the grape juice, then I can only say that, perhaps, you need to consider if you might be the one who is being swept up…
You are trying to advance the US doctrine of “Our Way is the Devine Way”, but the reality is the history of overthrows and deceptions the US has intiated reads more like the Book of Necromacy.
So, you oppose the notion that Saddam has been deposed? Would Iraqis be better off with Hussein in power?
I would recommend you read “Body of Secrets” by Bamford. If you still feel the same fine, but uncover the complete truth first, then make a decision.
OK, what makes Bamford the purveyor of “truth”.
Actually, no, and you make my point again. There is an American appointed judge. Power corrupts absolutley, why stop now when your on a roll.
Power when abused can certainly be a corrupting force. But to say that “power corrupts absolutely” suggests that all power is corrupting. Jesus had the power to heal and forgive men’s sins. Was Jesus “absolutely corrupted”?
Better get informed man.
Andy, I try to remain openminded and offer alternative angles. Actually, I have read a great deal and given these matters a lot of thought. If being informed means that I must share the manner of your outlook, then I would submit that I would rather stay ignorant…
M
mary_bobo
Guest
If you believe that the Civil War was only about slavery, I invite you to go back and check and history book written before the revisionism of history took over. Just so you know, I am not saying this in an arrogant way, just a humble suggestion.
C
cargau
Guest
Hi Mary,
I thought my last sentence in that post alluded to the fact that the war was fought to preserve the Union, not free the slaves (perceived valuable commodity).
I was trying to draw the comparison that war in Iraq was and continues to be fought to fight terrorism and depose an evil, arrogant tyrant that poses a threat to the civilized world, not to sustain a steady flow of oil (perceived valuable commodity).
Happy New Year…
I thought my last sentence in that post alluded to the fact that the war was fought to preserve the Union, not free the slaves (perceived valuable commodity).
I was trying to draw the comparison that war in Iraq was and continues to be fought to fight terrorism and depose an evil, arrogant tyrant that poses a threat to the civilized world, not to sustain a steady flow of oil (perceived valuable commodity).
Happy New Year…
M
mary_bobo
Guest
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
A
AndyF
Guest
AndyF:
Bush would disagree, has many times he said he was at war with global terrorism.cargau:
No one said he was accountable, but we are accountable to fix the problem if the opportunity presents itself, and it did for Reagan. That doesn’t mean to study a collective’s natural resources to see if it can be classified as saveable first. Perhaps it’s just a coincidencel that the Kurds did not claim ownership of the oil wells, because then Reagan would find reason for saving them.
So now we are interested in trying them for war crimes at Nuremburg? So we have a “pick and choose your situation”
again, don’t we? The US promotes good will when it has nothing to sacrifice, but when it has it’s own best interest at stake it can find every benevolent excuse to go in and do something.
Excuse me, but at the outset of the war(?) Bush said they were definitley there NOT for the oil. Now in the latest news he says in so many words that he has a mandate to protect the natural resources of Iraq??? Seems to me (tongue in cheek) he would have realized that at the outset of the war.?? And what about all the court marshalled soldiers in the early part of the war that refused to go because they felt it was because of the oil.?
Some feel they have an option to become selective in which thugs to fight. They see nothing wrong in examing their pockets to see what’ “natural resources” they have in their wallets before deciding how bad they are. In all the past history of “thugs” that Haiti has had, something was lacking to cause intervention. What do you think that was? It would cost 1/2000 the cost of the Iraq war to establish a democratic goverment there with the infrastructure for commerce.
End justifying the means.
(Ans II)
A
AndyF
Guest
Not has an ideal, but perhaps due to a collective lack of trust of God, it is has gained some belief among the populace.
If we are ever to realize the world Christ as envisaged, we need the courage to take it out of the free will of individuals and apply it to the free will of collectives as well. Individuals can only effect so much in a social environment. Christ’s message works on a social scale as well if only a brave nation would give it a try. Fear is the culprit. Perhaps if we empty our banks to help Haiti or some other 3rd World nation, perhaps we will be in a hopeless situation they think. That is mistrust in God collectively, just as it would be in an individual case.
I am assuming you are Catholic, the default on this forum. As a Catholic I can make some presumptions about you, and you of me. He is one who places and applies the Doctrine of the Church as a gauge for the moral conduct of nations and individuals, and uses it as a final deciding Authority in all decisions that have been made. It is the “acid test” of all laws that are decreed. Since all nations and individuals are fallible, then a nation cannot be counted on as an unfailing roll model for moral conduct. In such a wordly state, it is inevitable that conflicts will arise, and the Catholic becomes a Global one, a diplomat for the Holy See, not to his nation, who will bind himself to nations that hold to true Doctrine first, just as Christ warned of individuals allying themselves with evil, we must do the same at a social scale as well. It is then that true Catholics/Christians show their metal.
and the answers are …
… pending.
The thought has crossed my mind that perhaps you were one of those Americans who places patriotism ahead of Doctrine, not uncommon in this war(?) atmosphere of many in the past, where the US as coincidentally found yet another reason to fight a war every decade or so. The world asks, what are the odds?
Of course, and even by your nation’s standard it is a miscarriage. I believe it is a conflict of interest to have the arresting party the same person prosecuting and judging(US).
I think he should be tried by the UN, in every facet, and turn away from the proceedings to let it take it’s course. If the US, as one of the founding fathers of it, is really bound to it’s principles they should hand him over to them. Also, most importantly, any complicity the US has had in any of Saddam’s doings should come to trial as well, with the same options in sentencing, no double standard. Saddam should have access to information on the Guatemalin involvement of the US. The records of the United Fruit Company and it’s links to Eisenhower’s and Dulles’s stock holdings. Any court system has first to prove credibility, then proceed with trial. See any problem with that, of course I mean as a Catholic, not a US citizen?
Ok, how about curiosity in the duty of national interest. Why did the FBI and NSA try to have his book banned and pulled from the shelves?
No of course not, But I am interested in the extent people are willing to apply their religious beliefs. A great majority feel it stops at social issues, and the underdog must always be the individual, never the state or the leaders.Andy, I try to remain openminded and offer alternative angles. Actually, I have read a great deal and given these matters a lot of thought. If being informed means that I must share the manner of your outlook, then I would submit that I would rather stay ignorant…
Interesting post.
Thanks,
Andy
E
estesbob
Guest
mary bobo:
Conversly the North didnt go to war to end slavery-they went to war to stop the Southern States from Seceding-states who seceded over slavery. No slavery>>>>no secession>>>>>No war
An excellent resource for researching this is members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html
Of course the Civil War was over slavery. Go back and read the articles of secession by the Southern States-they made no secret that they were seceding over slavery. In fact they boasted about it.
Conversly the North didnt go to war to end slavery-they went to war to stop the Southern States from Seceding-states who seceded over slavery. No slavery>>>>no secession>>>>>No war
An excellent resource for researching this is members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html
M
mary_bobo
Guest
Of course the War was over slavery? That is much too simplistic.
The north was an industrial/manufacturing entity and the south was agrarian. The issue was states rights, whether the new states coming into the union would be “free” states or “slave” states. This also had to do with the electoral votes for president and representation in Congress. South thought each person should could and North thought that gave the South an unfair advantage because of the slaves working on the plantations. In view of these reasons, it then became an issue over slavery, but that is not the way it started. But it sure ended up that way and today that is what we hear. More of revisionist history, me thinks.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
mary bobo:
When Secretary Staunton visited England after the war, he spoke before the House of Commons. When he used the phrase “This war fought to end slavery,” the House members shouted back at him, “No! No! The tariff! The tariff!”
Another cause for separation was the tariff. This favored the northern manufacturing states because it made it impossible for the southern agricultural states to buy cheaper manufactured goods from overseas.
When Secretary Staunton visited England after the war, he spoke before the House of Commons. When he used the phrase “This war fought to end slavery,” the House members shouted back at him, “No! No! The tariff! The tariff!”
E
estesbob
Guest
vern humphrey:
The Tarrif was a minor issue-read the articles of secession-I provided the link. In Fact the Tarrif Act in effect at the time the war started had recievd more Votes frm Southern Congressman than Northern Congressman. The idea that Tarrifa and States rights was he cause of the WAR came about AFTER war-as your ancedote indicate.
E
estesbob
Guest
mary bobo:
Read the Artilces of secession Tthere was no disagreement among the Southern States as to why they were seceding-they loudly and proudly proclaimed it was over slavery
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Wars are complex and the Civil War is no exception.
Fundamentally, the south feared the growing economic and political power of the north. Slavery or “property rights” served as a convenient rallying cry. Just as later abolition of slavery served to rally the north.
C
Catholic
Guest
I have some questions about cooperation with the military. Suppose a person helps test missiles for the military. These products could be used for operations that are just or (at the present time, perhaps) unjust.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
This is the Catholic position from the CCC:
Paragraph 2308 tells us that we must work for peace, but it may be necessary to go to war. Paragraph 2309 sets forth the conditions for Just War and assigns the authority and responsibility for evaluating those conditions to the government, not to the individual citizen (who has neither the training nor the knowledge of conditions to make such a judgement)
Paragraph 2310 say the government can – in fact has a duty – to call upon the citizenry to defend the country.
Paragraph 2311 makes provision for conscientious objectors, but for Catholics (except for those with religious vows) it is difficult to honestly claim to be a conscientious objector in light of paragraphs 2309 and 2310.
Finally, rephrase the question: Suppose a person helps build automobiles for sale. These products could be used for activities that are just or (at the present time, perhaps) unjust. Someone might use the car you built as a getaway car in a crime, or commit a hit and run accident, or drive while drunk.
C
Catholic
Guest
Ok. I guess it just seems that if a war is currently going on that one believes is unjust, then cooperation would be difficult to do in good conscience.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Your conscience must be informed by the Church, and the Church (in paragraph 2310 of the Catechism) has placed the responsibility and authority of judging the justice of the war on the government, not on the individual citizen.
Furthermore, in 2311, the Church places a responsibility on those who are legitimate conscious objectors to serve in some capacity.
C
cargau
Guest
- Status