The End of the Search

[Mijoy2]

Brad:

The greater percentage of regulars here defend the war on the basis of human rights, Hussein’s well documented ties to terrorism, and his use of WMDs in the past.

Those that have been liberated from the monster that was the regime of Hussein don’t really care whether Bush, Clinton, Putin and all other world leaders were right or wrong about WMDs.

As Catholics, we should care about all human beings that are oppressed, tortured, and killed. The failure would have been to not invade. Your assessment that this is only blind loyalty to Bush is untrue on this basis.

Frequently, the accusations of parisanship come from those that wish to justify voting for politicians that fund and support abortion.

I prefer to drop the labels and political party designations and discuss whether it was right or wrong from a Christian perspective.

Your post insinuates that the ends justifies the means. The problem with supporting an ends-justifying-a-means is that it indirectly supports vigilanty-ism. A process of doing an unaccountable good, is that when it’s verdict is incorrect its evil is often worse then the proposed evil. Such as punishing an innocent party. Obviously I am not refering to Hussein.

I’m not saying that invading Iraq did more harm then good. Nor am I accusing President Bush of lying (although possibly to himself). I am suggsting only that we are there completely under false pretences and the aministration has not simply said. “we were wrong”. Bushes most frequent statemnent in this regard is that “the people of Iraq are better off”. Which poses the question; on whose authority should we dispose of all people in this world of which the world would be better off without?

Everytime I hear President Bush say that I cringe. It reminds me of a 5 year old, who when confronted with something he did that was wrong and asked why he did it, he says, “because”. That particualr answer of the President is an insult to all just-minded thinking American people.

 

[Mijoy2]

Lance:

I was taught that respect is earned not given.

secular teaching. I think Jesus taught otherwise.

 

[jlw]

I hope it is okay to express my opinion here.

Welcome! Just be really reasoned and ready to back up your opinions with facts rather than more opinions.

President Bush invaded Iraq on the principle cause of Suddam Hussein possesing weapons of mass destruction.

True, among several other reasons, so the Senate Resolution authorizing the OIF layed out. I think there were 7 reasons in all.

There were/are none.

Half right. THERE WERE weapons. He used them in his own people. He did not account for all the weapons. Clinton bombed Iraq in ’ 98 based on this fact. The fact that they have not been found in a nice neat storagge facility IN IRAQ is true. But WHAT BECAME OF THEM??? There has been no proof to show us if they were sold, destroyed, or smuggled. Make sense??

All other reasons for invading were possed as secondary causes regardless of how evil these atrocities were.

I think you are right, here. AND…embarrassing as it is to our CIA (and MANY foreign intellegence sources as well) the war on terror has two components: 1) stop crazies from killing, being financed, or supported by governments, and 2) promote freedom. Where people are free to self-determine their lives, there is less terrorism!! Just a basic fact.

None of these other atrocities were ever put on the table as a potential reason in and of itself for invading, regardless of thier respective worthiness of an invasion. This is completely beside the point.

False, false, false. Overwhelmed by the WMD issues after 9/11?? Very true. But still, yout claim that they were “never put on the table” is false.

We are in Iraq under false pretenses. Our President is responsible. I only wish, in retrospect, that President Bush either posed Husseins human atrocities as a valid reson for invading Iraq irrespective of whether they possessed WMD. It may have taken a more agressive effort on the part of his administration to build such a case with the American people BUT, it would have legitimized our invasion. Or, I wish he’d fully admit to his administrations failure. Mistakes are not in and of themselves wrong. Failure to own up to them is.

Worthy thought IN HINDSIGHT. Bush, like Clinton, like Roosevelt, like Johnson got intel from the field. It is either right, or wrong. Very embarrassing that it is, IN HINDSIGHT, wrong. Should we have laughed at Clinton when he bombed that sspirin factory?? No. I blamed the CIA. I blame the CIA (and the UN, and British,the RUssians,etc etc etcfor its faulty intel too). Bush did not make a mistake. He took what he got from professionals, IN A POST-9/11 WORLD, and decided to take the word of many intellegence agencies over that of a cold-blooded egomaniacal tyrannical killer who broke a peace treaty and defied the UN 17 times in 12 years.

As a Catholic who visits these threads I find it disturbing, at best, to witness the significantly greater percentage of regulars here who back our president 100% and totally disregard his monumental failure in fully admitting that we were wrong. To me it shows partisianship at any cost.

We don’t back the president 100%. We critize him too. We just see the facts and see that to pin it on one man is SILLY. Bush-hatred is what drives the left. The right has it’s blind-spots too, but we value reason over emotional partisanship any day of the week.

President Bush was wrong

Because his intelllegence agencies were wrong. The same intel that Kerry got, that Boxer, got the Kennedy got, that EVERY member of the senate got. So did those who voted for the war MISLEAD us?? Is John Kerry a LIAR, too?? NO. He may be a lousy candidate, but he saw the intel, and reached the same conclusions as Bush did. Why don’t you sentd the lynch mob to Kerry’s house, too??? You won’t, becaue he thinks it’s all Bush’s fault, even though he saw the same intel and shared the same fears as Bush did.

 

[jlw]

Scott_Lafrance:

Theoretical common sense conspiracy musings.

That puts be just a few clicks right of the fever swamp.

 

[Brad]

Mijoy2:

Your post insinuates that the ends justifies the means. The problem with supporting an ends-justifying-a-means is that it indirectly supports vigilanty-ism. A process of doing an unaccountable good, is that when it’s verdict is incorrect its evil is often worse then the proposed evil. Such as punishing an innocent party. Obviously I am not refering to Hussein.

I’m not saying that invading Iraq did more harm then good. Nor am I accusing President Bush of lying (although possibly to himself). I am suggsting only that we are there completely under false pretences and the aministration has not simply said. “we were wrong”. Bushes most frequent statemnent in this regard is that “the people of Iraq are better off”. Which poses the question; on whose authority should we dispose of all people in this world of which the world would be better off without?

Everytime I hear President Bush say that I cringe. It reminds me of a 5 year old, who when confronted with something he did that was wrong and asked why he did it, he says, “because”. That particualr answer of the President is an insult to all just-minded thinking American people.

I see those statements as more of a leadership quality. The people of Iraq are better off and Bush is not afraid to say that. Saying that “we were wrong” simply strengthens the terrorists to kill more of the innocent.

As far as your comment of “disposing of all peple in this world” goes, you still don’t seem to understand that Sadaam was literally disposing and the United States liberated the potentially disposed from the disposer.

The ends do justify the means in this case.

The civil war was a terrible tragedy of monumental suffering and death. But, I would assume you agree that our nation is better off as a result of that tragedy?

 

[Lance]

Mijoy2:

secular teaching. I think Jesus taught otherwise.

I remember ‘Love thy neighbor’ but don’t remember anything about respect. Could you point me to it?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Lance:

I remember ‘Love thy neighbor’ but don’t remember anything about respect. Could you point me to it?

Not a direct quote from Jesus, but rather St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7. “Love is patient, love is kind; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist in its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes in all things, and endures all things.” While this passage may not directly mention anything about being respectful, it does speak pretty strongly about not being disrespectful.

 

[ry56]

jlw:

Me: they have a pretty good idea what became of them. Syria or Russia probably…

The fact remains that the war was promoted by Bush and Blair as a response to an imminent threat, Tony Blair going so far as to claim that a WMD attack by Saddam Hussein could be executed in as little as 45 minutes.

With weapons nowhere to be found, no matter what other country they may be hidden in if they even exist at all, an “imminent threat” from Saddam Hussein clearly did not exist. How imminent a threat can there be from a man who has no access to his alleged weapons?

It’s time for people to face the fact that the war in Iraq is the first stage in a plan to restructure the Middle East. Iraq was chosen not because it posed any threat to the US, but because it was perceived as being the easiest place to begin such a campaign.

This is apparent in the change in Bush’s rhetoric. Bush no longer speaks of the “imminent threat” posed by Iraq, there quite obviously was none. Now Bush’s rhetoric centers on spreading “Democracy and freedom,” a message that is quite laughable coming from the leader of a country where millions of legalized abortions have been, and continue to be performed; where pornography is one of the most profitable and successful industries; where Jesus is routinely blasphemed in our media; and where modernism and secularism are the prevailing philosophies.

These things are anathema to Muslims and that is what they equate with US “freedom and Democracy.” Is it any wonder that they resist the US invasion of their land?

I most definitely do not agree with the teachings of Islam, but one must respect the sincerity with which most Muslims practice their religion and how moral corruption which is so rampant in the US hardly exists where Muslims live as a result of their adherence to their faith. US “Christians” would do well to live according to the tenants of their faith as Muslims do, lest the US crusade of “Freedom and Democracy” be rightly perceived by Muslims as a crusade of moral corruption.

 

[Shoshana]

Lance:

I remember ‘Love thy neighbor’ but don’t remember anything about respect. Could you point me to it?

Yes, it is in the bible to treat others better than ourselves, actually to look at the other as greater than ourselves. Just can’t find the quote right now…

Blessings,
Shoshana

 

[jlw]

The fact remains that the war was promoted by Bush and Blair as a response to an imminent threat,

Not imminent!! He said no such thing!! He said it was a threat, at least an emerging threat. One that a President in good conscience could not sit idly by while a madman may (or may not, but who knows for sure?) be making or giving WMD to our terrorsit foes.

Tony Blair going so far as to claim that a WMD attack by Saddam Hussein could be executed in as little as 45 minutes.

Based on faulty intel, apparently this was a fair assumption??

With weapons nowhere to be found, no matter what other country they may be hidden in if they even exist at all, an “imminent threat” from Saddam Hussein clearly did not exist.

WHAT? Again, one, they never said imminent. Two, if those weapons DO exist and they are now in the hands of terrorists, or governments sympathetic to terrorists, how can it be argued Saddam was just minding his own business??? Three, by the way, is that the horrible conditions Saddam kept his people in for his years of dispicable governance, have been blamed on the US by him and his propagandists. He certainly fueled the fire of US hatred…just a little bit???

How imminent a threat can there be from a man who has no access to his alleged weapons?

And you KNOW this to be true??? No access?? No means of financing such things?? No plans for future armaments??The Dulfuer Report says otherwise.

It’s time for people to face the fact that the war in Iraq is the first stage in a plan to restructure the Middle East. Iraq was chosen not because it posed any threat to the US, but because it was perceived as being the easiest place to begin such a campaign.

HEY. Now that’s a reasoned argument!! Yes, my friend. You are correct. Liberating Afghanistan and Iraq will have far-reaching consequences for our national security. Of course, Iraq and Saddam were different from all these other countries for a variety of reasons. Although, BASED ON INTEL from MANY COUNTRIES, he did pose a threat.

This is apparent in the change in Bush’s rhetoric. Bush no longer speaks of the “imminent threat” posed by Iraq, there quite obviously was none.

Nope. Sorry. No change. And in hindsight, HE doesn’t have the WMD he once had, but we still don’t know what became of it. Also, the Oil-for-Food scandal you guys all ignore has yet to uncover what we all suspect–“money for terrorism” is more like it.

Now Bush’s rhetoric centers on spreading “Democracy and freedom,” a message that is quite laughable coming from the leader of a country where millions of legalized abortions have been, and continue to be performed; where pornography is one of the most profitable and successful industries; where Jesus is routinely blasphemed in our media; and where modernism and secularism are the prevailing philosophies.

HUH?? ry56…this is Houston, do you copy???

Freedom doesn’t mean Christain morality! Democracy doesn’t mean evil is gone! But freedom and democracy is based on some fundamental rights that all human beings have: life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

And you think Bush should do what?? What should he do about abortion, porn, media bias, and mushy morality in our day??? Become a tyrant?? Arrest all abortionst, porn stars, reporters, and liberal democrats on the spot?? This is not Mussolini’s Italy, Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, or Saddam’s Iraq!!! This the United States of America, land of the free, home of the brave (and imperfect!). Do we need to go through an 8th grade civics class as to the constitutional separation of powers of our federal government and the scope of the 1st and 4th ammendemnts to our Constitution, etc??

These things are anathema to Muslims and that is what they equate with US “freedom and Democracy.” Is it any wonder that they resist the US invasion of their land?

HEY, Another sallient point! I DON"T DISAGREE WITH YOU IN THE SLIGHTEST. Of course, most of this slime of our western culture can be pinned on modern liberalism!!

I most definitely do not agree with the teachings of Islam, but one must respect the sincerity with which most Muslims practice their religion and how moral corruption which is so rampant in the US hardly exists where Muslims live as a result of their adherence to their faith. US “Christians” would do well to live according to the tenants of their faith as Muslims do, lest the US crusade of “Freedom and Democracy” be rightly perceived by Muslims as a crusade of moral corruption.

I hope to goodness that the government that Iraq devises will be a true representative democracy controlled by moral seculaists, but with a major respect for morality and resisting the sewer pipe flowing out of Hollywood, CA.

 

[Richardols]

jlw:

Of course, most of this slime of our western culture can be pinned on modern liberalism!!.

Oh? Pornography seems to be a product of the free expression guaranteed by the 1st Amendment and promiscuity and other sins of the flesh aren’t restricted to liberals. The pro-life and conservative Henry Hyde had zipper trouble just as some liberal politicians did. As for abortion, though religious conservatives oppose it, both liberal and conservative women have availed themselves of it.

I think that the social ills of our country can’t be pinned on any one thing so that we ought to be cautious when trying to point fingers.

 

[jlw]

Richardols:

Oh? Pornography seems to be a product of the free expression guaranteed by the 1st Amendment and promiscuity and other sins of the flesh aren’t restricted to liberals. The pro-life and conservative Henry Hyde had zipper trouble just as some liberal politicians did. As for abortion, though religious conservatives oppose it, both liberal and conservative women have availed themselves of it.

I think that the social ills of our country can’t be pinned on any one thing so that we ought to be cautious when trying to point fingers.

Note my friend, I didn’t say conservatives AREN’t misbehaving. No, no no.

I said that LIBERALISM, a lax, and liberal interpretation of morality, and it’s baby sister RELATIVISM, contributes greatly to our 'situational ethics" society where “anything goes” as long as you feel good about it, and if it goes wrong, it’s not our fault. Yet when people do wrong against us, if probably is our fault. Wacky stuff.

LIBERALISM is a virus that has affected humanity ever since Eve was weak and prideful and Adam was weak and lazy. But the worst of liberalism has twisted the 1st amendment for it’s own gain: the "right"to expression(porn), the “right” to privacy(abortion), the “right” to dissent (undermine America), a “right” for two people to “marry” and have benefits??

I’m a big fan of the 1st ammendment. I don’t want governemnt to shut down free speech, however dispicable. I think WE ought to marginalize those who do harm to society only by exercising OUR 1st ammendment rights. That, I think we can agree on.

 

[Shoshana]

Shoshana:

Yes, it is in the bible to treat others better than ourselves, actually to look at the other as greater than ourselves. Just can’t find the quote right now…

Blessings,
Shoshana

Therefore if there is any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and mercy, fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind, let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests , but also for the interests of others.

Phillipians 2, 1-4

 

[Lance]

Shoshana:

Therefore if there is any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and mercy, fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind, let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests , but also for the interests of others.

Phillipians 2, 1-4

IMO love and respect are 2 different things. I love my wife but do not respect her views on quantum physics.

 

[ry56]

jlw:

Freedom doesn’t mean Christain morality!

Well, actually, to Catholics, that’s exactly what freedom means. This is a Catholic Forum, isn’t it?

jlw:

And you think Bush should do what?? What should he do about abortion, porn, media bias, and mushy morality in our day??? Become a tyrant?? Arrest all abortionst, porn stars, reporters, and liberal democrats on the spot??

I’m not so interested in what Bush should do as I am in what Catholics should do. If Catholics live and vote as they should, in promotion of the social kingship of Christ, these problems would not exist to the degree that they do, if at all.

That is my point. Muslims take their faith seriously and they don’t have these problems of moral corruption. If Catholics did the same, neither would they have these problems.

jlw:

Do we need to go through an 8th grade civics class …

No, but it seems that we could use a catechism class.

jlw:

I hope to goodness that the government that Iraq devises will be a true representative democracy controlled by moral seculaists, but with a major respect for morality…

All the hope in the world for such a thing would be in vein.

I’ve never even heard of such a thing as a “moral secularist” I’ve certainly never seen one.

Morals don’t come from man, they come from God. In any secular government morality is the first casualty. Sure, they provide replacements which they call “morality” such as “a woman’s right to choose” to kill, and “the rights of the state supersede those of the individual,” but calling these things “morality” does not make it so.

 

[jlw]

ry56:Well, actually, to Catholics, that’s exactly what freedom means. This is a Catholic Forum, isn’t it?

Right, but you were critising Bush for the social ills of our society, and it being “laughable” that he speaks about freedom. Freedom means having FREE WILL to choose right and wrong (Yes, from our view, Christ or sin). But Bush is not pushing Christianity on Muslims, and that was my point.

I’m not so interested in what Bush should do as I am in what Catholics should do.

Balogna. That’s not what you said, though. You were saying how “laughable” Bush was given the social ills in the country he currently presides over!!

If Catholics live and vote as they should, in promotion of the social kingship of Christ, these problems would not exist to the degree that they do, if at all.

Very, very true, my friend.

That is my point. Muslims take their faith seriously and they don’t have these problems of moral corruption. If Catholics did the same, neither would they have these problems.

Well, there are a few who blow people up or chop off peoples head in the name of Islam. Women are gang raped, but don’t have recouse unless four different men come forward as witnesses. The literacy rate in lslamic countries is abismal. Human trafficing and slavery is alive and well in Muslim countries. Honor killings are par for the course?? Death penaly for women if adultrous?? I understand your point about Muslims resisting the scum of western culture, but they have some problems too, eh??.

No, but it seems that we could use a catechism class

.
No argument here. Sorely needed in this country

All the hope in the world for such a thing would be in vein.

I don’t think so.

I’ve never even heard of such a thing as a “moral secularist” I’ve certainly never seen one.

Fair point. But our country is run by “moral secularists”. It lead to some pretty bad lawmaking, but compared to tyranny, it’s a vast improvement. MY POINT: I don’t want mullahs running a country, I want moral men running the country.

Morals don’t come from man, they come from God. In any secular government morality is the first casualty. Sure, they provide replacements which they call “morality” such as “a woman’s right to choose” to kill, and “the rights of the state supersede those of the individual,” but calling these things “morality” does not make it so.

I don’t disagree with you. But we are not looking for Bagdad to become Buffalo and Tikrit to become Toledo. What Iraq needs on a SEPARATION from the mullacracies that have kept the Middle East seven centuries behind the rest of the world. The government will be based in large part on Muslim codes of conduct, I’m sure, but without the mullahs directly involved in decision-making. It appears that the Sistani list that is going to win will govern in this way thankfully.