L
liberational
Guest
The people, not America. Did you ever think that maybe people don’t want an American brand of freedom at the end of a gun?
- Status
B
BamaRider
Guest
Did you ever think people might not want Catholicism brand of Christianity? Does that mean you don’t want to export it?
I’m not saying you force your will by arms, but I am saying you support by whatever means is necessary those that ask.
Were you around when Solidarity brought down the Polish Communists and in turn the rest of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Empire? JP II had a lot to do with that. Good thing he didn’t listen to those those that said it was too hard.
Now the Chruch is once again thriving in those lands.
I don’t know what happened in Quebec, you say they have abandoned the Church, I don’t know maybe they did, but THE point is, we can work to reverse that trend WITHOUT being jailed. Sheeesh.
This can be true in many cases. But they are gonna have to have support from the outside. That could be political pressure or whatever. They have to know when it gets tough, they can count on us not to leave them hanging.
You think the people of Iraq get ride of saddam without shooting? He’s just gonna step down? In some situations it can be a peaceful overthrow, but most of the time, no, the dictator is not going quietly.
L
liberational
Guest
40 years ago, Quebec was the absolute most devoutly Catholic Province in the entire country. The Church had their hands in education, health care, culture and politics.
In Quebec, it was known as the Quiet Revolution. In one generation, Quebecers abandoned the Church and today, Quebec is now the most secular province in the Country.
Now, onto JP II, he was a huge part of what you speak, but he did not do it with a military.
B
bobzills
Guest
Correct. The Prime Minister has indicated that he wants a timetable for US withdrawal of troops. This is the legitimate leader of the country.
B
bobzills
Guest
The brutal naked aggression of America in invading and occupying a small country is obvious.
L
liberational
Guest
Who represents the citizens, or do you not understand how democracy works?
B
bobzills
Guest
It certainly is not President Bush or Condelezza Rice. who represent the people of Iraq.
The Prime Minister of Iraq has publicly stated his support for the troop withdrawal timetable.
I do not believe you are reading the same thread as everyone else here.
No one here has suggested that what the Iraqis want does not matter. The words did come out once, but Verisimilitude was being sarcastic about it.
Long on words, short on facts.
I would agree, I do not believe anyone here is in support of permanent presence (although that may well happen).
Does anyone know the conditions attached to this request?
Does anyone know the timetable?
It would be two entirely different things if the man requests a timetable for a troop withdrawal, unconditional, by 2010 as opposed to a troop withdrawal, assuming certain conditions are met, by 2010.
Simply stating he supports a timetable without any other information is meaningless.
B
BamaRider
Guest
No, but he had a partner in Ronald Reagan. And it was the political pressure of the United States, and the arms race we subjected the Soviets into, that caused them to implode, along with John Paul’s influence in the world. He supported those trapped in oppression, and spoke for them everyday. He did not leave them hanging. The communists had to deal with the pressure of the Vatican AND the United States, and in the end it was too much.
You say the people must decide if they want freedom. I agree, but first you have to expose them to it, now how ya gonna do that sitting on your hands? I’m sure you would like to see China coverted to Catholicism, do you suggest not sending missionaries in theatre, and just wait for them to decide on their own? Ohhhh I see, that’s different huh? How so?
You say you can’t wish American freedom on everyone, and I say ANY people are better for it, freedom is not confined just to people of certain races or religion, but a desire longed for by all. One of the basic principals of Catholic human rights is people should be free to worship, the United States works to make that happen for as many as it can, with very little help from anyone else, and in fact over the objections of many such as you in its own borders.
I’m not for advancing the Faith by the sword, but I am for defending it where you find it, and not being driven out by violence. In the case of Quebec it is being driven out by secularism, in that case you answer with all the peaceful means at your disposal. I hope the faithful in Quebec don’t retreat into a shell.
I believe once people are given American Freedom’s they’ll never go back to what they had. Do you think otherwise?
I stand by the premise freedom makes it easier and safer to export Catholicism, so I have “other” motivies for seeing freedom spread. If we had not been proactive in Eastern Europe, they’d still be lving under the yoke, and if the leaders had been under the mindset of “not our business” they’d still be wating.
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
Are you suggesting the US military is acting at the behest of the Church?
No they do not. Personal liberty and religious freedom go hand in hand. The democracies of Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt…do not permit religious freedom as Americans understand it.
What part of the US military are trained as priests? If you are suggesting we make war to allow priests and workers unmolested access to areas for evangalization…i will ask you the same question I have asked since my very first post on this thread that has yet to be given a response: What Doctrine of teh Church supports your idea and what in the US Constitution permits such action?
Because we gave them the opportunity to attack Americans when otherwise they could not reach us.
So picking the worst possible place to try and help a few makes sense? We could help many more with much less risk and harm to others than Iraq.
Led by the US military? No. It is not their function or mission. Why do you think it is?
Nothing about the Catholic faith, nothing in Scripture, and nothing in American law advocates the use of force to bring about what you think is freedom. Jefferson himslef said democracy is mob rule where 51% are the tyrants of the 49%. Individual liberty should be our ideal.
This is what the jihadist are fighting. Christ was for exporting the Way to every corner of the globe but He didn’t say do it by force. In fact He said just the opposite. Jefferson also said friendship, fair and free trade and entangling alliences with none should be our motto. Where are yo ugetting your American creed?
If you want to give someone a gun in the name of Jesus, do it in your name alone, not mine. If you want to give money to Islamic dictators in Pakistan and Egypt, Arabia, and other such un-Christian places then give your own money and not mine. If you want play god do it on your own, but by taking the money I am forced to give as taxes to fund the many un-Christian activities you are supporting I take great offense to.
How free am I? If I had the type of freedom you are talking about I could give part of my paycheck to my friends if I was so inclined but not support those I feel are my enemy.
I am willing to trust in God first and formost that His example is the model we should follow. I am willing to abide by our civil law that reflects the Christian ethic of protecting life and liberty. Neither of which supports sending armies to places and instilling our brand of living. There is no comparrison to our actions in WWII to anything we have done since WWII. We are wrong to keep the bases abroad in Europe and Asia and wrong to place them now in the Middle East.
If you think the ends justify the means please please provide the reference in either the Church Docttrine or Constitutional Law.
B
BamaRider
Guest
I agree. Iraq has a dully elected govt, if the parliment and prime minister decides tomorrow they want ALL troops out by Christmas, then so be it. They have the power to make that happen, and we should honor the request, or what would be the point of the last 5 years?
What I’m not in favor of is a element of folks in this country that say get out now, and what happens happens.
What I’m not in favor of is a element of folks in this country that say get out now, and what happens happens.
Agreed.
It seems to me there is a number of people that disagree with the president’s policies, and apparently want to see a failure to embarrass him.
The bigger the debacle they can see, the better.
And the only logic they can find is one of “we had no business there, get out and get out now.” with no thought at all to what will happen when we leave.
If it means a pre-mature pullout and a mass killing of people in Iraq…so be it.
The fallacy (aside from using the Iraqis as political pawns) is that they are not living in reality. The reality is that it no longer matters if we should have gone there or not. We are there now, and that is the reality that must be dealt with.
A pullout at this point will harm more people then a continued presence.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
They don’t have the power to make it happen. In fact, it is a miracle that they are able to resist as much as they are. Consider, the US has two current demands in the negotions for a new joint force agreement:
- Open ended right to occupation
- Complete exemption for local judicial authority
On the other hand, the Iraqi’s do not want a permanent occupying power, want legitimate soverignty, and do not want a repeat of, say Blackwater (with Pinochet thugs killing pregnant woman for sport and then getting protection from the US State Department to avoid any consequences).
Frankly, it is a pretty sad day when an Islamic State’s wishes look a lot more llike good 'ol fashioned American Values than the desires of the US government…
B
BamaRider
Guest
You know I’m not, but are you suggesting the Church stay out of Germany because it was liberated by the allies by force of arms?
You forget the key word, “American Freedoms” which you say is NOT a good thing and should not be exported, but then again you think Iran and Egypt are democracies. But Iraq is still young, not gonna happen over night. But one thing is for sure, it wasn’t gonna happen under Saddam.
This is mumbo jumbo, just answer the question, is it easier to spread Catholicism in a free as opposed to stifled one or not?
We spread freedom for many reasons, not just religious, but no denying that is a benefit of free people, why do think it so wrong to bring the freedoms you enjoy to others? They don’t deserve them? Don’t want them?
If you don’t wanna spread freedom, so be it. This does not mean force of arms, but you always think it does. You’re not for freeing Iraq not matter what, ok I get it.
Could not reach us? As in not reaching us like 9-11? I wonder how many 9-11 wannabes lie dead in the sand of Iraq? I know I sleep better at night. You can thank the US military for that.
Matter of opinion. Giving the number of dead and capture Al Q I’d say it was a pretty good place to take them on.
No where do you get invade China? Of course not. That’s a crazy idea.
China is not the most hospitable place for a Catholic missionary, so do you not send him? But I’ll say this, we have to speak and support those dissidents in China that want change. (Tinnamen Sq?) or do you suggest hanging them out? That charge, less you forget, will be lead by the United States like it or not. But not by use of the military.
You have a awful dim view of your country. I don’t believe this is a evil country. We make mistakes, but we do it in the open. No one has said using the army as a means to advance the Faith per se. Freeing a before hand oppressed people make freedom of religion for all possible, not just Catholics, but you seem to think that objective is none of America’s business
Heck, I’m right with ya on this. If they govt let me keep what I earn I could give it out to those I see fit to.
Agree to disagree on this. You’re for retreating and coming home from the Mid East, Europe, Asia. I’m not. Not advancing freedom to anyone but those lucky enough to be born here. But the thing is, the more free people we have in the world, the less likely we are having to go to war.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
The problem is that so few people are interested in reality. For example, consider the myth of the surge. Most people seem to lack basic math skills. The surge was a huge strain on US military personnel, because so few war supporters have the guts to actually show their support with their own skins, but in numbers the actual change in combat ready forces was small.
Remember, at the same time we were ‘surging’ , our coallition of the willing was evaporting. Our increase primarily went to cover other decreases. Most security gains came from switching sides. We went from a policy of supporting a Shia majority and de-bathist policies, to directly supporting Sunni warlords. Ethnic violence dropped in certain reasons because they were ethnically cleansed.
The USCCB, and later Rome, pleaded withe US government to take moral resposibility for the refugee situation this created (diproportionately Christians BTW), but we have refused to take any of Rome’s suggestions, like establishing safe zones in the north, seriously.
Now we have the worst of all words. We are downsizing the troop force because it is simply not sustainable. We are at the lowest military readiness since WW-II. So we have a smaller footprint and the ‘deals with the devils’ are starting to backfire, just about the time that various Shia factions vie for political power (all are supported by Iran by the way, in fact, we typically side with the ones most so).
What, exactly, do you propose that US troops do? It is now 2008 and we have yet to secure the road from the airport in Bagdad and the heavily fortified Green Zone is under regular mortar attack. We cannot secure the borders, as Turkey just proved with cross border attacks. And our presence helps foster branches of Islmic extremism, like AQI, that would normally not be tolerated in a Shia majority state.
Spending blood and treasure without a coherent strategic plan is the same mistake that got us into this mess in the first place. As an occuptying force we delegitimize any central government, so the overwhelming will of the people must be considered. No state or entity has the right to unjust aggression under Catholic Dogma.
B
BamaRider
Guest
S
SoCalRC
Guest
No, I’m for promoting freedom with actual values of freedom and liberty, not misguided military adventures for supposed national stratetgic interest.
You are for letting others die for no clearly identifiable or viable strategic goal. In fact, you are not even willing to pay for it.
Since I have, in fact, served my country in combat and you have not, it is reasonable for us to have different points of view. After all, putting a magnetic flag or yellow ribbon on ones car, and rolling up a dead soldier in his poncho so he can be returned to his family might, arguable, both be acts of patriotism.
But having done the later, on more than one occassion, and carrying bone fragments of a fallen Marine in my own body to this day, I would prefer that you resist the temptation to lecture me on patriotism and the proper feeding of the tree of liberty with blood. I, in turn, will resist the tempation to tell you where you can put your magnets…
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
The Church, no. US forces, yes.
You didn’t use the word American and I never said it was not good, I said they do not hold the same ideal of freedom as we do by nature of their religion and politics. Do Egyptians vote in elections? I say we have no right to export our ideology by force of arms, good or ill.
Why not give me Scripture or quote a clause in our Constitution to support your view? Why is that so hard?
Why not ask the Arabians, Egyptians, or Pakistanis if they want them.
Isn’t by example a better way to bring freedom to people? They will see how free we are ourselves and want to emulate us if they like our freedoms. It wasn’t so long ago that was largely true. Iraq ended that notion for many. This thread is specific to the force of arms in Iraq and if the troops should be withdrawn. Sending billions to Pakistan is not serving our purpose in Iraq but it perpetuates the evil we are fighting in Iraq. Actions have consequences.
If we protected our borders and enforced our laws they might have been found before the attacks and stopped, but 19 men and 4 hijacked airplanes had what to do with Iraq? How many innocent lives lie dead in the sands of Iraq? Do I thank the US military for them as well and do you sleep well knowing they died in your efforts to bring them freedom?
The masterminds are in Afghanistan and Pakistan not Iraq. Dumb.
Why do you keep mixing Catholic evangilzation and the use of the military in Iraq with not using the military in othe places you mention to spread the word of God?
Are you happy with the state of the union? Tell me why you support going into debt to fund this war? I don’t think it is an evil country either but your justification to keep troops in Iraq as a means to expand the faith and that goes against the faith.You have a awful dim view of your country. I don’t believe this is a evil country. We make mistakes, but we do it in the open. No one has said using the army as a means to advance the Faith per se. Freeing a before hand oppressed people make freedom of religion for all possible, not just Catholics, but you seem to think that objective is none of America’s business
Then do not vote for either of the major candidates.
You seem to think a withdrawl of our military is a withdrawl of the world and isolationism. Why would that prohibit us from trading and doing business with others if we didn’t have a base in Italy? How about the freedoms for those lucky enough to walk across the border, but not those who live overseas?
Leaving Iraq is in no way a retreat. Major combat missions were ended over 3 years ago and every stated reason for going in (agree or not) have been achieved. We won.
- Status