OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 12:37:50 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Pro-Life Women Forcibly Dragged From John Kerry Abortion Rally  (Read 8785 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« on: April 29, 2004, 11:57:55 AM »

http://www.lifenews.com/nat485.html

Pro-Life Women Forcibly Dragged From John Kerry Abortion Rally

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
April 27, 2004

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Five pro-life college students were forcibly removed from a pro-abortion rally held by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry on Friday. The students were literally dragged off after they began leading a pro-life chant and one woman suffered injuries to her feet as a result.

With leaders of NARAL and Planned Parenthood at his side, Kerry held a rally on Friday to tout his pro-abortion position and Planned Parenthood's endorsement prior to Sunday's march for abortion.

Supporters began chanting "What do we want? Choice! When do we want it? Now!"

The next time through the chant, the students, all women from George Washington University, screamed out "Life!"

Suanne Edmiston, a sophomore at George Washington University, was one of the pro-life students who attended. "We didn't plan on shouting them down," she told LifeNews.com in an exclusive interview.

According to Edmiston, after the chants, a group of young adults with NARAL t-shirts surrounded the women.

"All of a sudden these NARAL girls appeared out of nowhere," Edmiston. "You guys have to leave right now," the NARAL women told the students.

Edmiston said the students told the abortion advocates they would leave, but wanted a uniformed official to explain why they had to leave a public event and one for which they had obtained tickets from the Kerry campaign.

After seeing the students wouldn't leave, the NARAL women told each other to link arms and began to surround the pro-life students.

At the same time, older rally participants were screaming to leave the students alone. Edmiston told LifeNews.com that the older women told the younger abortion activists they could possibly hurt the students and that the students had a right to attend the rally.

But that didn't stop the young NARAL backers.

They became angry and began to push and shove the pro-life women. One woman told Suanne that her mother should have aborted her.

The NARAL women eventually enveloped three of the students, including Suanne, in a circle and began dragging them away.

Suanne was wearing flip-flops and one of her shoes fell off as she was taken away.

"My foot is dragging on the gravel and they wouldn't let me get it," Edmiston said.

The abortion advocates dragged her barefoot over a rough gravel surface that caused her foot to bleed so much that Edmiston required medical attention afterwards.

"I have never been manhandled like that before -- pushed around, shoved and tossed -- it was ridiculous," Edmiston said. "I really felt violated, they had no right to touch me like that. So much for 'my body, my choice.'"

Both Edmiston and Stan Dai, a GWU political science major and a friend of the women, said Priscilla, another pro-life student, was dragged by the strap of a backpack. The strap began to wrap itself around her neck and she began to choke.

Edmiston told LifeNews.com that neither Kerry campaign staff nor security officials stepped in to stop the activists from dragging the students away from the rally.

"Nobody stopped it, people from [Kerry's] campaign were just standing around," she said.

After receiving medial assistance from a policeman located outside the audience, Edmiston and her friends filed a report with the Washington police.

However, without the names of the abortion advocates who accosted them, there is nothing the police can do, she told LifeNews.com.

Neither Edmiston nor her friends know the women who assaulted them and it would be up to NARAL or Planned Parenthood, the rally sponsors, to volunteer the names to police, Edmiston said.

Representatives of NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the Kerry campaign did not return requests for comment.

This is the second time pro-life people have been victimized at a Kerry campaign rally.

At a Kerry event in Tampa, Florida in March, Kerry campaign staffers destroyed the signs of two pro-life women.

In an exclusive LifeNews.com story, Rebecca Porter told LifeNews.com that she and a friend brought signs saying "My abortion hurt me" to the rally. After Kerry saw the signs, campaign staff stepped in moment later and tore them to shreds.

Porter said Kerry was "shocked and surprised" to read the sign.

The Kerry campaign has refused to comment on the matter.

"It was so disheartening," Edmiston said about the incident at the Kerry abortion rally Friday and the attitude of the abortion activists. "They didn't respect us, they had their agenda and that was it."

(Pictures of Suzanne courtesy of GWU student Rachel Jurado. Picture 1: Suanne's bloodied foot after being dragged. Picture 2: Police attend to her foot. Kerry abortion rally picture courtesy of Planned Parenthood.)


 


Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #1 on: April 29, 2004, 12:28:48 PM »

How can Kerry claim he is "personally against abortion" and yet act the way he does and say the things he says?

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,580



« Reply #2 on: April 29, 2004, 01:39:46 PM »

Quote
One woman told Suanne that her mother should have aborted her.

This perfectly demonstrates the mentality of many (I don't say all) who are pro-choice, when they feel truth confronting them. When some of the people at my church were at a pro-life rally in Washington a few years ago, some pro-choicers made a demonstration against them... by exposing their chests. This type of behavior is saddening, but not uncommon. Sad
Logged

Problem: John finds a spider under his bed. John eats the spider. John gets sick to his stomach.

Question: Why did John get sick?
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 29, 2004, 01:48:29 PM »

I'm far from proabortion but objectively this isn't surprising. The demonstrators disrupted somebody else's meeting - of course the people holding the meeting were angry! The protesters look like martyrs to their friends but the larger world just sees them as rude. Politically naive - a mistake. Such isn't going to convert anybody to prolife.

Quote
How can Kerry claim he is "personally against abortion" and yet act the way he does and say the things he says?

Because he wants as many votes as he can get - both the ethnic, working-class RCs who may be prolife but always, always vote Democratic and the mainstream voters who are proabortion.
Logged

Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #4 on: April 29, 2004, 04:52:10 PM »

Quote
This perfectly demonstrates the mentality of many (I don't say all) who are pro-choice, when they feel truth confronting them. When some of the people at my church were at a pro-life rally in Washington a few years ago, some pro-choicers made a demonstration against them... by exposing their chests. This type of behavior is saddening, but not uncommon.  

I wonder if the women who were dragged away were given a "CHOICE".... Lips Sealed Lips Sealed  Some how I don't think so. Also, don't these brown shirt liberals beleive in free speech???
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
lellimore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 155


OC.net


« Reply #5 on: April 29, 2004, 05:04:39 PM »

I think the people involved should look into civil action against the Kerry campaign.  They might have a case against event security.
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #6 on: April 29, 2004, 08:54:02 PM »

Quote
Serge: Because he wants as many votes as he can get - both the ethnic, working-class RCs who may be prolife but always, always vote Democratic and the mainstream voters who are proabortion.

I understand that.

My point is that he is a liar.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #7 on: April 29, 2004, 09:05:02 PM »

 Shocked Angry :'(
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #8 on: April 29, 2004, 10:13:05 PM »

Someone who says they are "personally against abortion" who still think abortion should be legal and they're not "liars."  They genuinely are "personally against abortion," meaning they'd never have one themselves.  Certainly they're inconsistent, but not all of them are liars.  

Logged
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #9 on: April 30, 2004, 12:46:43 AM »

Quote
Someone who says they are "personally against abortion" who still think abortion should be legal and they're not "liars."  They genuinely are "personally against abortion," meaning they'd never have one themselves.  Certainly they're inconsistent, but not all of them are liars.

Actually, it means John Kerry doesn't have enough "character" to stand for what he really beleives. It's just another flip flop, which Kerry seems to be a pro at. He should take some lessons from Bill Clinton, who was smooth & slick enough to get away with most of his lies. The good thing about Bush is that you know he will stand by his decisions such as the war. Bush has enough character to stand by his decisions even at the expense of costing him the election.  He'll also stand by his decisions to limit abortion as much as he can do during his tenure, even when those on the left demonize him & call  all kinds of names that I couldn't  say on this board & the media constantly attacking him for his strong stance on these important issues. I call that a real leader.

As I have said before, John, Nancy, Tom, Ted & the rest of the immoral Catholic Democrats can't have it both ways. You can't have both the innocent blood of children & the blood of christ in the eucharist. It's an oxymoron & makes no sense. They have a choice: the blood of christ or the blood of the innocent that they are responsible for.
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #10 on: April 30, 2004, 01:43:38 AM »

The good thing about Bush is that you know he will stand by his decisions such as the war. Bush has enough character to stand by his decisions even at the expense of costing him the election.  He'll also stand by his decisions to limit abortion as much as he can do during his tenure, even when those on the left demonize him & call  all kinds of names that I couldn't  say on this board & the media constantly attacking him for his strong stance on these important issues. I call that a real leader.

Yeah, even if it's a stupid decision he'll keep "standing by it" just to show how much "character" he has.  I think it was Keble that wrote about this kind of immature need for 'purity' in politicians.  

Logged
David
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of the South)
Posts: 1,952


Retired GM


WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 30, 2004, 02:14:16 AM »

I feel compelled to mention something about a bowl of petunias....
Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."
-Yazid Ibrahim
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #12 on: April 30, 2004, 08:21:42 AM »

I think that it is possible to be a religious person but to believe that the state should be secular, particularly in a country as diverse as the United States.  That does not compromise one's religious faith, it just means that one's religious faith and practice is separate from the secular state.  For Catholic politicians like Kerry and Pelosi, isn't it possible for them to believe that the state should be secular, and shouldn't base its decisions on this or that on the moral teachings of any particular religion?  The U.S. state has secular values, and it must have secular values in order for it to function properly as a secular state for a diverse nation like the U.S.  It is problematic when we expect our politicians in a secular state to express their own religious values in the context of that state.  Here I think that Arinze has gone one step too far in asking politicians to do this ... but then again one can not expect the Vatican to be supportive of the concept of a secular state to begin with.

I also fail to see at all the c omparison Nacho has made here relating to the blood of the unborn murdered and the blood of the Eucharist.  WADR, it has not been shown that Pelosi or Kerry have ever personally been involved in any abortion.  If that is not the case, they do not have "blood on their hands" for simply expressing a point of view ... that is simply lunacy.

Brendan
« Last Edit: April 30, 2004, 08:22:08 AM by Brendan03 » Logged

B
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #13 on: April 30, 2004, 09:31:15 AM »

Yeah, even if it's a stupid decision he'll keep "standing by it" just to show how much "character" he has.  I think it was Keble that wrote about this kind of immature need for 'purity' in politicians.  



It's good that his decision to invade Iraq was not a stupid decision.  Cool
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 30, 2004, 09:37:06 AM »

Brendan,

I think secularism is a dry philosophy that is eating away at our society.  How can we separate our faith from our statecraft--secularism is an ideology just like religion, it's not the absence of religion (just like atheism is a belief system just like any religion, it's not possible to not have a belief system!)--and as such, to support it is to deny your religion.

I'm not saying that politicians shouldn't compromise on certain issues due to the fact that the sovereignty is based on a diverse people in this country.  However, to suggest that one can have their religious cap on in private life and their secular cap on in public life just seems unsatisfactory.  That's one of the reasons I like Bush so much--he doesn't make it a secret where his beliefs come from.  Secularism is just an umbrella for mostly-liberal but sometimes conservative ideologies that cut away at humanity's bonds.  Only faith in Christ can unite people and society.

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,467


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 30, 2004, 09:49:39 AM »

Quote
Also, don't these brown shirt liberals beleive in free speech???

Let me ask you this:  if a pro-abortion person turned up at a Bush rally with a sign that said something like, "Keep Abortion Legal" (of whatever that popular sign says), would you even bat an eye about the Bush security team doing the same thing?

Free speech works both ways, and, frankly, those women should have expected to be proverbially tarred and feathered.  

Look at it this way: it made the news and got their point across.  That's the fruit of free speech more than anything else.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #16 on: April 30, 2004, 10:04:25 AM »

That's one of the reasons I like Bush so much--he doesn't make it a secret where his beliefs come from.  

But the root of secularism is protestantism.  His beliefs are just as damaging and as ultimately secular as Pelosi's and Kerry's.  Was it Hawthorne who said that the father of unitarianism was puritanism?  

It's secular in that it rejects the rightful authority of the Church.  It's just as much "do what you feel" as anything in the ECUSA.  

Protestant fundamentalism is just another trend the western world is going through.  And a trend is inherently secular because it's "here and now" and not the past.  

He's pro-life but why is he pro-life?  He's not pro-life for the same reason we're pro-life.  Because he's a part of a 'trend' and a secular religion, his opinons are shaped by 'conformity.'  We're pro-life because we're against the culture of death.  The Church gives us a proper foundation for understanding life and death.  Fundamentalists are against abortion because abortion challenges their status quo.  That's why it's possible to be catholic feminist and be pro-life but it's not possible to be a fundamentalist feminist.  

Because fundamentalism claims to be something it's not it's a bigger lie than 'liberal' protestantism.  

And let's never forget that ultimately it crushes the human spirit because it doesn't understand human nature and it's really about conformity.  
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #17 on: April 30, 2004, 10:11:12 AM »

So Bush is a Protestant.

He's Pro-Life for reasons you think aren't good enough.

Who's the alternative?

A bogus Catholic who wants to slide into the Oval Office on the blood and entrails of infants.

Sorry, but in this case I'll take the damned heretic.

BTW, Kerry is a liar.

One cannot be "personally against abortion" and do and say the things he does.

That is more than merely being "inconsistent."
« Last Edit: April 30, 2004, 10:17:16 AM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #18 on: April 30, 2004, 10:32:24 AM »

It's not that his reason isn't "good enough" but rather that's it based on flawed theology.  Because the theology is flawed, it will lead to perversions.  

BTW, Bush is a liar.
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #19 on: April 30, 2004, 10:39:27 AM »

Quote
Jennifer:
It's not that his reason isn't "good enough" but rather that's it based on flawed theology.  Because the theology is flawed, it will lead to perversions.

Okay, so we won't recommend Bush for Patriarch of Constantinople.

If his "flawed theology" leads to the saving of the lives of millions of unborn babies, then God bless him.

Quote
Jennifer: BTW, Bush is a liar.  

I disagree.

The fact that Kerry is an open liar is beyond dispute.



Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #20 on: April 30, 2004, 10:44:49 AM »

Anastasios --

I do not think it is practical for the US government to be anything other than secular.  Yes, it belies a misunderstanding of the relationship between church and state, but we must remember that this is *not* a Catholic or Orthodox country by any stretch of the imagination.  At best, it is a Protestant one, and in that context I am very much in favor of a government that is secular over one that is religiously influenced by Protestant values, such as the current administration.  If we let religion into politics too much in this country it will be of the Protestant variety, and I consider this variety of religion to be at odds with what is actually "Christianity", and as a result to be dangerous and misguided.

I guess that is really what is underlying much of the debate in this and other threads:  whether, as a Catholic/Orthodox person, you believe it is preferable to have (1) a so-called "Christian" protestant fundamentalist influenced regime or (2) a secular regime that is unattached to any particular religion.  It comes down, in some respects, to what one thinks about Protestant fundamentalism in the current context.  I would prefer to be governed by secularists than by Protestant fundamentalists any day of the week.

Brendan
Logged

B
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #21 on: April 30, 2004, 10:48:50 AM »

Quote
I would prefer to be governed by secularists than by Protestant fundamentalists any day of the week.

If we could poll the unborn, how would they respond, I wonder.

My wife knows a lot about being governed by secularists.

Her grandfather was imprisoned by one of them: a Georgian with a big moustache.

Even in the '70s her mother and father would mention that Georgian's name only in whispers.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #22 on: April 30, 2004, 10:49:05 AM »

"I disagree."

Well, at a minimum he misled all of us about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  What the administration did in terms of the spin it put on the US public and the international community in early 2003 relating to WMDs in Iraq was tantamount to lying.

I recommend Woodward's new book "Plan of Attack", I have read it and it is very insightful.  Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were planning to attack Iraq before 9/11.  Bush has been obsessed with Iraq since he became President.  We were rolled in early 2003 that this was a war to protect the US from Saddam Hussein's WMDs, when in fact it was a war of choice driven by the personal obsessions of the President and several of his advisers relating to Iraq that existed before 9/11.

Brendan
Logged

B
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #23 on: April 30, 2004, 10:51:20 AM »

Linus --

Okay, so now all secular regimes are tantamount to Stalinism??  There is a difference between a secular state and a militant atheist one.



Brendan
« Last Edit: April 30, 2004, 10:52:27 AM by Brendan03 » Logged

B
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #24 on: April 30, 2004, 10:56:15 AM »

Linus --

Okay, so now all secular regimes are tantamount to Stalinism??  There is a difference between a secular state and a militant atheist one.



Brendan

Yes, and there is a difference between a government of politicians who happen to be Protestant and Calvin's Geneva.

So Bush is a Protestant.

At least he isn't Kerry.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,467


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #25 on: April 30, 2004, 10:59:48 AM »

It's a sad state of affairs when we don't vote for people, but vote against.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #26 on: April 30, 2004, 11:00:14 AM »

So Kerry is a bad Catholic.  

At least he isn't a fundamentalist Protestant.
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #27 on: April 30, 2004, 11:01:30 AM »

Quote
Brendan 03:Well, at a minimum he misled all of us about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  What the administration did in terms of the spin it put on the US public and the international community in early 2003 relating to WMDs in Iraq was tantamount to lying.

Bush believed that Saddam had WsMD. That is what the intelligence community led him to believe, and the UN inspectors believed it, too, up until very recently.

What he said about WsMD he said in good faith.

If what you believe about WsMD leads you to vote for a Pro-Abortion candidate (Kerry), your conscience is your own.

I think the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq was a good thing in and of itself.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #28 on: April 30, 2004, 11:04:31 AM »

So Kerry is a bad Catholic.  

At least he isn't a fundamentalist Protestant.  

He isn't just a guy who hasn't been to confession in a few months.

He is a promoter of the killing of millions of unborn babies.

That is more than merely being "a bad Catholic."

I don't like fundamentalist Protestantism either, but better a fundamentalist Protestant on the side of life than a hypocrite Catholic who panders to the disciples of death.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #29 on: April 30, 2004, 11:04:50 AM »

But was he reckless in believing the intelligence community?
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #30 on: April 30, 2004, 11:05:47 AM »

It's a sad state of affairs when we don't vote for people, but vote against.



You're right, but, sadly, sometimes it comes to that.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,467


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 30, 2004, 11:06:23 AM »

I'm agreeing with Linus on this one.  

And Bush is far from a "fundamentalist" Protestant.  He's a very mainstream Protestant.

Jack Chick is a "fundamentalist" Protestant.  Rev. Phelps is a "fundamentalist" Protestant.

Those guys give Christians of any stripe a bad name.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #32 on: April 30, 2004, 11:07:27 AM »

But was he reckless in believing the intelligence community?  

How could he be?

Upon whom was he supposed to rely?

Should he have gone up in a U-2 himself?
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #33 on: April 30, 2004, 11:11:53 AM »

"What he said about WsMD he said in good faith."

"I think the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq was a good thing in and of itself."

I think if you read Woodward's book, you'll see that this WMD business was the tail of the dog when it comes to the administration's plan to "deal with" Iraq.  I do not think he was acting in good faith, I think he was seeking a pretext to sell the attack that he longed for, and it turned out that the pretext was sand.  I can't support someone who dragged our country into a war of choice based on false pretenses, placing American lives at risk for no good reason.  Attacking another country simply to remove the government is not acceptable.  I personally can't reward the administration for doing that.

I don't support Kerry either.  That's why I'll most likely abstain from this year's election.

Brendan
« Last Edit: April 30, 2004, 11:12:47 AM by Brendan03 » Logged

B
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #34 on: April 30, 2004, 11:14:59 AM »

"How could he be?

Upon whom was he supposed to rely?"

Then Tenet should be fired for goodness sake.  What the heck is going on in Langley these days?  First 9/11 and then this non-existent WMDs in Iraq leading to a war on false pretenses?  It's Bush's responsibility to fix the CIA, he is the President.  And when the CIA failed in the time leading up to 9/11, Bush should have fixed it, but he didn't and so we got more bad intelligence that led to the war in Iraq.  And he STILL hasn't fixed it.  Any rational government would have ditched Tenet a while ago.

Brendan
Logged

B
Frobie
Quasi Vero Monaco
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 633


Rublev's Trinity


WWW
« Reply #35 on: April 30, 2004, 11:18:30 AM »

Bush isn't a liar:

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/05/11/World/Investigative.Reportsaddams.Wmd.Have.Been.Found-670120.shtml

Logged
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #36 on: April 30, 2004, 11:27:54 AM »

That's hardly a reliable source.  It's akin to Pravda for the right wing.
Logged

B
Frobie
Quasi Vero Monaco
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 633


Rublev's Trinity


WWW
« Reply #37 on: April 30, 2004, 11:34:40 AM »

Then how is it wrong? And if Saddam never had WMDs, then why did he refuse to allow the weapons inspectors into Iraq? Do tell.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2004, 11:37:59 AM by Frobie » Logged
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #38 on: April 30, 2004, 11:39:17 AM »

I feel compelled to mention something about a bowl of petunias....

Good call David Grin
Logged
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #39 on: April 30, 2004, 11:49:03 AM »

Frobie --

If we really had found WMDs you can bet your life that the current administration would be spamming the media with that information ... I think that their reticence in this regard is more telling than what is printed in a right-wing magazine.

Brendan
« Last Edit: April 30, 2004, 11:50:26 AM by Brendan03 » Logged

B
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #40 on: April 30, 2004, 11:51:07 AM »

Whether one believes in this war or not there are too many pronouncements by both Democrats, Republicans & the U.N. prior to 9/11 that gave evidence that WMD did in fact exist in Iraq.  Otherwise, what would be the point in having inspectors (who by the way were kicked out of Iraq on atleast two occassions) go into these cities in search of these illusive weapons.  We do know that the Saddam government used nerve agents on the Kurds which resulted in as many as 5,000 deaths, and that he also tried using chemical weapons on the Iranians during the Iranian/Iraqi war.  So, where did they go.  IMHO, they were shipped out of Iraq to Syria during the 10 week period prior to the start of the war that we are now engaged in.  No one doubted their existence prior to the war and even Kerry, Kennedy, Schumer to name a few are on record of having believed this. Now, no one wants to get his or her hands dirty by supporting what is going on now.  France, Germany and Russian had some sweet deals going with Saddam which is why they are so adamately opposed to our actions.  If we had left this up to the U.N. I think we all have to be honest and say that nothing really would have happened to Saddam or his regime.  Remember our actions came after and not before 9/11.  Quite recently the arrest of terrorists who were planning on using bombs to kill upwards of 20,000 in Jordan resulted in evidence that these agents were shipped in from Syria.  IMHO, these agents are from the stocks of WMD's now hidden in the Baka<<sp?>>valley just across the Iraqi border.

JoeS  :-


"How could he be?

Upon whom was he supposed to rely?"

Then Tenet should be fired for goodness sake.  What the heck is going on in Langley these days?  First 9/11 and then this non-existent WMDs in Iraq leading to a war on false pretenses?  It's Bush's responsibility to fix the CIA, he is the President.  And when the CIA failed in the time leading up to 9/11, Bush should have fixed it, but he didn't and so we got more bad intelligence that led to the war in Iraq.  And he STILL hasn't fixed it.  Any rational government would have ditched Tenet a while ago.

Brendan
Logged
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #41 on: April 30, 2004, 12:05:46 PM »

"Otherwise, what would be the point in having inspectors (who by the way were kicked out of Iraq on atleast two occassions) go into these cities in search of these illusive weapons."

The point was they were *suspected* to have them.  They have never been found.

"IMHO, they were shipped out of Iraq to Syria during the 10 week period prior to the start of the war that we are now engaged in."

Well, the satellites that we have in geosynchronous orbit over Iraq would have seen that if there were any significant degree of movement.  In fact, they were looking for that in the run-up to the war.  So while it is an interesting theory, I doubt it is correct.

"If we had left this up to the U.N. I think we all have to be honest and say that nothing really would have happened to Saddam or his regime."

But why would that have been a bad thing if he didn't really have WMDs to begin with?  Again, attacking a country to simply change the government is simply NOT ON.

"Remember our actions came after and not before 9/11."

Right, but he was planning to go after Iraq well before 9/11 and probably would have if 9/11 never happened.  9/11 provided yet another convenient excuse, a backdrop for the obsession with Iraq.  We should all admit that GWB has a personal conflict of interest when it comes to Iraq, and these factors have surely influenced his thinking about Iraq.  In any case, we can all rest assured now that even if Al-Qaida was not heavily engaged in Iraq under the Saddam regime, the country is now thoroughly laced with Al-Qaida operatives, as is evidenced by the "foreign fighters" our military keeps coming across in these various confrontations over the past few months.  Looks like we just helped Osama gain access to another Middle Eastern country.  Great work there.
Logged

B
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #42 on: April 30, 2004, 12:20:01 PM »

Quote
Attacking another country simply to remove the government is not acceptable.

Sure it is, when that government is murdering its own people and is a threat to this country.

I wonder if the intelligence community could have done a better job for us had it not been gutted during the Clinton years.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #43 on: April 30, 2004, 12:22:41 PM »

With this intense preoccupation with Iraq by this adminstration prior to 9/11, why did we go after the Talaban and Osama in Afghanistan so quickly, instead of just going right for Iraq and be done with it. IMHO, the two are separate.  One had the training camps for the Al Qaida and the other had (which I still believe) WMD.  I find these reasons consistent with our policies when dealing with terrorism.

JoeS
Logged
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #44 on: April 30, 2004, 12:33:19 PM »

"With this intense preoccupation with Iraq by this adminstration prior to 9/11, why did we go after the Talaban and Osama in Afghanistan so quickly, instead of just going right for Iraq and be done with it."

Actually it was discussed in the days following 9/11!!  Woodward's book details the meetings that took place in the days following 9/11 and one thing they were looking at was attacking Iraq.  Eventually they decided that the time was not right, and that Afghanistan was more pressing because of the harboring of Al-Qaida there.  But even while the Afghan operation was going on, the administration asked the Pentagon to begin planning the Iraq war!  The military was floored by that, but they complied with the request, as we now know.  I tell you, Woodward's book is very insightful.

"Sure it is, when that government is murdering its own people and is a threat to this country."

No, that's really not acceptable, not to me and not to most Americans.  If he had no WMDs he was no threat to our country, and simply attacking Saddam Hussein because we don't like him is nonsense.  There are many regimes around the world that mistreat their own people ... and we are not attacking them, and we ought not.  War should be reserved only for the most serious cases of threat, and that standard was not met if Saddam had no WMD, as is now apparent.

"I wonder if the intelligence community could have done a better job for us had it not been gutted during the Clinton years."

Well, I'm no supporter of Clinton either, but Bush had from September 20001 through early 2003 to revamp the CIA to produce better intelligence before deciding to go to war with Iraq.  He didn't do that.  So, that one is on him, not on Clinton.

"I find these reasons consistent with our policies when dealing with terrorism."

Perhaps if Saddam actually had WMDs.  We haven't found anything significant there.  You speculate that they are in Syria but there is no proof of that, really.  And now we are stuck with a destablized Iraq that has foreign fighters (read: Al-Qaida) in there now, where they most likely were not before.  How has the war on terror been advanced in light of that?


B
« Last Edit: April 30, 2004, 12:36:08 PM by Brendan03 » Logged

B
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #45 on: April 30, 2004, 12:43:27 PM »

I find it interesting that no one that I can remember had criticized President Clinton when he unleashed his cruise missles into Bagdad in 1998.  Our intelligence at that time targeted a "milk factory" as producing chemical agents.   (by the way it dosnt take too much effort in converting these manufacturing plants to produce these toxins) Do you think that he was convinced that Saddam had these WMD or the wherewithall to produce them?

JoeS   Roll Eyes

Logged
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #46 on: April 30, 2004, 02:00:40 PM »

"Do you think that he was convinced that Saddam had these WMD or the wherewithall to produce them?"

Perhaps he was, but even if that is the case, it simply serves as an indictment of our intelligence community.  Langley needs to be overhauled.  We need to put more money into CIA and we need to start playing spy again, be willing to get our hands dirty, be willing to deal with less than savoury people to collect human intelligence, because obviously our expensive high-tech eyes in the sky are not cutting it.  That should have been clear to everyone after 9/11, and the fact that Bush has not done much to address that falls to his discredit.

Brendan
Logged

B
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #47 on: April 30, 2004, 03:59:19 PM »

Step back ya'll because Nacho's in da house!!!

Whoaa, I can see I caused a mini civil war in here Wink

Quote
So Kerry is a bad Catholic.

Big understatement. What's the point of calling yourself "Catholic" if you don't believe in it???

Quote
At least he isn't a fundamentalist Protestant.

Jennifer, what are you talking about??? Bush is not a fundamentalist protestant. He grew up anglican & now attends a left of center Methodist Church. I have never heard Bush go on TV & "pray in the name of jesus" or say he's doing this in "jesus name." You have no idea what you are talking about & should stick to the facts.

Quote
Yes, and there is a difference between a government of politicians who happen to be Protestant and Calvin's Geneva.

So Bush is a Protestant.

I really don't see what the big deal is either. It seems that some Orthodox really have knee jerk reactions just because Bush is a protestant. Some should read the story about the good samariton. His beleifs were less than perfect, but atleast he did the right thing when those who had the right beleif did nothing. Bush may beleive in some bad theology, but in God's eyes he is in much better standing that the fakes like Kerry that betray thier faith on a daily basis. I'll vote for the Protestant with bad theology all day long than the fakes in the democratic party that love to play church.

Quote
He isn't just a guy who hasn't been to confession in a few months.
He is a promoter of the killing of millions of unborn babies.
That is more than merely being "a bad Catholic."
I don't like fundamentalist Protestantism either, but better a fundamentalist Protestant on the side of life than a hypocrite Catholic who panders to the disciples of death.

Very well said.... You know that when someone betrays the life of the innocent, more than likely it will affect thier beleifs in other areas. I can't put good faith in the secularist because they don't have solid principles to live by. They are ussually more ego centric also due to thier humanistic philosophy.

Quote
And Bush is far from a "fundamentalist" Protestant.  He's a very mainstream Protestant

I laugh when people keep repeating this lie. If he is such a fundamentalist, why is he so silent about it??? Why no Pat Robertson 700 Club invitations, or TBN invintations?? Bush, on his own time has not even worshipped with any of these groups.....But he's a "fundamentalist" because people want to beleive the big lie. This was probably derived from leftist propaganda.

Quote
Then how is it wrong? And if Saddam never had WMDs, then why did he refuse to allow the weapons inspectors into Iraq? Do tell.

He obviously had something to hide prior to the war. I mean, John Kerry, Bill Clinton & most of the democrat party told us that he had WMD's & is a threat.




Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,467


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #48 on: April 30, 2004, 04:05:38 PM »

Quote

Attacking another country simply to remove the government is not acceptable.
 

Sure it is, when that government is murdering its own people and is a threat to this country.


While I support the second half of your statement, it is not this country nor any country's job to become embroiled in the civil conflicts of other sovereign nations.  Did not Washington say as much in his Farewell Address?  For someone who's as conservative as you are, Linus, this statement surprises me.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,467


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #49 on: April 30, 2004, 04:07:02 PM »

Quote
Big understatement. What's the point of calling yourself "Catholic" if you don't believe in it???

I'm sure this question should be asked of over half of the self-professed "Catholics" in this country, many of whom don't even believe in the most basic Eucharistic doctrines.  

But I do see your point Smiley
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #50 on: April 30, 2004, 05:25:31 PM »

"I mean, John Kerry, Bill Clinton & most of the democrat party told us that he had WMD's & is a threat."

Meaning that our intelligence community is a ship of fools right now.  The difference, however, is that Bush was put on notice about this after 9/11 -- he should have fixed intelligence between then and the Iraq war, but he idn't and so the intelligence community let our country down again, in a big way. That's Bush's responsibility, and it should cost him his job.

I don't support Kerry either, so don't hit me with comparisons between Kerry and Bush.  
Logged

B
katherine 2001
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 886


Eastern Orthodox Church--Established in 33 A.D.


« Reply #51 on: April 30, 2004, 08:34:25 PM »

Brendan, you are not the only one who may sit out this election.  I honestly cannot bring myself to vote for either Bush or Kerry.  I believe Bush was looking for every excuse he could to go to war in Iraq.  He wanted to go in there from the beginning and right his father's mistake of leaving Saddam in power the last time.  The WMD excuse was bad enough, but the one that really bothered me was the excuse that we needed to save all those innocent people that he was killing.  That hadn't been going on since Saddam had been in power?  His father didn't know that this was going on when we went in there the first time?  I believe we did know, but he decided to leave him in power.  Where was the concern for the innocent Iraquis before GW Bush wanted to go to war over there?  We didn't give a rip about the innocent Iraqui people before then.
Logged
katherine 2001
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 886


Eastern Orthodox Church--Established in 33 A.D.


« Reply #52 on: April 30, 2004, 08:37:00 PM »

One of the things that especially bothers me about President Bush is that the first thing he wants to do when we have a problem is to go to war over it.  I think Prime Minister Blair had to lean on him quite heavily to get him to wait as long as he did.  Is it the Christian response to want to go to war right off the bat without trying every peaceful means to resolve the situation first?
Logged
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #53 on: April 30, 2004, 10:07:11 PM »

The U.S. stood by and watched the U.N. sanctions against Saddams regime violated some 17 times over the course of 12 years. It took from 1991 to 2003 for us to go to war against Saddam.  I think we have to look at this in its proper perspective.  I would hardly consider our moves to replace Saddam as an impulsive action. The first thing Bush did was not invade Iraq but to land troops in Afghanistan and defeat AlQuaida and Osama.  

JoeS


One of the things that especially bothers me about President Bush is that the first thing he wants to do when we have a problem is to go to war over it.  I think Prime Minister Blair had to lean on him quite heavily to get him to wait as long as he did.  Is it the Christian response to want to go to war right off the bat without trying every peaceful means to resolve the situation first?  
Logged
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #54 on: May 01, 2004, 04:57:20 AM »

Quote
One of the things that especially bothers me about President Bush is that the first thing he wants to do when we have a problem is to go to war over it.  I think Prime Minister Blair had to lean on him quite heavily to get him to wait as long as he did.  Is it the Christian response to want to go to war right off the bat without trying every peaceful means to resolve the situation first?

Wow!! Where have you been the last decade?? How much patience should we have?? 17 broken resolutions & the inspectors getting kicked out of Iraq on numeous occasions wasn't enough time for you?? Even with the buildup to war & many warnings over a 1 year period that Mr. Bush gave to Sadam to resolve this in a peaceful manner was not satisfactory??? We gave Sadam all the time neccessary to allow the weapons inspectors back in & he decided not to cooperate with us or the UN.  Even after they were booted out, President Bush gave Sadam many chances to resolve this in a peaceful manner.
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #55 on: May 01, 2004, 05:13:13 AM »

I have to agree with you here, Nacho.
60 YEARS after WWII we are still debating "what Roosevelt knew and when did he know it". At least the country back then had the fortitude to win the war FIRST, then engage in pointless finger-pointing.
The members of my family who lived directly under the moslem scourge have now passed on, but they made certain I know what that scourge was (and still is).
The stunning naviete of the current 'west' including America is only playing into the hands of the enemy.
Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #56 on: May 01, 2004, 07:33:26 AM »

But Demetri, we can't go to war with the Muslim world, that is absolute madness.  And this isn't like WWII, Saddam never attacked us, and it's pretty clear that his regime was not closely linked to Al-Qaida (there has been no evidence of that, and, again, if there were we would be getting spammed with that evidence by the administration) ... of course, thanks to us, now Irq is likely riddled with Al-Qaida types, so much for advancing the war on terror.

As for all the nonsense about the UN resolutions, what kind of precedent does this set? When Iran decides to give the finger to the nuclear inspectors, what are we goiong to do? Set a deadline and then attack Iran? What happens if Pakistan gets an Islamist regime? Do we attack  them too, simply because they have WMDs in the form of nuclear weapons?  I think that the policy of the administration here is not well-though-out, and that is because it is all about Iraq in particular, and not about any more general principles or strategy.  It is about finishing what we didn't do in 91 and, more personally for GWB, avenging the assassination attempt made on Bush Sr. in Kuwait at that time.  GWB has a conflict of interest when it comes to Iraq.

Nacho, your candidate is supporting the Woodward book, it is posted on the campaign website.  You should read it.  It paints the picture of a terrifyingly unreflective president, one who was bent on attacing Iraq well before 9/11, one who is so slef-convinced that he doesn't even consult key members of his own administration before making critical decisions like whether to go to war or not.  It really is a terrifying portrait ... we have an unreflective, impulsive, self-convinced crusader as President.  Having now read that book, there is no way I could possibly vote for this person again.

Brendan
« Last Edit: May 01, 2004, 07:38:45 AM by Brendan03 » Logged

B
katherine 2001
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 886


Eastern Orthodox Church--Established in 33 A.D.


« Reply #57 on: May 01, 2004, 11:09:34 AM »

Also, Bush reminds me of a bully who threatens to beat you up if you don't do what he wants you to.  Bush just threatens to send in our troops.  If you remember, last summer he wanted to send them into Liberia.  Of course, he's not the one that gets killed when the people decide to fight back.  That's why we have so many body bags coming back.  And, for the record, I had as much trouble with Clinton pulling this as I do Bush.  Let's face it, if foreign troops were occupying our country, we'd be doing the same things the Iraqui people are doing.  We have discovered that they have no WMD and Saddam is out of power.  Since we've captured him, he isn't going to be back in power.  What are we still doing there?  

We say we believe in freedom, but we interfere in other countries' freedom to do the things that are right for them and the freedom to disagree with us.  How often does the CIA and other organizations interfere with the politics of other countries to get rid of ones we don't like and get ones in there that we do.  I don't think the American people would like it if other countries did that to us, so why do we do it?    Personally, I believe that Russia and France made the right decision not to join us in the war on Iraq.  It's too bad that Bush took us in.
Logged
theodore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 194


« Reply #58 on: May 01, 2004, 11:53:52 AM »

Also, Bush reminds me of a bully who threatens to beat you up if you don't do what he wants you to.  Bush just threatens to send in our troops.  If you remember, last summer he wanted to send them into Liberia.  
Regardless of what we think of Bush, I have to take issue with your statement about Liberia.  It was actually the Europeans, including the French who wanted the US to take a leading role in preventing another bloodbath.  With all else going on in the world, I can't imagine Bush wanting to get involved in a non-strategic country such as Liberia.  The US (under both political parties) has encouraged the west African countries to help police their own region, and in fact a West African peace keeping force is ultimately what helped restore order.  A small contingent of US troops went into Liberia with the West Africans troops for about a 2 month span last year to help transition the nation to a peaceful state.  You don't hear much about Liberia now because the operation was a success, and Liberia is now in a rebuilding phase.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #59 on: May 01, 2004, 12:25:20 PM »

But Demetri, we can't go to war with the Muslim world, that is absolute madness.  And this isn't like WWII, Saddam never attacked us, and it's pretty clear that his regime was not closely linked to Al-Qaida (there has been no evidence of that, and, again, if there were we would be getting spammed with that evidence by the administration) ... of course, thanks to us, now Irq is likely riddled with Al-Qaida types, so much for advancing the war on terror.

Brendan03,
I am no warmonger. the president has said this is not a religious war. I believe that only to an extent. Where I disagree is that if one side attacks from a religious basis and the other side merely defends itself - it's still a religious war. No, it's not against Islam any more than our fighting "Christian" Nazis was fighting Christianity.

Quote
As for all the nonsense about the UN resolutions, what kind of precedent does this set? When Iran decides to give the finger to the nuclear inspectors, what are we goiong to do? Set a deadline and then attack Iran? What happens if Pakistan gets an Islamist regime? Do we attack  them too, simply because they have WMDs in the form of nuclear weapons?  I think that the policy of the administration here is not well-though-out, and that is because it is all about Iraq in particular, and not about any more general principles or strategy.  It is about finishing what we didn't do in 91 and, more personally for GWB, avenging the assassination attempt made on Bush Sr. in Kuwait at that time.  GWB has a conflict of interest when it comes to Iraq.

I'm sure that's your 'take' and I can respect your views. But if the UN's part in this is nonsense, as you say, what does that say to the politics of rapproachment and appeasement (which never has worked). If the UN is moot, why have it? I am all for moving the blasted thing to Jerusalem, declaring that city to be an international city, paying the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem, oh, 10 billion for all non-ecclesiatical property and then see how fast those those prima-donnae solve the problems over there.
WMDs? It took years for details of Nazi AND Japanese heavy-water experiments to come to light (and neither of them was trying overly much to hide the programs). My problem now is not whether Saddam had weapons such as these, but where are they now. I'm afraid we'll find out sooner rather than later. If you wish to fret over their existence, fine with me. I hope whoever is in the White House next round keeps looking - or we'll hear more of this "what did they know and when, blah, blah, blah..." stuff.

Our enemy is smarter than we are admitting.

Demetri



Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.163 seconds with 87 queries.