www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall If you are prolife how can you be prowar?

Interesting perspective from a Byzantine Catholic priest, Fr. Emmanuel Charles McCarthy, whose daughter was healed through the intercesion of St Edith Stein [contributing to her canonization]: military abortions [tcrnews2.com]
-Daniel

Sun Tzu could have easily spoken about war itself in this quote.

The best defense (Pro-Life) is a good offensive. That is why I support 100% President Bush on the war against terrorism. I believe certain wars like this fall under the "just war" theory.

During the first Gulf War I spoke out against it. On Ash Wednesday of that year I had the leader of the Muslim Community speak during the service. I did not know his position on the war but to my surprise he spoke in favor of it and hoped that Saddam Hussein's reign of terror would come to an end as a result.

I think modern warfare is in fact vastly more barbaric than ancient warfare not because ancient warfare didn't kill people but because modern warfare is so indiscriminate. One thing and one thing only keeps me supporting the President's position. Terrorists wish to kill people indiscrimanately. They are supported by a version of Islamic ideology. Since we Christians can't seem to convert them or stop them from killing people then the strong arm of a government should be unleashed upon them. If there is a chance of stopping or slowing terrorism by destroying Islamic tyranny and establishing another form of governance I support it. Will it work in the long run? I don't know.

CDL

It seems to me that this war is creating more, not less, terror, both the terror of war itself and the increased numbers of young Muslims convinced that the West is warring against Islam, and who are eager to give their lives for jihad...
-D

I doubt that claim, but still if you have some facts and figures then produce them.

CDL

Uh, read the papers, watch the news. Iraq is near civil war.

I think the best way to find out what's going on over there is to ask soldiers who are there, or who have returned. I think they'll give the most honest answer to what it really is like there.

I have mixed feelings about the war, but to give GWB credit, there hasn't been a terror attack since 9/11. Not many people give him credit for that fact. We've went to Afghanistan and Iraq, and yet there have been no attacks on US soil.

Take your choice. Choose a tyrant who murders hundreds of thousands, or develop a representative republic even if it has to go through a civil war. There are no easy answers.

CDL

You are assuming there will be a representative government on the far side of civil war, which is an act of faith on your part.
More likely an Iraqi-Iranian Shiite empire, or lingering chaos.
While Hussein certainly was brutal, it was possible to live a quiet, normal life in Iraq. Now the Iraqi people live with random violence and chaos...
And did you read Fr Emmanuel's article?
-Daniel

If it is a Shi'a empire it will still be better, won't it, that a British gerymandered country. But more than likely if any Muslim country in that region can become a republic it will be Iraq simply because of its more pluralistic constituency. I'm happy to see the terrorists preoccupied with Iraq. Let it be so and let them wear themselves out.

Yes, I read Father's article. Oh to be back at the University. No doubts. Only certitude and breathless at that.

CDL

Like Nazi Germany?

Well the fact is that when we entered the war, the reasons for doing so were not stated as being, "Helping build a democracy in Iraq just because Hussein is a brutal dictator." It was alleged that Hussein had WMDs (false), and the idea of close connection between bin Laden and Iraq (false) was planted in peoples' unsuspecting heads.

If Dubya and Cheney had come forward and said that the reason we were going to invade Iraq was because we wanted to build a democracy, get a foothold in the Middle East, and save thousands of Iraqis from persecution, Americans would have given that idea a big "hell no."

But this is Team America, World Police...and we've done this kind of thing before (Banana Republics). Nothing new under the sun.

Logos Teen

Yes, LT, you are absolutely right!

In my generation's lingo: This is the "A-Team," magnified a thousandfold!

Amado

There were well over a dozen reasons on the each of the respective lists used by the President and Congress to justify the liberation of Iraq. Freeing Iraq from a brutal dictator was indeed of the justifications given.

It is not false that Hussein had WMDs. He did have them and used them on the Kurds. If you doubt it, there was a �60 minutes� piece on it a few years back that showed lots of people born with deformities because of these chemical weapons. Lots of people seem to be accusing the President of falsifying this information yet they don�t seem to explain how he planted false intelligence with the British, French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, Israeli, Spanish and a whole host of other countries who confirmed the existence of WMDs. And, of course, people seem to forget that most of the intelligence on WMDs was gathered during the Clinton administration, and that President Clinton spoke numerous times on the need to get Hussein to give up WMDs. [Oh, wait! Clinton was part of the Bush plot to become dictator of the world!]

What happened to these WMDs? I don�t know. There are Iraqis who claim it was moved out of Iraq to Syria. Others claim it was moved elsewhere. They could be buried in the sand somewhere. Some even claim that they were attempting to create them but didn�t have the technical resources to do so but told Hussein he had them. There are a lot of documents from Iraq that shed light onto this issue. I have no idea why the Pentagon is so slow to actually release them. It is hard to believe that almost every single intelligence agency in the world who had data on Iraq�s WMDs had data that was false.

Regarding a connection with Bin Laden, the documentation does prove that there was a working relationship. It appears that Hussein did provide money to Bin Laden. In the late 1990s Bin Laden requested that Iraq's state-run television network broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda (which Hussein did). In 2004 the NY Times reported that Bin Laden�s personal representative to Hussein was a guy named Abu Hajer. The writer Stephen Hayes has documented much of this and seems to be working a �Freedom of Information� effort to get all the documents released. It�s really kind of amazing that people who see that Bin Laden had representatives in Florida (proven fact) but that there was no way possible that he cold have had them in Iraq (when there is documentation to show it). But given that the media simply doesn�t report on any of this it�s probably to be expected.

I disagree with Teen that this is the same as what happened with the �Banana Republics�. Both Afghanistan and Iraq have had a series of elections where the percentage of voters was HIGHER than that in America for national elections. That never happed in Central America. Also, those countries never managed to vote for a Constitution. Much of the larger effort at play was part of the Cold War.

--

On the topic that started this thread I praise the Lord for the miracle through St Edith Stein that healed Father McCarthy�s daughter. His perspective, however, seems very much like our own Daniel�s. They routinely paint America as the most evil force in the world and are silent about people like Hussein and the true evil he has done. They believe that President Bush is evil because he liberated Iraq and innocents were killed. Hussein is praised because, while he �was certainly brutal, [he] certainly was brutal, it was possible to live a quiet, normal life in Iraq.�

I�ve been waiting for almost 2 years for Daniel to provide his list of suggestions on how what peaceful means could have been tried after 12 years of diplomacy that could have stopped Hussein from feeding children into meat grinders before their parents and other horrible things. I guess he really believes that such things are nothing for us to worry about, that we may pass by the stranger on the road like the priest and the Levite, and reject the example of the good Samaritan.

If you are pro-life, how can you sit back and allow people like Hussein and others to commit their atrocities?

You know, nothing against you personally, LT, okay? But I keep hearing people say this - that the only reason we were given for going into this war was because of the WMDs.

But you know what? It was only a few years ago, and I remember quite well listening to the speeches and reading the newspapers at the time, and we most certainly WERE told about the brutality of Hussein's regime and the importance of getting him out of power for humanitarian reasons.

That was definitely the impression I came away with at the time. The failure to find the WMDs once we accomplished that goal was certainly disappointing, but IMHO did not nullify what, to me, seemed the primary reason for going in - to get rid of the brutal Hussein.

Also wanted to add - for those who continue to say that Bush lied about the WMDs in order to justify the war: if you were the President, and you were going to go to all that trouble to start a war, wouldn't you go the extra mile and plant a few phony WMDs in the search area, just to make it look good? The fact that no WMDs were found at all makes me MORE inclined to believe Bush was mistaken, rather than less.