www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Crimes Against Humanity

An interesting article that discussing the moral implications of the war.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0122-26.htm

Its unfortunate that Rilian "really can't conceive" of views much different than his own. And I'll stand by the great critiques of The New York Times by FAIR and Counterpunch until someone disproves their work. I'll also cite the example of The Times' support for Judith Miller until it was way too late as evidence of their past uncritical acceptance of the White house line and sources.

The speech cited by Rilian came from a hack journalist with an axe to grind. And given who the sponsors of that conference were and the place it was held, could we expect much more than a reflection of victimization? None the less, that conference also featured other intelligent voices who did not make The Times the object of their attacks and those voices are at least as worth hearing as the quotes provided by Rilian.

You will certainly hear more "anti-Catholic" sentiment in the pews and coffee hours of most Catholic churches than you will read in The New York Times.

I'm not going to defend The Times, however. My original point was that Frank Rich's columns in The Times show more critical thinking than the misnamed The New Criterion. I was also responding to some poorly expressed sarcasm from another poster. People who feel victimized by The Times can take their case to the special ombudsman at The Times. If Catholics--or anyone else who feel victimized by The Times--don't do this then their right to complain is diminished.

Today's column by Frank Rich features a strong attack on Democrats for their recent foibles and a debate on abortion issues which is at least worth reading. Alexander Cockburn made a stronger case on some of Rich's points in a recent issue of The Nation. I mention this to show that there is a wider spectrum of opinion than some posters see or may wish to admit. Given the width of this spectrum, The New York Times is most certainly not in the center or on the left.

Be well.

bob r.

Dear Daniel you said:

"Zenovia- Are you seriously comparing the situation in Iraq with NYC thirty years ago?
Let's see, in New York there were almost daily car bombs going off, killing scores of people? Suicide bombers? Something approaching civil war? An armed foreign occupation army with check points on the roads? How about bombs falling from the sky on centers of strife?"

I say:

Uh! Well now three murders a night in a city with a population of seven million would be equivalent to how many in Iraq? Now I thought you'd figure that one out. Well I guess the one with the most media coverage wins...at least in your mind.

You said:

"And note our continued military occupation of parts of Japanese and German territory and you will be getting closer to the truth."

I say:

Yes the truth is that's it's better for us to have our armed forces there to combat threats from their neighbors, then having Germany and Japan rebuild their armies...especially considering their history. Again, I thought you'd figure that one out.

You said:

Our military occupation of oil rich Muslim lands has grown by leaps and bounds. We are now the dominant power in the Mideast. If things had gone better in Iraq I have no doubt that we would have taken Iran and Syria as well...

I say:

Well I guess you'd rather we have a dependancy on their oil at 'their' terms. Well considering the comments I have heard from Muslims and what they would like, I frankly don't like their terms. Somehow I find a flag with a crescent flying on the White House and Buckingham Palace not very appealing. Are you sure you're not Muslim?

Zenovia

Zenovia, my dear, sarcasm does not become you. To
compare the violence in modern Iraq with the worst US cities see this piece from the Christian Science Monitor [csmonitor.com]
Over a thousand murders a month in Baghdad alone? Care to rethink your theory?
-Daniel

Dear Daniel,

I suggest you delve into some history books, and find out exactly how long it took democracy to become established in sooo many nations.

For one, most European nations did not become democracies until after WWII, when we helped rebuild them in our own image. Eastern Europe was the exception. It was the Soviets that tried to rebuild them in their own image. In the end they failed. I guess their 'image' wasn't as successful.

As for Asia...the same thing. And then let's not forget South America. As far as I can see, some still do not have democracies.

Well if you must consider Iraq, then also consider that the Germans, (the one's that were still alive after the war), were starving for two years, and it took ten years for them to become established. Do you consider Iraq then, to have some kind of 'miraclous' turnover?

Normally what would have been done in the past, is we or England would have invaded Iran and Syria, and given Iraq a chance for a better future....but now thanks to the opposition in our own country, who would rather see Bush's policies fail rather than peace and stability in that part of the world, (and couldn't give a damn about how many people in Iraq are murdered for the sake of our internal politics), we dare not do so.

Shame! Shame! Shame! Well maybe Israel will do it for us. Or better yet, maybe some terrorists will attack France and she will 'nuke' them.

So tell me Daniel, since you are so 'compassionate', wouldn't it be better if you and others like you, stopped your griping and allow this nation, (which is quite humane since we're not ready to nuke anyone), to do something about all those people in Syria, (that are paid by Saddam Husseins money from Switzerland), and those from Iran's Ayatollahs from killing innocent Iraqi's.

Time we stopped this conversation...it's getting rediculous. I think some people need a reality check.

Zenovia

Reality check: try this [antiwar.com] or or this [robertfisk.com] [warning: graphic images, not for the faint-hearted]

Get real...

-Daniel

You know, Zenovia, you claimed that the rate of violence in Iraq now is roughly equivalent to NYC in the 70s.
When I linked to an article that showed that the murder rate in Baghdad alone had soared after the American invasion to well over twelve times the NY rate [Baghdad having roughly 6 million inhabitants, NYC roughly 8 million, in sheer numbers Baghdad is over 10 times the deaths] you changed the subject to another irrelevant attempt at an analogy.
Neither Japan nor Germany had a population composed of mutually antagonistic groups. Neither experienced civil war after their defeat.
Both were a clear threat to American interests, having attacked our allies, and in Japan's case, our territory.
So, I propose you back up. I invite the Administrator to join you in a little exercise [for the time he claimed that the US had dropped leaflets on Hiroshima and Nagasaki warning the civilian population that we were going to vaporize their cities. Several months ago he said he would get back to me when I asked for documentation].
So, Zenovia and John, are you ready?
Repeat after me:"What I claimed was simply untrue. I was w...w...wrong."
There, now don't you feel better?
Dr. Daniel, resident therapist since 1993

Too much to respond to at the moment (things pile up when you miss a few days reading), but I did notice that once again Daniel complains about mistakes by United States forces and is silent about Hussein�s purposeful atrocities.

What Daniel claimed is simply untrue. He is w�w�wrong!

Yes, I feel better!

Daniel, someday I hope you will explain why you have so little regard for the people of Iraq. I cannot believe that you praise the �civil stability� under Hussein and would do nothing about the ongoing torture and murder under Hussein of over 300,000 Iraqis. Your posts suggest that, a generation ago, you would have been silent to Hitler�s genocide of the Jews while praising that he kept the streets of Berlin safe from ordinary crime and made the trains run on time.

That is nothing but madness and irresponsibility.

Are you really that cold and uncaring towards your suffering brothers and sisters across the world?

If you�re not, why won�t you share your plan that would have helped free them from a murderous tyrant that would not have involved any use of force? I hate war and can respect those who never want war. But simply withdrawing and refusing to participate in the world as if it didn�t exist is really nothing more than support for the cause of Hussein-like tyranny.

You can ignore these questions here on the Forum but eventually your heart will demand an account as to why you turn a deaf ear to those who are suffering.

We speak from such different assumptions that it is almost pointless to talk, were it not for those reading our exchange and testing the facts.
If you click the links I have given you will see Iraqi suffering. Why are you so indifferent to the human suffering caused by our government, done in our name?
This world is full of inhumanity. The military industrial complex appeals to our good will to justify its imperial drive. It is indifferent to what suffering this entails. Look at Cheney's objection to Senator McCain's anti-torture bill, and Bush's undermining of its intent even when signing it. Look at the way the Bush administration has redefined "torture" to mean only that which causes death or permanent organ damage!
All humans, even the most despised, carry the image of God and are not to be abused, even for a "noble" cause.
Of course Saddam Hussein was brutal. But that is not why we went into Iraq; a lot of OUR allies are brutal, as you admit. Somehow that is acceptable to you. I know you supported our alliance with Hussein when we thought Iran was a threat, even while he was abusing his own people [and the Shiite theocracy hardly was an ally of the Soviet Union, as you have claimed].

And about those leaflets: I am still awaiting your documentation.
-Daniel

Daniel�s attempt simply to change subjects yet again demonstrates the shallowness of his position. If he really believes that there were methods that could have relieved the suffering of the Iraqi people without the use of force then he should be able to tell us what they were. His complaint that the liberation of Iraq from a murderous tyrant was not one of the major reasons for our intervention is simply not factual. His continued silence on this two year old question indicates that he either has no answer or does not care about the suffering of the Iraqis. I guess the 300,000 Iraqis purposely killed by Hussein do not carry the image of God.

I am really amazed that Daniel cannot discern between a doctor, who in attempting to remove a cancer accidentally takes some good tissue with the cancer, and the cancer itself. The United States and its allies is the doctor. Taking innocent tissue along with the cancer is regrettable and to be avoided. Leaving the cancerous Hussein to continue to infect Iraq would have cost more innocent lives in the long run. Daniel obviously prefers to let someone else die with cancer than to risk the possibility of accidentally taking any good tissue with the bad.

Again, I was all for peaceful methods of freeing the Iraqis from the dictator. Unfortunately people like Daniel were silent with the plans they knew could work without the use of force. All the ones that were known were tried over 12 years and didn�t work.

Yes, yes, I know Daniel�s position. America is more morally evil than Hussein. We are the cancer. Not Hussein.

My position is the Church's. You hold a dissident position on not only this but the principles of warfare. You have repeatedly defended the use of nuclear weapons on cities and then dare lecture me about a lack of compassion!
You have also defended the use of torture on suspected terrorists.
Our difference lies in your adherence to the neoconservative ideological line and the lies they use to further their power grab.
Again, if Iraq's main export was turnips would we be at war?
Why did our humanitarian empire stand by while the Sudanese are being slaughtered?
Why do we ally ourselves with oppressive tyrants?
-Daniel

I�m sorry Daniel but your position is not the Church�s. Do you actually believe that the Church had no problem with the 300,000 dead Iraqis and that we were to imitate the Levite and the priest and pass them by? Do you actually believe that your praise for the appearance of a civil society with the killing done away from the television cameras is what the Church wants of us?

The Church asked both Hussein and the Coalition Forces to avoid the use of force. Hussein refused and there was no other means to liberate the Iraqis from the tyrant. There are a lot of points here that the Church offers basic principles but no details.

Yes, I do continue to defend the use of nuclear weapons to end WWII. If they had been available sooner and used sooner in that war many more lives could have been saved. I sleep peacefully at night with my conscience on this. Would you have slept as peacefully knowing that Hussein was continuing to torture and murder people and we did nothing on your advice?

Torture on suspected terrorists? No, I have condemned that. Where we differ here is what we consider to be torture. You seem to consider anything beyond holding back lunch for an hour to be torture.

Would we be at war if Iraqi�s main export were turnips? Possibly. But I suspect the United Nations never would have authorized a �Turnip for Food� program which would have allowed Hussein and the United Nations to make billions of dollars, and thus propping him up for many additional years. And yes, I do not put of the table the possible use of force to free the suffering in Sudan if diplomatic means fail. Even though the United Nations does not really care we should. And we should act.

I guess that you must actually believe that the 300,000 Iraqis purposely killed by Hussein do not carry the image of God. Nor did the 6 million Jews and 3 million Christians murdered by Hitler. Every time you refuse to say how we should have helped the Iraqis without the use of force reinforces your belief in this. Each time you address our unintentional mistakes without first addressing Hussein's evils you show the absurdity of your position. Each time you change the subject you just make it worse.

What you believe is clear. America is more morally evil than Hussein. We are the cancer. Not Hussein.

We are repeating ourselves. We have been through this before.In other threads I have linked you to definitive statements by the popes condemning nuclear warfare and judging that the Iraq war was unjust.
I have never defended Saddam Hussein, though I think your numbers suspect.
You seem to have dropped your insistence that the US warned the citizens of Japan ahead of the bombing, with no apology for the false statement.You hold to notions about Iraqi links to Al Queda that are laughable and that the administration no longer claims. You even still believe that there were weapons of mass destruction, which the administration now says was faulty intelligence.
Your repeated defense of the vaporization of hundreds of thousands of civilians reveals your circumstantialist ethics.
I see no point in our continued argument. Those reading it and the links I have supplied, and are familiar with what the Church has taught historically about the limits to warfare can judge for themselves who is speaking truth.
I suppose that if the Iraq situation in the end is unsustainable you will blame we who opposed it rather than finally admitting you were wrong...
-Daniel

Dear Daniel you said:

"You know, Zenovia, you claimed that the rate of violence in Iraq now is roughly equivalent to NYC in the 70s.
When I linked to an article that showed that the murder rate in Baghdad alone had soared after the American invasion to well over twelve times the NY rate [Baghdad having roughly 6 million inhabitants, NYC roughly 8 million, in sheer numbers Baghdad is over 10 times the deaths] you changed the subject to another irrelevant attempt at an analogy."

I say:

Sorry, I made a mistake. I didn't take into account all the Arab 'invaders' from the neighboring countries. But then again, since they are invaders, it wouldn't make it a civil war now would it?

You said:

"Neither Japan nor Germany had a population composed of mutually antagonistic groups."

I say:

No, they were all done away with under Adolph Hitler in Germany..and then again, Bismark managed through wars and intrigues to unite all the German principalities into one nation. As for Japan, I do not know much about them.

You said:

" Neither experienced civil war after their defeat."

I say:

How could they. Germany had no men left, (over 13 years old that is)... not to mention the amount of troops we had in both countries. But then again, how could Iraq be suffering a civil war? Aren't those committing the attrocities on the population invaders from Syria and Iran?

You said:

"Both were a clear threat to American interests, having attacked our allies, and in Japan's case, our territory."

I say:

Actually, neither were a threat to American interests. We forced Japan to attack us because of the sanctions we imposed on her. We didn't like the attrocities she was committing on the Asian people.

You said:

"So, I propose you back up. I invite the Administrator to join you in a little exercise [for the time he claimed that the US had dropped leaflets on Hiroshima and Nagasaki warning the civilian population that we were going to vaporize their cities."

I say:

I don't know anything about that. What I do know is that my grandson went to Hiroshima and Nagasaki two summers ago. He visited the grand museums Japan had in both places showing the sufferings the people went through. He also saw a tiny run down museum that was maintained by the Korean government and the horrific attrocities that were committed on them by the Japanese troops. He said one picture showed the decapitation of the Korean princess. The Japanese students, by the way were horrified. They were never told.

You know, I recall the stories told by the American troops in the Far East. They saw movies of what the Japanese were doing to the people in the Phillipines and the rest of the Far East. The Japanese considered these people'inferior' you know.

Do not judge what Germany and Japan were then, by what they are now. Remember, it took us years to change those societies. They were quite 'martial' you know.

You said:

"Repeat after me:"What I claimed was simply untrue. I was w...w...wrong."
There, now don't you feel better?"

I say:

Repeat after me: I will start studying history, (by many different sources), so I will know what I am talking about, because he who does not know history is bound to repeat it.

And a few more things. We have learned that it is better to force a change to a society before it turns into a major war and millions die. I believe the death toll due to WW II is something in the figure of sixty to eighty million. I think this includes the Far East.
Zenovia

Patriarch of Antioch accuses the USA of destroying interreligious peace in Iraq

Damascus, January 20, Interfax - The military intervention of the USA and their allies in the life of Iraq has destroyed the interreligious peace throughout the region, Patriarch Ignatios of Antioch and All the East believes.

�Saddam was really a cruel dictator, but he stood up for religious minorities. Now, as a result of the intervention in Iraq, the fragile peace and balance between the confessions have been broken, and many Christians have had to flee to other countries�, Patriarch Ignatios said in an interview publish by the Trud daily on Friday.

He said the Middle East states are facing today serious social and religious problems, which have resulted in terrorism.

�Therefore we stand for changes in the Middle East and most cardinal changes at that, but they should be carried out peacefully, even more so without any interference from outside�, the patriarch believes.

Iraq is one of the countries situated in the canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Antioch, along with Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, and the UAE.