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

Daniel,

I am quite happy to keep repeating myself.

You most certainly do defend Saddam Hussein each time you refuse to offer an action plan that would have worked to free the Iraqi people without the use of force.

You most certainly do defend Salaam Hussein when you take Vatican documents out of context by ignoring that it condemned all war for any reason, and asked both sides to find a means of settling these issues without the use of force. You have repeatedly condemned America as a great moral evil because of the use of force, said little or nothing about Hussein�s refusal to comply with the international community and live up to the ceasefire he agreed to 12 years earlier. You even praised him for providing a stable and civil society in the same posts you treated the President as the worst moral evil of our day.

Weapons of Mass Destruction? Are you so willing to believe that everyone from President Clinton to Russian President Putin to the Chinese, the Israelis, the French, the Germans and the British were all totally wrong in the intelligence gathered throughout the 1990s and right up until 2003? I�m not that gullible. If there was an intelligence failure I want to know why. I do not want those WMDs turning up in Syria, Iran or somewhere else.

I do hope that everyone reads the links you have offered. Each of them shows the vacancy of your position.

You have offered no action plan on what should have been done to liberate the suffering Iraqi people from a murderous tyrant. It�s very obvious that you believe that only the souls killed unintentionally by America in the liberation effort carry the image of God. And that you believe that the 300,000 (documented � go check the mass graves) murdered by Hussein were not created in the image of God.

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

Admin

Dear John,

Without wanting to get into this discussion, I can't help but wonder if everything were exactly the same and equal as it is now, but our President's name was Clinton instead of Bush, and our Administration was of another political persuasion, would there be all this fuss about our country and its actions?

Truly just wondering because I believe in objectivity, and I remember one particular interview with our former President and Larry King where President Clinton was in complete agreement with our present Administration's actions to go to war in Iraq.

Alice

I don't know how Daniel's criticism of the war effort equates with "defend(ing) Saddam Hussein each time you refuse to offer an action plan that would have worked to free the Iraqi people without the use of force." That sounds to me as a way of avoiding discussion.

I don't think that Daniel "praised (Hussein) for providing a stable and civil society in the same posts (that he) treated the President as the worst moral evil of our day." The previous cited news item from the Church of Antioch gave Hussein more praise than Daniel has.

And I don't know why one must offer an "action plan on what should have been done to liberate the suffering Iraqi people from a murderous tyrant" in order to have a viewpoint on the war. If this were true, it would include pro-war as well as antiwar people and I'm not sure that anyone has a plan, either way, which is guaranteed to work or which would draw the support of a majority of people in either Iraq or in the USA. We know what doesn't work from a daily read of the press but none of us knows what wll certainly work.

And I don't know why anyone would trust the intelligence services of "President Clinton to Russian President Putin to the Chinese, the Israelis, the French, the Germans and the British" given that we can't see what they have gathered or know why and how this information was gathered or grasp the debates which take place behind the scenes. In any case, these are hardly objective sources or the only voices and it does not comfort me that they may have found some sort of agreement; this sort of forced concensus comes with Empire, you know.

I might be more easily convinced if I could hear a few reputable Iraqis not in Washington's or London's pockets asking the US to stay in their country. The Iraqi delegations which have come here have all asked or demanded that the US leave their country.

I don't know that Daniel has "(taken) Vatican documents out of context" or how this would amount to supporting Hussein. That seems like a rather illogical formulation to me. Its mixing pomegranates and rocks.

If one really does not want "those WMDs turning up in Syria, Iran or somewhere else" one should begin with disarming Isael and getting its security services out of the US and its lobbyists out of American politician's offices.

It�s not "very obvious" to me that Daniel believes "that only the souls killed unintentionally by America in the liberation effort carry the image of God." Or that he believes "that the 300,000 murdered by Hussein were not created in the image of God." If someone states clearly what their position is, we should accept that. No one argues a position which is not their own.

But Daniel is not the antiwar movement. If you want to know what the antiwar movement has to say, go to

www.unitedforpeace.org [unitedforpeace.org]

www.catholicpeacefellowship.org [catholicpeacefellowship.org]

www.paxchristiusa.org [paxchristiusa.org]

None of these groups go about "(treating) the President as the worst moral evil of our day." I can imagine that a few antiwar actvists think in these terms--I often do--but, really, the emphasis has been on political positions and supporting returning troops.

The Catholic Peace Fellowship site has a great section on Church teaching which convinces me that Daniel has stated his antiwar positions more or less correctly and in line with Church teaching. Please read it carefully.

We also have Romanian Catholic Bishop John Michael Botean saying, "Therefore I, by the grace of God and the favor of the Apostolic See Bishop of the Eparchy of St. George in Canton, must declare to you, my people, for the sake of your salvation as well as my own, that any direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil, a matter of mortal sin. Beyond a reasonable doubt this war is morally incompatible with the Person and Way of Jesus Christ. With moral certainty I say to you it does not meet even the minimal standards of the Catholic just war theory. Thus, any killing associated with it is unjustified and, in consequence, unequivocally murder. Direct participation in this war is the moral equivalent of direct participation in an abortion. For the Catholics of the Eparchy of St. George, I hereby authoritatively state that such direct participation is intrinsically and gravely evil and therefore absolutely forbidden. My people, it is an incontestable Biblical truth that a sin left unnamed will propagate itself with lavish zeal. We must call murder by its right name: murder. God and conscience require nothing less if the face of the earth is to be renewed and if the salvation offered by Our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ is to reach all people, including us. We have no choice before the face of God but to speak unambiguously to the moral situation with which we are confronted and to live according to the Will of Him who gazes at us from the Cross (Catechism 1785). Let us pray for each other and take care of each other in this spiritually trying time. To this end our Church is wholeheartedly committed to the support of any of our members in the military or government service who may be confronted with situations of legal jeopardy due to their need to be conscientious objectors to this war. Let us also pray in earnest with the Mother of God, who knows what it is to have her Child destroyed before her eyes, that the destruction of families, lives, minds and bodies that war unleashes will not take place. Finally, my brothers and sisters in Christ, be assured that Our Lord is aware that our �No� to murder and our prayers for peace are our faithful response to his desires. He will remember this forever and ever, and so it is to him we must now turn, in him we must now trust."

But if the Bishop's words do not suffice, or if he is wrong about Catholic social teaching, and we must indeed offer "an action plan" let me sketch some possibilities: break all ties with Israel, uncouple the American military from the military-industrial complex and reverse the privatization of the military, empower all regional governments and legitimate political parties in the region to meet and decide what happens next without interference from either Washington or London, guarantee peacetime social and reconstruction aid from the coaliton of countries which have been prosecuting the war, guarantee that all returning soldiers get all needed medical care and full educational opportunities, close the secret prisons and Guantanamo and free everyone held in these prisons, constitute a multinational commission to judge any person or army or armed group which committed any war crimes and sentence and imprison war criminals, withdraw all armed forces from the region immediately, restart or continue international nuclear disarmament negotiations with parallel negotiations dealing with WMDs, provide a leading role for representatives of the Abrahamic faiths in all negotiations and commissions and trials, dedicate 8 per cent of the GDPs of the leading industrial nations to peaceful and ecologically sound world development and restore privatized property to a true Iraqi coalition government.

I never expected Clinton or Gore to be antiwar. You will see in the UFP&J website that we have a campaign underway to bird-dog Sen. Clinton as well. Alexander Cockburn has a critical piece in the December 12, 2005 issue of The Nation analyzing Representative Jack Murtha's good speech on the consequences of the war and the tepid Democratic response. Please read it before responding to this post or attacking Daniel again.

Bishop John Michael Botean, the Church teachings contained on the CPF site, the statement from the Church of Antioch, Murtha's speech and Cockburn's analysis--they do indeed mean more to me than intelligence received and revealed via "President Clinton to Russian President Putin to the Chinese, the Israelis, the French, the Germans and the British."

Be well.

bob r.

No. This is the type of non sequitur that Rove, Coulter, and the extreme right has raised to an art form. The "vacancy" revealed here is that of the administrator who cannot adhere to rational arguments, but instead must resort to phony smear tactics.

Alice,

Thanks for the post. Ironically I supported President Clinton 100% in the efforts he took to safeguard America and others around the world.

It seems to me that some well meaning people in our country have decided that we are more evil than the murderous tyrants of the world. As I have stated many times, I respect and support the need to resolve disputes without the use of force. That Hussein forced us to take military action against him is a failure in itself. But it is not possible to resolve all disputes without the use of force. Sometimes you need to take out the bully.

Yes, once in awhile Daniel will admit that Hussein was not a great guy. But the bulk of his posts over the past two years have simply ignored Hussein and concentrated on what he seems to consider to be the most moral evil in the world: America. I am continually amazed that he can limit his focus to our action and yet be silent about the true evils of people like Hussein, even to the point of praising the �civil society� that Hussein had in Iraq. I wonder if he would praise the mayor of Detroit for creating a �civil society� should he declare martial law and reduce the murder rate to near zero? I wonder what he would say if that mayor�s militia raped and killed a few dozen women each night? I guess so long as the total number of people dying were lower than the current number Daniel would praise the mayor for creating a �civil society�, especially if he kept the town square quiet. And since Daniel does not live in Detroit he must feel that it�s not really his business. He might not actually believe this, but this is what he communicates in every post.

In the end what you speak about it what is important to you. It�s clear that Daniel seems to believe that the people we might have unintentionally killed are created in the image of God and the 300,000 murdered by Hussein are not. His silence on what nonviolent means we should have used shouts from the rooftops that he does not care.

If Daniel�s logic were consistent, I can imagine what he would have said about our earlier war presidents. Michael Barone had a good article in the current issue of U.S. News and World Report entitled: �Presidents At War: By opting to ...following in the footsteps of history� [usnews.com] that made me think of how Daniels� logic would have approached earlier conflicts. Here are some bits, rendered with the logic as he has presented it here:

-President Lincoln was evil because he allowed America to enter into a civil war. Lincoln is guilty of crimes against humanity because had he not chosen to enter into civil war all those people would not have gotten killed. And it was up to those slaves to rise up and speak for themselves, anyway.

-President Woodrow Wilson was evil because he chose to enter a war with Germany rather than comply with Germany�s demand that we stop all trade with Britain and France. He is guilty of crimes against humanity because he could have caved to Germany�s demand and avoided war.

-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was evil because he sent massive aid to Britain and the Soviet Union, and also stopped sending oil to Japan. Had he not done those things Japan would have had no reason to attack us. And it was the responsibility of those six million Jews to rise up against Hitler. FDR was guilty of crimes against humanity because he was the real cause of the war.

-President Jimmy Carter is guilty of crimes against humanity because he sent in 8 helicopters in a failed attempt to rescue the American hostages and several innocent Iranians were killed in the process.

-President Bill Clinton is guilty of crimes against humanity because he pretty much leveled Kosovo by the dropping of thousands of bombs, killing many thousands of innocent civilians.

Daniel�s silence on what nonviolent action we should have taken to liberate the suffering people of Iraq is nothing less than support for evil. It might be unintentional support but it is support. When he freely chooses to concentrate on attacking America for supposed crimes against humanity while not first and consistently addressing the true evil of someone like Hussein he communicates the belief that he does not care about those who suffered under Hussein.

Djs has noted that I am guilty of smearing Daniel. I disagree. I have spoken clearly about Daniel�s positions on these issues, offering detailed responses as to why I believe him to be incorrect. His posts have ignored almost all requests for him to defend his position and have simply and almost uniformly shifted subjects to focus on what he considers to be yet another evil committed by America and/or President Bush. If he offered alternative actions we could have taken to alleviate the suffering in Iraq without the use of force I was ready to listen (and still am). But a good deal of his focus on the evil that is America comes with references that the best he can about President Bush is that he is a �dupe�. I have never said such things about anyone. Daniel is the one who is guilty of smearing another.

Admin

You know, I enjoy a spirited debate. However, once the Administrator hauls out the Manichean Steamroller, intelligent conversation becomes impossible.
You know the Steamroller: like George "you're either with us or against us" Bush, the Steamroller insists that if you are not 100% behind American policy you are pro-Saddam, lacking all compassion, etc.
The Steamroller will tell you what you think, what you believe, and will put words in your mouth and then triumphantly refute them.
Rolling on, it will excuse American violence as "accidental" and/or "medicinal" while condemning the violence of our enemies.
It will insist we do not use torture, while redefining the word. [My rule of thumb: if it were done to American prisoners would it be considered acceptable? But there I go again, insisting on universal moral standards].
According to the Steamroller, if America vaporizes civilian populations, it is regretable but morally acceptable, given the nobility of our cause. If jihadists kill civilians [in what is to them a very noble cause, the Reign of God] it only shows their savagery. [Again, my insistence on universal moral standards raises objections].
The Steamroller will make outlandish claims, and when challenged will promise to get back with you. It then will ignore repeated requests for either documentation or an apology, pretending never to have said any such thing.
To the Steamroller, Catholic social doctrine and the judgements of the popes are subservient to the word of the neoconservative cabal behind Bush.
And so on.
When it has finally worn out the opposition by repetition and personal insults, and he is finally silent, it is considered a great intellectual victory.
It may be late for a New Year's resolution, but from now on when I see the Steamroller revving up I am out of here.
Thank you, my friends, for your support. I think anyone witnessing this ridiculous attempt to win an argument will recognize it for what it is: the Manichean Steamroller.
-Daniel

Dear Bob,

I am going to take one sentence of yours, and explain how it is faulty:

"... one should begin with disarming Isael and getting its security services out of the US and its lobbyists out of American politician's offices."

You know at one time, I would have agreed with you, after all those pictures of suffering Palestinians certainly do cause a reaction in our emotions. They are intended to.

Well I've ceased to react by my emotions, and decided to use my logic. First of all, the Palestinians want the right of return. Now that would automatically make them a majority, so that Israel would cease to be a Jewish state. No doubt that is what all Arabs want, after all no Muslim should be under the leadership of a non-Muslim. (It's in the Koran).

Now why was Palestine allowed by the U.N. to become the state of Israel? It allowed it because during WW II, the Jews had no land willing to take them in. Had they had a nation, six-million would not have perished. After all at the beginning of the war, all Germany wanted to do was get rid of them... but they had no place to go to.

Now why are the Palestinians living in concentration camps after all these years? After all, they are Arabs and certainly there are other Arab nations. Can you imagine if something were to happen to Canada, and the Canadians came here and we didn't allow them to establish themselves. Instead we had them living in concentration camps for forty plus years.

So if these people are suffering, it is not because of a lack of funds, because all those funds that are given freely by the Saudi's goes towards propaganda and terrorism in order to reclaim the land of Israel. Shouldn't those funds be used to help the suffering Palestinian people establish themselves?

Isn't something wrong here? If you look at the map and see the change in borders in Europe during the past 100 years, you will notice that the exchange of populations was in the millions. Border changed before wars, during wars, and after wars. Why is it then that these people in Europe are not still sitting in concentration camps? Think about it!

Zenovia

See, Daniel has done it yet again. He refuses to respond with an action plan on what we should have done to relieve the suffering in Iraq and then equates my persistent request for that plan as a personal insult. What he is doing is all too common in our society. If you cannot defend your position, simply accuse the person you disagree with of issuing personal insult. What he should be saying is �I disagree with your position because of reasons A, B and C and I believe that the non-violent methods we should have used to relieve suffering in Iraq but did not try are D, E and F. If we had done D, E and F it would have guaranteed to end the suffering in Iraq without the loss of innocent lives.� Instead he issues yet another litany of perceived American evils (all greatly distorted) and is yet once again silent on the evils of Hussein.

Dear Daniel,

Now you said the following:

"It will insist we do not use torture, while redefining the word. [My rule of thumb: if it were done to American prisoners would it be considered acceptable? But there I go again, insisting on universal moral standards]."

I say:

Of course the torture used on the prisoners of Saddam Hussein are not in the same category as his would have been, nor would our soldiers do to those that are in charge of them what the Iraqi's were doing. but I don't think you are willing to accept it....so I want you repeat after me:

"I Daniel refute all methods, (no matter how humane they may be in comparison to what our enemy is doing), by our government to obtain information about future terrorism. I therefore ask my Lord, if my actions prove to be faulty, and a terrorist attack does occur because I refuted all means of getting information from the prisoners, that the sufferings of those terrorist actions will fall on me and my loved ones."

I'm just kidding, I really don't expect you to say that...I just wanted you to know how rediculous you're being.

Actually Daniel if you really want to have an open mind, find out what threats the prisoners had given the soldiers. Find out how little concern those prisoners had for their own lives, so that they were perfectably able to carry out their threats with total indifference. Do you really think so little of the lives of our troops?

Zenovia

I have been wanting to comment on this but I have been really busy getting ready to go to my acupuncture class in California this weekend.

I believe that the Fathers wrote that the Antichrist will come from the Tribe of Dan. The Tribe of Dan was dispersed and interbred during the Assyrian conquest of the Kingdom of Israel. So, a man from the Tribe of Dan could well come from anywhere in the Middle East, Arabia, Persia, Turkey, the Balkans, Germany, Slovakia, etc...

He could even be Putin!!!

Of course Iconophile's name is Daniel.

Just kidding, you contribute alot here!

To all the Lurkers here,

Don't you just LOVE these tag-team bouts?

Especially when the Chief Referee gets into the fray!

Alex

Roll on, John.
Perhaps you would like to join my new 12 step program, Steamrollers Anonymous?
If you would like to start the process toward a more intellectually honest life, begin with SA's first two steps:
Steamrollers Anonymous Recovery Steps:

1] When engaging in debate, first state your opponent's position in a way he would acknowledge as an accurate description of what he is saying. If he objects, listen to what he says he believes. Only when you both agree to the terms should you engage in debate.

2]Assume that he is well-meaning and honest unless no other interpretation of his words and actions is possible.

Be brave, take the steps.
True, you won't seem to experience victory as often, but remember that victories against straw men exist only in your head; to others they look silly indeed.
Dr Daniel, therapist to the forum

Alex- In this instance he isn't the ref; more like the guy on the zimboni [sp?] entering the brawl!

And Administrator: if you join Steamrollers Anonymous I promise I will join Smart Alecks Anonymous. Deal?
-D

Daniel,

Yet again you ignore the issues and the questions asked!!!

There is no intellectual dishonesty in what I have posted. Also, I have never once questioned your honesty or suggested that you are not well meaning. It�s not good to respond to disagreement on issues with accusations of dishonesty.

I invite you again to post a clear summary of your position. �I disagree with your position because of reasons A, B and C and I believe that the non-violent methods we should have used to relieve suffering in Iraq but did not try are D, E and F. If we had done D, E and F it would have guaranteed to end the suffering in Iraq without the loss of innocent lives.� This would suffice nicely, as I have noted on probably a dozen occasions.

I am willing to listen to what effort you would have had us take in Iraq that would not have required the use of force, especially since the professional diplomats tried for 12 years and failed. Yet in your many posts you have not offered a single point of your action plan. If you expect someone to give attention to what your ideas are regarding what we should have done you have to be clear in stating what you would have done.

Be brave. Do not be afraid to actually provide a clear presentation of what you believe should have been done to end the suffering the Iraqis experienced under Hussein.

Admin

Well you have accused me of lacking charity, of not recognizing the image of Christ in anyone but America's victims, of indifference to suffering, to any number of other offenses.
And you haven't even tried step 1, describing my position in a way I can acknowledge as accurate. You prefer to attack your own imaginary opponent.
And I have addressed your questions, which you seem to have forgotten [on a previous thread on a similar subject].
At any rate, I studied moral theology, not political science. Assessing the morality of an act or a policy does not mean that one need have a detailed alternative plan of action.
The Holy Father John Paul II judged that the inspections were effective. As I have suggested before, encouragement of Iraqi initiative to resist Hussein would have been appropriate.
As the last two Popes have stated, modern warfare is problematic and may never be justified.
Whatever the motive - and I don't for a moment believe the Bush neocon propaganda- at the very least a decision to go to war involves proportionality. The evil effects of the war cannot outweigh the good results.
The story of course is not over, and you and I disagree on our assessment of the goods and evils our action has brought.
Difficult, as we don't know how many Iraqis have died. Bush says 30,000, which we may safely assume is extremely low an estimate.
Difficult, too, because we don't know how many Iraqis Hussein killed. You say 300,000, which I can safely assume is extremely high [counting all the Iraqi dead from the US-supported war with Iran hardly seems fair; why not count them as killed by the US?]
Anyway, if you want to climb off the steamroller and state my position rather than your imaginary opponent's perhaps we may have a civil discussion. Until then I am not interested in more abuse.
-Daniel