DeoOmnisGloria.com

Mr. Akin is certainly entitled to his reading of Ratzinger’s note, as well as an opinion regarding abortion. I do think that abortion is as such, the single most important moral issue relative to each of the other moral issues. But the moral issues involved in the cultivation of a Culture of Life do not come to us singly, or in a tidy box. Hence, I am not convinced that it should be the sole criteria for choosing (or not) a President.

As I have written before, the cultivation of a Culture of Life involves more than taking care of a single issue. While I question Bush’s integrity regarding his “pro-life” position – since it is a rather incomplete pro-life stance, I think you and I agree generally that another Bush term would result in a lessening in the number of abortions. That said, the vast majority of the remainder of Bush’s (and the GOP’s) policies – foreign and domestic – fly squarely in the face of the Culture of Life.

Again, the USCCB has not gone as far as either your weblog, or Akin’s weblog in your endorsement of Bush, and I think for the very obvious reason that they cannot collectively in good conscience, portray the intricate (and deathly) moral issues at stake in this election as simplistically as you and Akin (and others) do.

I suspect I will render a vote for Bush when the USCCB articulates clearly the reasons why the only viable vote for a faithful Catholic to render, is a vote for Bush. Until then, I will not render a vote for Bush – In good conscience, as a faithful Catholic, I cannot.

Peace

"First, we must regain humility and recognize the limits of our powers, and most importantly, the limits of our knowledge and judgment. We have been making decisions, taking actions, and assigning values that are leading us away from the world as it should be, away from the design of God for creation, away from all that is essential for a healthy planet and a healthy commonwealth of people. A new approach and a new culture are needed, based on the centrality of the human person within creation and inspired by environmentally ethical behavior stemming from our triple relationship to God, to self, and to creation. Such an ethics fosters interdependence and stresses the principles of universal solidarity, social justice, and responsibility, in order to promote a true culture of life."

--[Pope John Paul II, Declaration on the Environment, June 10, 2002]

I believe that George Bush's policies stand nearly diametrically opposed to this statement. Bush's administration stands against the creation and cultivation of a "true culture of life" - as does John Kerry's.

Jack,

I would like to point a few things out.

1. Bush has tried to get judges appointed and
they have been blocked by an illegal fillobuster
by the Democrats.. (Ask yourself why, because they most likely leaned to ruling in favor of
Life rather than abortion.)

2. John Kerry had made it clear that He will
uphold the women's right to choose and his litmus test will be to select Judges that will
go along with maintaining abortion as legal.

3. There will probably be two supreme court
judges retiring within the next four years.
If we elect Kerry we will be sure to get pro
death Judges and their appointments will set
back the Pro life chances of over turning Roe
V. Wade.

There are policies of President Bush that I disagree with such as imagration and his fiscal
free spending. However if Kerry gets in our taxes will go up, Not down. He will select pro
choice Judges and his stance on imagration is even more liberal than Bush's.

Kerry is not a man of Character. He is always
on both sides of an issue. Bush is clear on
what he will do and will not do.. You may not
like some of Bush's choices but he is upfront
about his beliefs..

I don't feel Kerry is FIT to Command. Bush
has proven HE is a strong leader and He is
aggressive in the war on terror. Kerry wants
to get permission from the UN before we do anything...

Given our two choices, Bush is the obvious Choice.

Grace & Peace,

Clem

Clem,

I appreciate your opinions too.

However, it is clear to me that overall, Bush's positions on almost every issue run flatly against the Culture of Life as this is envisioned by the Church.

For me, it is simply that simple.

We agree: Kerry is not fit for command.
We disagree: George Bush is no more fit than Kerry.

This to me, is quite clear.

Jack,

If you dont think George Bush supports the "culture of life" the Pope and the Catholic Church does then you are right. However, if you ask who is closer to that ideal, Bush or Kerry, the answer is clearly Bush. Sure, if Pope John Paul 2 was running for president you should without a shadow of a doubt vote for him. But, in the Bush, Kerry race, Bush is the clear choice. Personally, I like Bush, but if you have to choose between the lesser of two evils your choice should still easily be Bush. You cannot disqualify Bush to make yourself feel better about voting for Kerry. If both canidates are unfit for command so be it, but the Catholic Church teaches that Kerry is MORE unfit, and trying to make Kerry and Bushs stance on abortion equals (when they clearly aren't) to free your conscious to vote for Kerry because you personally dont like Bush is ridiculous reasoning and a poor excuse to explain your vote for death.

Don't ask me how Jacks name got in the name for the last post, but it was me that posted that.

I dont think Jack ever suggested voting for Kerry, what he objects to is his supposed obligation (under pain of sin) to vote for Bush. He could try to vote for an independent, spoil his ballot, or refuse to vote. You may disagree with his decision but I hardly think anyone could accuse him of failing to perform his duty as a Christian.

Tom,

Nowhere has the Catholic Church taught - as you suggest - that "John Kerry is more unfit" for the office of president than Bush...neither the Vatican, nor the USCCB.

Pro Deo!

Obviously they haven't Jack, but if you logically read the teachings, then thats the only impression you can get.

Tom,

I wonder why you think neither the Vatican nor the US Bishops have at least suggested definitively which candidate a faithful Catholic should vote for - seeing that Abortion as such, is intrinsically evil.

Pro Deo!

Jack,

I don't know why the Pope has not unless He wants to stay out of Politics since Kerry is a
Confused Catholic and Bush is a Protestant?

It is obvious why the Catholic Bishops have not
done so ... It's a matter of their TAX EXEMPT
STATUS.... If they were to blatantly take sides
they would loose that status and the church can not afford to loose that status...

Not sure what reasons you have for not liking Bush, but if you think things are bad now, if we
get Kerry we would be going from bad to worse...

Kerry would wait to get permission from the United Nations before he would take any action against our enemies.

If you don't like either candidate then vote for the third party candidate. But realistically we are going to get either BUSH or KERRY... In my eye Bush has proven He can lead this country.. Europe and Al Quada would rather have Kerry than Bush. That should be a clue on who should be elected . Kerry scares me..

Grace & Peace,

Clem

Clem,

I’m sorry you have so little trust in either our pontiff or our US Bishops. I sincerely doubt – though I’ve not conversed with him about it (!) – that John Paul II would sit by silent on an issue about an intrinsically evil act(s) that is characterized by so many Catholics as another holocaust simply because he wants to stay out of politics. Likewise with our US Bishops.

I suspect they remain silent – or so at least ambiguous to us – because they are aware of the enormity of the issue, namely, the creation of a Culture of Life that Bush is (not nominally, but actually) clearly against as is Kerry. I believe they refuse to paint the election as a one-issue election because they are aware of the unjust and deathly character of Bush’s policies, and of Kerry’s unashamed position on abortion.

Pro Deo!

Jack,

I don't want to misquote you and I want to understand what you are saying. Are you saying
that Bush is Not pro-life and not against partial
birth abortions? Are you saying he really isn't
against abortion and is just pretending for his
own purposes ?

I am Pro Life and Pro Capital punishment.
I believe that is not a conflict. Scripture
provides for Capital punishment. If you Intentionally take a life Your life is forfit.

Babies did nothing to deserve death.. So I am pro
life and anti -euthanasia..

If you don't like the War and think Bush was wrong for going into Iraq I respect your feelings
and the merrits or lack of them can certainly be debated.

In All wars their are innocent casualties. I believe that we have attempted to limit the
loss of innocent life...

If you just don't like Bush that's your purogative. But Jack, we are going to get Bush
or Kerry.. Those are our choices.. At least Bush
has come out against abortion and against partial birth abortion and not just in words but in action. Kerry has not ..

Jack, you may not like it but our choices are
either Bush or Kerry... I would rather have
a man with some principals than someone who would come back from war and label all of our
armed forces Baby Killers and murderers ...
HE stabbed them in the back and put all of the
soldiers still there at risk by his testimony.

This world is under Satan's control until Jesus
comes back to reclaims it. There are no perfect
choices in Politics. I still think that Bush is
the better choice..

Blessings and Peace,

Clem

Clem,

While it's obviously your choice as to for whom you vote, I must say, your perspective of Bush and particularly the wars appears to be extremely one-sided.

Firstly, let me quote Exodus 20:13, where it categorically states, "Thou shalt not kill." It doesn't say, "without reason," it doesn't say, "unless they've killed someone else," and it definitely doesn't say, "except in wars on terror". Bush has declared two wars since his arrival at the White House. He also said he did so because God told him to. Why would God go against one of the core elements of His teachings? He wouldn't, which brings me to my next quote from the Bible: Exodus 20:7, which reads, "Do not use my name for evil purposes...." Bush said God told him to declare two wars, which is against the Bible, therefore Bush violated this commandment too.

Coming from the same chapter, verse 16 reads, "Thou shalt not bear false witness." Bush said on MULTIPLE occasions that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. If he did have these weapons, why didn't he use them when the US forces invaded? Why have none been found? Bush lied to the world - and tens of thousands were killed as a result.

Now, I'm not saying that Bush is enirely bad - his crackdown on charities donating to terrorists was exactly what was needed to stop the IRA from killing any more innocent people (for a while, at least), and he has reduced the number of abortions a small amount, but, as Christians, it is our duty to show absolute disgust at his misuse of the Lord's name, and his slaughtering of innocent people in the name of Our Lord.

However, Kerry isn't exactly flavour of the day either - he's rich and pro-abortion. But, please, I implore you, do not assume that just because he claims to be a Christian and stops a certain amount of abortion that Bush is the clear choice.

In any case, if Bush does get re-elected, there is little doubt that he will be assassinated. And while you may be for capital punishment, I am solidly against it, and think that even the killing of a man I hold as so evil would be a deplorable sin. I quote again: "Thou shalt not kill."

And, please, when you say, "Peace," mean it.

Peace,

Harry.

Harry,

If you are going to quote scriptures about war then you need to Blame Joshua because God commanded Israel to go into the land and destroy
ALL of the inhabitants not even leaving women and
children... Check it out. So God allows and even commands killing in some cases...

Regarding the WMD's I believe they were there and they were sent to Seria and other countries.
Clinton claimed he had them in 1997 and Kerry was able to see the intelligence and voted for the war... Now he wants to do a flip flop...

I don't say that Bush is perfect. He's a politician. They all lie ... Bush has done good in the pro life arena. I think he is sincere about his faith. He is not afraid to make a decision, even if it is the wrong one... He has conviction... Kerry is whipped by his Billionare wife... Do you think he is the one in control in that marriage? Do you want that Loud mouth Nar do well as first lady ?

Everyone said that this war was all about oil yet the US has not taken one drop of oil from the wells in Irag...If they had you would have seen it in the press and I have not seen a word. Saddam was a bad character and he was killing his people and I believe he was supporting terrorism... The world is better off with out him ...

Since the choices are Bush or Kerry or Nader...
Nader will never get elected. He is not on the ballot in all 50 states... So we will end up with
either Bush or Kerry ....

Harry, If you think they are both evil, Bush is obviously the lessor of the two evils...

We won't have a perfect world until Jesus comes back to reign and rule. Our enemies want Kerry to get in. They want us to be weak and Whimpy ...
The terrorists don't want Bush in because He has them on the run... Kerry will wait until he gets permission from the UN before he does anything.....

Just my humble opinion ...

Your Brother in Christ,

Clem

Clem,

While it's true that there are may wars allegedly ordered by God in the Bible, the two that Bush started are not such wars. What's more, at many points in the Old Testament, there are implications of abortion and human sacrifices without question of their morality. Does that make them currently allowable?

Just a point about the WMDs: Bush's administration claimed on numerous occasions in 2001 that Saddam absolutely did not have WMDs. Also, please, for a moment, put yourself in Saddam's shoes: If you had a load of WMDs stashed away, and the Americans were coming to get you, what would you do? No, not you as a Christian, but you as an evil, murderous dictator? The question is, why did he not use those WMDs to attack the invading army? If you can come up with a logical explanation except that he didn't have any in the first place, please, do share.

As for "our enemies", if you are referring to Al-Qaeda and other anti-western terrorist groups, then they absolutely and certainly will want Bush to win. If they have any brains, anyway (which might be doubtful). But, you see, while you may see Bush's War on Terror as stopping and hurting terrorism, then you are sadly mistaken. The amount of anti-American sentiment in the world has augmented unbelievably since Bush got in. In the Muslim world, disapproval of the States has risen from 15% to 50% since the beginning of Bush's reign. Think about it - before, to recruit, they had very little to go on to destroy America, but now, American forces have invaded two Muslim countries, killed tens of thousands and brought chaos to Iraq and Afghanistan. The War on Terror is not working.

Now, this one worried me: Bush has conviction, you said. So did Hitler. So did Mao Tse Tung. So did Pol Pot. So did Attilla the Hun. So does Satan. If he stands by an immoral decision, is that better than someone who "flip-flops" (what a horrible word that is!) from the immoral choice to the right choice?

But, as I said, I don't think Kerry would be much better. It's a shame that the country with most of the power in the World has to choose between a murderer and a would-be murderer as president.

The change, however, cannot come from the government - not a good change, anyway. The change has to be within the people. Then, it won't matter whether abortions are illegal or not, and wars shall not even be possible.

In the end, God shall prevail.

Grace,

Harry

Harry,

It is obvious that you are Anti Bush and nothing
I or anyone else can say will change your mind.
It's a free country so you can vote for whom ever
you choose..

So it sounds like you are saying unless God says a war is just we shouldn't fight. Did God tell
Roosevelt that we needed to fight Japan? Germany did not attack us .

Harry we were attached on 9/11/01. This war is not a conventional war as wars have been in the past. Our enemy does not attack military targets but targets civilians. Al Quiada is world wide. I would rather fight them over in Irag then over here on our soil.. I don't Know why Saddam did not use the WMD's maybe he didn't want to prove us right? If He did the UN and France and Germany and the rest of the world would be against him. He was a madman and Madmen do not have to be logical. Bush went with the intelligence he had, if it was wrong, Saddam was still a threat. He was shooting at our planes and doing things he was not supposed to do according to the UN agreements.. Bush just called him on the breach of those agreements. He warned him and he continued. So Bush acted ...

Saddam was supporting terrorism.. He was offering rewards to the families of Homicide Bombers... Americans are hated because Muslim
extemists consider us infidels and all infidels
must die... Not because Bush is president.

Harry, we are going to get Bush or Kerry. Like it or not those are the choices.. Vote for Kerry or vote for Nader..

I can not vote for a man (Kerry) who is on both sides of every issue.. I don't see your logic
regarding our ememies rather having Bush than Kerry? Our ememies want us weak and afraid. Not
Strong... I feel under Bush we are strong and under Kerry America will become weak...

So Vote for Kerry if you wish. He has not given me any reason to vote for HIM only reasons he thinks we should vote against Bush.

Your Brother in Christ,

Clem

Clem,

Let me start on a good note - the things we agree on:

1. The 2nd World War was justified.
2. The war on terror is not a conventional war.
3. Al Qaedaists are everywhere.
4. Saddam was an evil, evil man.
5. Saddam was supporting terrorism.
6. The President will be either Bush or Kerry.
7. Kerry is on all three sides of (almost) every issue.
8. We are brothers in Christ and the Lord.

However, certain things we disagree on:
1. I am not anti-Bush; I am against almost all of Bush's policies.
2. I can't vote for whomever I choose - I'm not an American, which makes the entire issue so much more frustrating.
3. While the America was attacked on the 9th of September 2001, America was NOT attacked by Saddam Hussein OR the Taliban.
4. I think you misunderstood my point about WMDs - If your president received word that a country had the ability to cause mass destruction, would you prefer him to provoke them or not to provoke them? Either Bush lied about his intelligence, or he put the lives of millions into serious jeopardy.
5. While Saddam probably was going against UN resolutions, so did Bush and Blair by invading Iraq.
6. Bush warned him to get rid of the WMDs, which, it looks extremely likely now (indeed, Tony Blair himself has admitted that they didn't exist), didn't actually exist. What could Saddam have done?
7. I'm afraid that saying that Islamic extremists kill non-Muslims for being infidels. However, these extremists are few and far between, or at least were. But Bush, and his policies of murdering Afghanistani and Iraqi ciivilians has brought the US's approval rating in the Arab world DOWN. Way down. As I said last time, disapproval of the US among Arabs has gone down from 15% in 2000 to 50% now. This is causing young Muslims to look to extreme means, and what do you know? They go straight to these extremists who offer a means of getting rid of (in their eyes) a country of murderers of the innocent. Thus Al Qaeda recruit immense numbers off the back of Bush and his policies of killing. This is entirely visible in the increase in terrorism we've seen in the world since the beginning of the invasion in Iraq. Al Qaeda couldn't care less if the current President was strong or weak - as you said, their methods are killing civilians, not staging a fullscale invasion.

One other thing is that Bush is devastating to the view of the States in the rest of the world. Having gained the sympathy of the Earth in 2001 for the terrible atrocity, Bush's policies turned that round to make the USA the most hated country in the world.

Obviously, it's up to you (more so than me - I don't even get a say), but Bush has declared two wars in four years. What would he do with the next four?

As for voting for Kerry, I know it's hard, but here's my view of it: if Kerry wins this year, he will take the troops of Iraq. The majority of the Islamic world would appluade this, thus improving the opinions on the USA, and reducing incentives to become terrorists, thus reducing terrorism. However, it is unlikely that raising taxes etc. will be popular in the USA, and so Kerry will probably lose the 2008 election. So long as none of the current republican cabinet get in, and as long as no more terrible wars are started, this will be seen as alright by most of the world. And thus you can get in a real Christian - not a Catholic who condones abortion and contraception or a Methodist who condones murder and the use of nuclear weapons and doing so in God's name.

I doubt I'll have convinced you, but those would be my only allowances for voting for a pro-abortion candidate - if the opposition was a mass-murderering blasphemer.

Also, you might have already done this, but I would check out both candidates' websites (they're both pretty much the same really - you'll see what I mean) and compare what their actual policies are. (Yes! Kerry actually has policies!)

Harry

Harry, here is what I think about the war on terrorism.

First, we were not attack by Saddam Hussein on 9/11, however Saddam Hussein was a supporter of terror and that is a face. There is no doubt that there were Al Queda had training camps in remote areas of Iraq. Also Iraq had some minor discussions with Al Queda throughout its history, and Al Zarqawi, an Al Queda trained terrorist, was in Iraq starting an Al Queda like terrorist group in the country before the war.

Second, at the onset of the war against TERRORISM George Bush declared war AGAINST all terrorist and countries that support terror. Iraq has direct links to Hezbolla and HAMAS.
Saddam Hussein even gave terrorist families money when suicide bombers killed Isrealies.

Third, although Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11, they are one of the main reasons Osama Bin Laden attacked us. When Osama declared war on the US in a video in the mid 90s his main reason was that US soldiers are still stationed in the middle east, mainly his home country of Saudi Arabia. Why were these soldiers there? To guard against Saddam doing anything stupid post-Gulf War. How do we fix the problem, ensure Saddam Hussein runs a tight ship over there through inspections, which he wouldnt let us do, or take him out. We were left with the only option to take him out because he refused to let UN inspectors in.

Keep in mind that the UN resolutions Saddam broke were not only UN resolutions, but part of a treaty Saddam signed after the gulf war. Saddam had weapons he said he wouldn't, like long range missles capable of hitting Isreal, and wouldn't let inspectors in like he promised. Letting a country do what is wants after a war like that is what Europe let Germany do post WW1, and I don't think it is a good idea to let anyone with a history of aggression build up an arsenal of weapons to attack their neighbors.

Last, the US cannot rely on the United Nations for protection. The United Nations "security council" system has trouble working in the Iraq situation when two members with veto power, France and Russia are selling millions of dollars of weaponry to Iraq and many people around the UN are taking advantage of the oil for food program. These countries had strong financial incentives to go against the US no matter where terrorism was in Iraq. Besides which the security council is not a democracy, and one veto kills any action so even when a majority of countries approve of US action, including important countries like Japan that should be on the council but aren't b/c the lost WW2, 1 country can thats not as important such as France can spoil it.

I guess my points for the war in Iraq are that...
1. Al Queda is in Iraq
2. Iraq supported various other terrorist groups
3. Protecting the Middle East against Saddam Hussein is one of the main reasons for terrorism in the first place.
4. Saddam broke the provisions of the treaty he signed post Gulf War.

Harry,

I didn't realize that your were not a citizen of the U.S. . Do you reside here? You said he started two wars. He went into Afganistan for
two reasons, It was a haven for terrorists and
AL Qiada and also going after Osama Bin Ladden.
Since they came after us and that is where there were training, in my mind that made them fair game.

Listen to soldiers who come back. The US takes great pains at the risk of American soldiers lives to minimize civilian casualties both in Afganistan and Irag.

Harry, war is not pretty, innocent people get killed. I believe that the US has tried to minimize those innocent deaths but there are going to be innocents injured and killed in war zones. That is the nature of every War from the beginning of wars...

I don't know where you get your figures about the hate for America going from 15% to 50%.
From what I have read and heard Muslim extremists
detest weakness. What would You have Bush do ?
Sit back and do nothing ... We have to take it to the enemy before they bring it to us again ..

These terrorists Hide in Mosques and in civilian areas and fire upon our troops. When we fire back we are criticised for killing innocents and
damaging Holy places....

My feeling personally is , if you hide in a holy place or behind women and children you are scum
and a coward. If I were in charge when the troops are fired on by these terrorists from a holy spot I should let them level the holy spot... But we do not do that and put our soldiers at extra risk..

France and Germany, some allies... They only call
America when they need to get bailed out. But when they don't need us they bash us..

I never heard Tony Blair say there were never any
WMD's. I don't know, Maybe you live in another country, somewhere in Europe perhaps ? I don't read the foreign press. Maybe they hate us I don't know... But who is the first one they call when they need help, Good old America. They don't
even have to call. When there is a disaster the US is the first to send aid to another country.

I wonder if any countries sent aid to the hurricane victoms in Florida...

It sounds like you feel that Bush is a bully?
We were caught sleeping on 911.. We can no longer wait for another attack. We must be pre emptive. I feel that Afganistan and Irag were
premptive..

The reason in my view that these young people join these terrorist groups is that they are taught in their schools to hate America.
They are disatisfied with their lives and angry.
They don't have jobs and all this is becaude their rulers have all the money and do not distribute the wealth to the people.. They use propaganda to channel the peoples sense of helplessness from their own government to the infidels in America and the West... They have them blame all of their problems on someone else instead of on the ones keeping them down, their own governments...

The UN is a useless Group that does nothing..
Countries like France and Germany were making money in Irag and they were skimming from the oil for food program... They did not back the US because it would come out that they were making money off the misery Saddam was causing ...

Over 900 US soldiers have died to try and bring
freedom to the Irag's .. I think most of them appreciate what we are trying to do... The media
shapes public opinion .. You never hear the Good that the US is doing in Irag, restoring power and water and building schools...

You feel that Bush has all of these wrong Policies.. I don't like his policy on immigration and I want him to close our borders...

There are 33 other countries, allies with the US in Iraq. The whole world is not against us. And 33 countries believe that going into Irag was the right thing to do ...

The price of freedom for Irag so far has been over 900 American lives and many lives of the soldiers from the 33 countries.

We were unprepared on 911.. I feel that Bush is trying to keep us safe and going after the terrorists, freezing their assets and killing and or capturing their leaders.. I think Bush is on the right track...

How are Bush's policies adversly affecting you personally ?

Grace and Peace

Clem

Tom,

Well, then, if your points for the war can be summed up in those points, let me ask you this: What will killing tens of thousands of Iraqis do? Just because Al Qaeda is in Iraq does not mean that murdering tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians will stop terrorism (in fact, when was the last war in the Middle East that you heard had reduced terrorism?). Iraq supported various other terrorist groups. My response to that is, yes. And this means that murder is justified why? It may shock you to hear this, but the biggest contributor to the IRA was a charity in the USA. As for breaking provisions of treaties in the Gulf War, that does not justify the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. And, sorry, but I didn't understand point 3.

Also, a point in definitions: I was always taught that terrorism meant using terror and killing as a means of obtaining political stature. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is, I believe, exactly what Bush is doing. Using killing as a means to promote his war on terror.

As for the palestinian homicide bombers "pensions", I hope you realise that Saddam's attacks on Israel were the ONLY military action performed by Hussein to be approved by the Iraqi people. And it was approved by over 80%, according to a certain Iraqi newspaper (sorry, can't remember which one). So, in fact, these actions were probably the only democratic things the man ever did.

I'm not saying they were right, but they were democratic, which is apparently what the USA wants to set up in Iraq.

Now, Saddam was by no means a nice man, but look at where this war has landed the world. Terrorism is at an all time high (blindly ignore the evidence all you like, but the war on terror is not working), anti-US sentiment has risen from an almost all-time low to an almost all-time high, gun-fights are a very common sight on the streets on Iraq, and one of the Iraqi Olympic Soccer Team players even said he would be fighting off the invading forces if it weren't for the Olympics. I will admit that the World is a safer place without Saddam in power. I will not admit it is a safer place with tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead at the hands of Coalition forces.

And I really don't understand why you brought up the UN. It's a corrupt organisation - we all know that.

What's more, this war was in NO way to liberate the Iraqi people (I know nobody said anything about this, but just in case) - you do NOT liberate people by using nuclear weapons on them.

Remember Exodus 20:13.

Peace and Grace.

NZ Harry,

I believe that Bush may have made a mistake in entering the war in Iraq. However, based on the information we had, we had no other choice but to do so. It is so easy for you to sit back with the knowledge that we all know now, and critize our country since we found no WMD. As they say hindsight is 20/20. However, would you be saying the same thing if we had found WMD and evidence that these intruments of death were being shipped to Al Queda, which is what the evidence suggested was the case before the invasion? I highly doubt it. We are living in a post 9/11 world, and the US must defend itself. And the rest of the world must learn to live with that reality and stop whinning.

In Christ,

Thomas

NZ Harry,

Where do you get your figure that the US killed tens of thousands of Iragis. Many Terrorist Iragis are killing Iragis and Terrorists from surrounding countries are killing Iragis...

Please don't exagerate the numbers ... I am not saying that innocent Iragis were killed but the US does not target innocent people.. Innnocent people have been killed in all wars. It is the nature of all wars..

I heard a report today that they were dedicating a sewage treatment plant that the US had built and some terrorist bombed the place and killed hundreds of children that were there for the ceremony.. We are there trying to help and these
Crazy Terrorists are killing everyone in sight ..
They don't care who gets killed... They are cowards and Scum bags, they are sub-human to do what they do ... Life has no meaning to them ...

The US is trying to do something about these crazies.. Do we make mistakes, sure but we try to do the right thing. What are these terrorists fighting for ? They just hate. They use any excuse to kill and call it freedom fighting...

Clem

Clem, Thomas,

I agree! These terrorists are terrible, evil, horrible murdering people. However, killing other people is no way to stop terrorism.

As for having the benefit of hindsight, I always said there were no WMDs. What would I have said if WMDs had been found? Simple. They weren't Saddam's, they were a plant. If they had been real, WHY DIDN'T SADDAM USE THEM??? Can I also point out that some of the "intelligence" came from an outdated student's paper?

My figure comes from iraqbodycount.org, which gives the number of civilian deaths caused by the invasion reported by at least two major news sources. The current figure is between 12976 and 15033, which is tens of thousads. Even so, the number is highly likely to be higher than these, as not every single death will be reported by the media.

Your example of the car bomb is a case in point of this so-called War on Terror not working. These people hate, as you said, and killing increases hatred.

Now, this statement really struck me:

"They use any excuse to kill and call it freedom fighting..." (Quote: Clem's last post)

This could be used for both the terrorists and the invading forces.

Just because terrorists are evil does not mean we should go in with all guns blazing, killing people. The Bible tells us that in Exodus 20:13. I'm not saying that what the terrorists are doing is right, but, at the moment, they are less of a threat to the world than Bush and his warmongering.

(In specific response to Thomas) The rest of the world is not whining. The rest of the world is asking the USA to stop the murder, to stop the chaos, to stop using nuclear weapons and to stop pretending it is morally justified.

I would give up, because it seems highly unlikely that I'll be able to even get anybody to even consider not voting Bush, but I feel I cannot. In such a close election, every vote might count, and... need I say more about that?

Harry

NZ Harry,

I'm glad that you have a crystal ball, and absolutely knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iraq had no WMD. The US of course didn't have a crystal ball, and didn't know this. Maybe you can use that crystal ball, and tip us off before the next 9/11 happens. Why Sadam didn't use the WMD? My answer is we didn't know he wouldn't/couldn't use them until we had already invaded. By then it was too late. This is what we did know.

1. The US had just been attacked on 9/11, which changed everything we thought about our own defenses.
2. We knew that Sadam hated the US.
3. We knew that Sadam was ruthless, even going so far as to murdering millions of his own people.
4. We knew that Sadam had ties to known terrorist groups that hated the US.
5. We knew that Sadam was not obeying UN resolution after UN resolution, thus Sadam really really looked like he was hiding something.
6. We had evidence that Sadam had or was developing WMD.

Based on this information it doesn't take a genius to draw the conclusion that maybe we should take this guy out, rather than sit around and wait for him to make the first move. By then who knows what kind of hell he would have unleashed on the US. It may have been too late to retaliate. We made the right choice with the information we had. Don't get sidetracked by what we now know. We didn't know it when we made the decision.

I sorry, but I'm not about to ask the world's permission if I can defend my family. Did we make a mistake? Maybe, but I think we should always error of the side of caution, and not make assumptions that have the potential to kill millions.

Just in case you missed my first posting on Exodus 20:13 you can't use that as a shield to say that all killing is wrong. God clearly and specifically gives certain authority to institutions to kill. Please see Exodus 21:12-17. What the verse in Exodus you are using merely says is that we as individuals do not have the authority to take a life. Please also see Romans 13:1-5.

By the way what are you talking about us using nuclear weapons? As Clem has said we have gone out of our way to limit the civilian casualties to the point of increasing the risk to our own troops. What other invading force can say the same?

In Christ,

Thomas

NZ Harry,

I have a question on these figures you got from this website you listed. Anybody can get a website and Post anything they want... The internet is like anything else, there are truth and Lies there too...

What period of time is this figure of dead Iragis for ? Is it from the time the invaison started until present. What proof is there that
these deaths were caused by American forces or does thid figure include deaths caused by the terrorists?
Do they differenciate between Civilian Iragis killed and Terrorist Iragis killed? I find it hard to believe 15,000 innocent Iragis were killed by Americans and that those figures don't include Iragis killed by terrorists.

Harry, I don't know if you reside in the US or NOT... But IF you don't live here I don't appreciate you trying to influence people to vote for or against a candidate ..

Has the US made mistakes in the past, sure, and will we make mistakes in the future, probably..
But, so do other Nations. Why do people from other countries seek to come here. Because this country stands for freedom ...

May God continue to Bless the USA ...

In Christ,

Clem

Clem, Thomas,

This is probably going to be my last post here, because it is getting depressing to hear people who I believe are Catholics trying to believe that they are obliged to vote for a presidential candidate as pro-death as George W. Bush without there appearing to be any chance of helping them.

However, in particular response to Clem, no, I don't live in the US, but my justification in asking you not to vote for Bush is based on the following things I think I know:

1. Bush has declared two wars in the last four years.
2. If you believe he should be president, you will probably vote for him and try to persuade others to do so as well.
3. If Bush is re-elected, based on his track record, he will declare another two wars.
4. Since Bush's becoming president, the USA's approval rating has plummeted with the rest of the world.
5. Since the start of the War in Iraq, terrorism has flourished.
6. Bush's administration has bullied other countries into supporting the invasion with threats of trade-agreements being withdrawn, such as with the UK, Australia and my own country, to name but three.
7. Bush has allowed the use of nuclear weapons in Iraq.
8. The USA has WMDs, and, as such, I believe most people would rather not have someone with a track record like Bush's to be in charge of said WMDs.

Why, oh why do you try to justify this guy for interfering with another country's leadership with murder, but attack me for doing it peacefully? Please, consider if this is the catholic thing to do.

Now, in response to Thomas, do you know which countries are suspected to have WMDs? The list from wikipedia is:

Algeria,
Belarus,
Bulgaria,
Chile,
China,
Cuba,
Ethiopia,
Egypt,
France,
India,
Indonesia,
Iran,
Iraq,
Israel,
Kazakhstan,
Laos,
Libya,
Myanmar,
North Korea,
Pakistan,
Romania,
Russia,
Serbia and Montenegro,
South Africa,
South Korea,
Sudan,
Syria,
Taiwan,
Thailand,
Ukraine,
United Kingdom,
United States, and
Vietnam.

And those are just the ones suspected of possessing WMDs.

As for manufacturing them, according to Der Spiegel, Germany alone, if necessary, would have the ability to manufacture 10 nuclear missiles in one day, and that's not particularly exceptional. And I realise that Saddam was very open about his hatred of the US, but this shows that WMDs can be made very quickly, and Saddam still didn't use them. Don't be ridiculous about your theories of crystal balls. I didn't have one, but it shouldn't take a genius to work out that there were no WMDs.

Now to nuclear weapons: THE AMERICAN AND BRITISH FORCES ARE USING NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN IRAQ. It's called depleted Uranium. It has a half life on 4500000000 years. It emits alpha and beta particles, and emits gamma rays. If alpha particles are inhaled, they can cause cancer, deformities in fetuses and death. Beta particles can even seep through skin, and have similar effects. Gamma rays can only be stopped by lead, and causes the same effects. So much for avoiding civilian casualties at all costs. If you'd like to read more about how your claim that the coalition forces are avoiding civilian casualties is not true, please read this article. It is not the only article out there, either. Just the first one on Yahoo! when you search for US troops civilian shoot.

Now for asking the World's permission to defend your family. What if defending your family means killing thousands? Would you still do it? What if it meant de-stabilising a country, causing thousands of deaths, increasing terrorism and using nuclear weapons? That is selfishness, and not what Catholicism is about at all.

And is killing thousands erring on the side of caution? You may say, "Ah, but Saddam could have killed millions." Don't you think that threatening to take out the person with that capability might provoke them to use it?

As for the reliability of iraqbodycount.org, check their databases. If you really care about voting for the right man, you will be happy to do this research, and find out for yourself instead of taking my word for it.

Signing off,

Harry.

Harry, unfortunatly, I'm glad to see you go. You charges that the US and UK are using nuclear weapons in Iraq just shows how biased you are against the coalition and President Bush. I would like you to stay if you were more open minded and used facts, but that one comment shows alot about your real attitude toward the war.

Okay, the actual, last post.

Fact: DU is being used as a weapon in the Iraq war.
Fact: It decays radioactively and causes long term health defects for adults, children and fetuses.

There are your facts. That is why I say the US and the UK use nuclear weapons.

Please don't accuse me of being narrow-minded. When you have all been to Iraq and seen what this war is doing to the people, then vote for Bush. Until then, consider your views lacking evidence.

And as for biased, yes, I am biased, just the same way I'm biased on matters such as abortion, homosexuality, contraceptives and the like. Biased against Bush? No. Just against his policies.

Siging off for real,
Harry.

biased against Catholic policies too.. this is a Catholic blog, not a political blog, if you wish to show biblical versus that back your opinions on abortion, ect. than do it. Also, your source for the information about nuclear weapons is less than credible. Find me an article on a real news services website and I'll believe you, until then, allow me to follow my own instincts instead of propaganda.

http://www.independent-media.tv/itemprint.cfm?fmedia_id=7131&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E8C356F9-E89F-4CD3-88B5-BBBDF9E085C1.htm

http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/dissgw.html#IPPNWCHIQ

http://electroniciraq.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/10/482

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0330-02.htm

http://www.alternet.org/story/16272

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E8C356F9-E89F-4CD3-88B5-BBBDF9E085C1.htm

http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/stand/du.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2972613.stm

I assume the BBC is a real enough news service for you?

It's a well-known fact that DU is used by the US and UK forces. It's also very clear that DU is extremely harmful with long, long-term side-effects.

As for being biased against Catholic policies, please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opposition_to_war_on_Iraq#Religious_opposition

I know I've said I'd no longer post, and as of this one, I won't. Email me if you want to continue on this discussion. My email is nic_rhodes@hotmail.com

Harry

NZ Harry,

I went and read the article you linked to. It named no names it had no sources. Anyone can write propaganda and claim it is the Story you
won't read on CNN. Give me a break...

Also Why would the US and UK use these DU weapons if they are so dangerous. Wouldn't the US and UK soldiers stationed there also be adversly affected by the use of these weapons ?
So we don't care about our own soldiers now and
are using weapons that will not only kill the enemy but are own soldiers too... Tell me the Logic in that ?

We were attacked Harry 911. Bin Laden was in Afganistan and they were harboring him... Justification for War 1 .. We had approval world approval to go into Irag in in the first Gulf war. Saddam never surrendered . He was under sactions by the UN and His country had no fly zones being patroled not only by the US but also by coalition forces.... There wer numerous
UN resolutions Saddam disregarded and did not comply with. Each one said non compliance would have serious consequences....

The US was tired of the UN failing to enforce their own resolutions. We did not go in Just because if WMD's. Saddam was in violation of several UN resolutions.. The UN failed to act because France and Russia were making money from the Oil for food program..

What proof do you have that the US bullied the
UK and Austrailia into being our allies?

Like other countries don't use coercian to get what they want... This is called negociation...
It is the way of this world... You don't get something for nothing...

Harry, You have all of these problems with the
policies of Bush... Do you actually think that our policies will change or be any better under Kerry ... ? Kerry wants to make deals with the UN and with North Korea... What will he negociate away ???

In reference to Irag Kerry basically said during the debate that he would do all the same things Bush is doing only faster ....

You believe that, I have a bridge to sell you in
Brooklin ..

Clem

Post a comment