Replies

1. The United States did not "act as an international policeman," it acted to protect itself against terrorism. It is true we haven't yet found WMD, but the entire world community believed they then existed. Moreover, we DID find Al Qaeda operatives working hand-in-glove with the Ba'ath Party with the official sanction of Saddam. So we had proper authority under the norms for a Just War: pure self-defense and the memory of 9/11.

2. Bush also meets the second norm--a just cause. Who can doubt eliminating mass terrorism of innocent people and subjecting them to decades of slaughter and torture of the most unspeakable brutality is unjust, that it would be just to end this horror. Nor was the means used to do this more destructive than necessary or beyond that of the evil redressed. The evil of Saddam was not routine: Small girls were tortured in front of their mothers; small boys had their eyes gouged out; wives were raped in front of their husbands and fathers; people routinely had their tongues cut out. This regime knew no limits--and they used mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of its own citizens to impose and secure their steel-like grip on the populace. How can anyone with common sense think it was not just to put an end to this? Especially when the means used were so humane--with unprecedented care taken to minimize loss of civilian life and to prevent irreparable damage to Iraqi infrastructure.

The inference, moreover, used by this priest and even more openly by the Vatican itself--that it was OIL that the U.S. coveted, ignores the entire history of the United States. We don't go to war for material reasons. We fought two world wars to oppose tyranny, without asking for a penny in return and without taking an inch of territory. We are not a people interested in other peoples' material goods, but get fire-up by just causes. The President has said countless times the Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people. Most Americans believe him. If the Pope and others do not, that is because European cynicism cannot comprehend a nation such as ours which acts out of altruistic motives.

3. The idea that we needed another twelve years of foot-dragging by Saddam before we waged war against him, is nonsense. So is the idea that "Iraq" meant no harm to the U.S. But it repeatedly violated its truce agreement, signed at the close of the first Gulf War--and we struggled for 12 years to have it comply. By such a standard no war could ever be justly waged. Other means were tried--and Saddam had always found a way around it. What does this priest think was the motive behind the embargo--it was THE other means. It is a contradiction to decry the embargo in one breath, then say we must resort to other means in the next. Yes, the inspectors might have gone on forever. But troop ships can't wait forever, men must be deployed and this takes logistics and strategies of great complexities. They can't wait on the UN's further shilly-shallying. The war was just. Saddam was given a twelve-year holiday from answering the piper. Finally his bluff was called and his people are free.

Finally, the Pope and the Vatican act as if Saddam had a sovereign right to rule over 24 million people. But no single man may exercise such tyranny and remain legitimate. Ultimately, the state's legitimacy resides in the people governed, not a single individual. Saddam did not rule by divine right--though that is how the Vatican behaved in dealing with him--he ruled by terror. It is just and good that he is gone.

"How can anyone with common sense think it was not just to put an end to this?"

Again, ask Williamson and Scott whom I was quoting.

The inference, moreover, used by this priest and even more openly by the Vatican itself--that it was OIL that the U.S. coveted, ignores the entire history of the United States.

What's the priest's name again? To which religious congregation does he belong? What is his current position and his immediate former position within this congregation?

If the Pope and others do not, that is because European cynicism cannot comprehend a nation such as ours which acts out of altruistic motives.

But I wasn't quoting Pope John Paul II, I was quoting Bishop Williamson and Fr. Peter Scott. Both happen to hold positions of authority within the SSPX. Additionally, I'm not sure where European cynicism comes in, since the first is an Englishman and the second an Australian. England and Australia not only sided with the US, they sent over a substantial number of troops to fulfill active combat roles.

What does this priest think was the motive behind the embargo--it was THE other means.

Again, "this priest"? Doesn't he have a name?

Finally, the Pope and the Vatican act as if Saddam had a sovereign right to rule over 24 million people.

But again, I wasn't quoting the Holy Father and the Vatican, non?

One of the most disagreeable aspects of your posts is the utter disdain for truth and perspective.

It is true we haven't yet found WMD, but the entire world community believed they then existed.

It would be more accurate to say that the entire world community suspected that Saddam might be developing WDM's, and that is why the U.N. sanctioned the resumption of weapons inspections. Failing to discover demonstrable proof of WDM's, nearly all the "world community" urged an increase in inspections; only a handful of first world nations joined the U.S. in believing strongly enough in the phantom WDM's to join the U.S. in it's invasion.

The inference, moreover, used by this priest and even more openly by the Vatican itself--that it was OIL that the U.S. coveted, ignores the entire history of the United States.

I have to question this statement as well. I don't recall the Vatican mentioning oil. The Vatican's concern was definitely about principles and geopolitical realities. You might want to look into that claim.

Finally, the Pope and the Vatican act as if Saddam had a sovereign right to rule over 24 million people.

No more so than the U.S. who negotiated a treaty with his government after the Gulf War and had diplomatic relations. Another misrepresentation.

It's interesting that you backpedal from the SSPX when you find them embarrassing to you. Frankly, I'm glad to see that they are are upholding traditional just war theory.