Posted on 08/20/2005 7:48:23 AM PDT by takenoprisoner
The issue of whether or not 'Saddam needed to go' is irrelevant and always has been.
leery of the current explanations of the war as an attempt to "spread democracy"
When all other excuses fail (or are proven false), always fall back to a philosophical reason that can't be argued definitively one way or another.
Not necessarily. Shooting at our planes in the no fly zone, for instance, was an act of war that went largely unpunished through the Clinton administration.
When all other excuses fail (or are proven false), always fall back to a philosophical reason that can't be argued definitively one way or another.
Seems to me that we could argue pretty effectively that we (1) aren't in favor of colonialism, particularly when we are the colonizers, and (2) it's not our business to decide what sort of government other countries choose to have.
But I have been wrong before.
Other countries have shot as US warplanes in the past without all out invasion being the end result. I refer you back to the SOTU speech in 2003. Most, if not all of it, was not true. At no point in that speech was the issue of 'no-fly zone' broached. There was one main reason forwarded. No fly zones had nothing to do with it.
Seems to me that we could argue pretty effectively that we (1) aren't in favor of colonialism, particularly when we are the colonizers, and (2) it's not our business to decide what sort of government other countries choose to have.
I really don't see how you could argue either of those points effectively considering that actions by the US government in relation to the new government in Iraq have been the direct opposite
I told you my opinion, and referred you back to 1998. Saddam was shooting at our warplanes, he was violating the UN resolutions, and we thought (mistakenly perhaps) that he still had WMDs.
I don't necessarily think the administration has made the best possible case or argued its case as effectively as it could have.
I really don't see how you could argue either of those points effectively considering that actions by the US government in relation to the new government in Iraq have been the direct opposite
Yes, our most recent actions and arguments have been in contradiction to most stated historical positions. In fact, during the first election, didn't George Bush make a big deal of the fact that he was strongly opposed to "nation-building"?
The founders were NOT Catholic. But all Christian faiths trace their beginnings to Catholicism, although some may deny that.
And when was the last time a Catholic layman voted for a Bishop or Priest, nevermind the Pope.
The Church is not a democracy, nor was it intended to be. My point was that the Church in the West succeeded in ousting the state from ecclesial concerns, preventing the state from becoming all in all. A boundary was erected in the culture which permitted Western culture to develop a sense of the worth of individuals that obtained the force of morality. Individuals as free moral agents require liberty in which they may exercise that agency. Without the Church, the state assumes the role of moral arbiter, the collective subjects individuals to the temporary needs of the state, which vary with the tides of politics.
I'm not arguing the merits of Catholicism mind you, just questioning your interpretation of what inspired democracy.
I know. Weigel's book gave me an insight, I think, into Eastern religious culture which developed with the emperor meddling with the appointment of bishops until the fall of Byzantium. Islamic culture never banished the state from religious matters and as a result Islamic culture does not easily assent to the worth of participatory democracy: the moral importance of individuals in the state is far less than in the West. In Islam, the state is more important than the individuals who comprise the citizenry.
These discussions are a way to test my understanding.
Regards.
Again, so did other nations without full out invasion.
he was violating the UN resolutions
Perhaps you could point out declaration of war based on violation of UN resolutions to me in the US Constitution. Funny how Republicans will quote that as an important issue, but in the very same breath call for leaving the UN. I could care less what UN resolutions were being violated. No cause for declaration of war. And of course there wasn't one (there hasn't been one in over 60 years)
and we thought (mistakenly perhaps) that he still had WMDs.
And that has been proven false. As it is, I don't seem to remember Hussein making claims that these invisible WMDs were going to be used on the borders of this nation of states
Yes, our most recent actions and arguments have been in contradiction to most stated historical positions. In fact, during the first election, didn't George Bush make a big deal of the fact that he was strongly opposed to "nation-building"?
Well said
Well, at least we are reaching agreement on something!
Interesting thoughts. Although it would seem that since many of North America's first European settlers were escaping state mandated religion, perhaps the Catholic church's impact in establishing a separation between the church and the state might not have buried its roots too deeply in Europe. Furthermore, Spanish Conquistador's working for both the state and the Catholic church were not especially interested in the "worth of individuals" as "free moral agents", but I guess that depends on how one defines the word "human". Really, I wasn't aware the concept got much press until Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, but maybe I ought to read Weigel's book.
There is a difference between establishmentarian (there, I have finally used that word!) religion and denying the state's authority in ecclesial matters. One may establish a given religion as the only legal one in a nation and yet still have an independent ecclesial structure. In pre-Reformation England, for example, an abbot enjoyed broad rights within his monastic domain, derived naturally and necessarily from his ecclesial rights, that often frustrated civil authority. This is one of the reasons Henry VIII had mostly to destroy the monastic system in his realm: it fundamentally interfered with subjugating the Church to his own political goals.
In this sense, one might understand your statement perhaps the Catholic church's impact in establishing a separation between the church and the state might not have buried its roots too deeply in Europe is actually the opposite of the facts, since it was English settlers who emigrated from England to escape the established church, created by Henry VIII when he destroyed the Church's independence from the state!
French, Irish, and Spanish settlers retained their Catholicism, by and large, in new lands, so their emigration from their homelands was motivated by something other than escape from homeland established religions. Perhaps Protestantism's tendency to create myriad sects, often maliciously intolerant of each other (I do not deny Catholic guilt in this respect toward nonCatholics, in the past, mind you), might be the cause of English emigration and motivation for a constitutional establishment clause. But the moral force qualifying individual self-dignity as an important component of liberty cannot be found, I assert, in civil traditions. That comes from ecclesial teachings, and only a Church that has thrown off imperial, regal, or statist attempts to regulate it can adequately express such ideas. A state-controlled church will suppress individual liberty when required to do so by state politics and policy.
It just may be, ironically, that innoculated with the idea that the state must not be the all in all for humanity by the history of the Catholic Church, men grew Protestantism into a philosophy of liberty that resulted in civil liberties unknown in any culture before. We must hope that liberty does not become libertinism and work to retain Christian roots that admit Authority that is not statist, but which disciplines liberty.
Regards.
Disaster in the making, who will stop it?
U.S. diplomats have conceded ground to Islamists on the role of religion in Iraq, negotiators said on Saturday as they raced to meet a 48-hour deadline to draft a constitution under intense U.S. pressure.
U.S. diplomats, who have insisted the constitution must enshrine ideals of equal rights and democracy, declined comment.
Shi’ite, Sunni and Kurdish negotiators all said there was accord on a bigger role for Islamic law (based upon the interpretation of some Iran backed Shia parties) than Iraq had before.
But a secular Kurdish politician said Kurds opposed making Islam "the," not "a," main source of law -- changing current wording -- and subjecting all legislation to a religious test.
“We understand the Americans have sided with the Shi’ites,” he said. “It’s shocking. It doesn’t fit American values. They have spent so much blood and money here, only to back the creation of an Islamist state ... I can’t believe that’s what the Americans really want or what the American people want.”
Now, why not tell this Kurdish politician "what the American people want"? Why not tell the state department and the US diplomats in Iraq "what the American people want"? Why not side with those Iraqi women who demonstrated for equal rights in downtown Baghdad and not let them down? Why not side with those secular and religious Iraqis who do not want a constitution dictated by Iran? I'd rather have the constitution delayed for 10 more years than rushing it through like this!!
Please take a few seconds to call the US state department NOW and raise this issue. The deadline for the constitution is tomorrow (Monday August 22nd).
US State Department:
202-647-4000
http://bigpharaoh.blogspot.com/2005/08/disaster-in-making-who-will-stop-it-u.html
We will have managed to liberate the Iraqis from one cruel dictator only to stand by and watch it become a part of the Islamic jihadist threat to the United States.
Just great...
I've long since decided that Ann was right ... convert them to Christianity (or anything but Islam) ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.