Pope puts pressure on US

Guardian ^ | 4/21/03 | Owen Bowcott

[geedee]

Who knows what the next President will do. I mean, we had 8 years of Slick Willie.

LOL. Good point.

Ya know . . . I have no idea how the UN can be reorganized so it can actually make a positive difference in world events. As you said, it's old and big and cumbersome and the UN bureaucrats are fat, dumb, and happy. I'm all for scrapping it and starting something else with just democratic-governed countries eligible for membership. I mean, really, when we're on our hands and knees begging Cameroon to support us . . . something is seriously wrong.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Why are we a part of a socialist anti-American organization? And why do we keep propping it up?

I don't like the UN. But we are a member. Now we are viewed as a rogue member. I think pushing for more inspections would have been better until we got backing for military action.

[Mr. Mojo]

We got backing for military action. Ever heard of resolution 1441?

[CyberAnt]

I think the Pope needs to clean his own house first before he starts pointing fingers at the USA.

[ninenot]

Well, it was a razor-thin call on GWB's part, and he made the right decision--partly because he had a lot of G-2--and as we shall see soon, SH had lotsa WMD's that he buried.

Obviously, Hans Blix-Magoo was NEVER going to find them.

However, now we have a bigger mess: how to instill some commonly accepted law and enforcement system in Iraq, which is still quite tribal and NOT founded on the Judeao-Christian tradition. So where we have the advantage of 2000 years of accepted common laws, (plus or minus a few thousand years,) the Iraqis have almost zip, as the Code of Hammurabi has been inoperative since Mohammed was on the scene.

If you think being a cop in Ohio is tough....

[Cap'n Crunch]

Please. We also said we'd protect the Kurds in Gulf 1. We have a history of half-hearted military action, I think that's why we've had so many problems.

I think the truth is Nations, including the US, will continue doing what is in their best interests, regardless of treaties and resolutions.

[Cap'n Crunch]

I think Saddam probably did have alot of WMD's, and I'm no fan of Saddam. I just think we are kidding ourselves if we have this noble idea that we went into Iraq to liberate the people and rid the world of terrorism.

I don't think terrorism against us is going to stop though.

I think we could have pushed for tougher inspections, and I don't think Saddam was much of a danger to the US while the inspectors were in there, though I'm guessing many don't hold this opinion.

I read a good article by Pat Buchanan, I think the title of it was asking if we had "hit the tar-baby." Getting out of Iraq may be alot tougher than getting in. It is going to be tough to shape the outcome of this mess.

I do think we have a long way to go and who knows how it will all end up.

[Mr. Mojo]

I think the truth is [the United] Nations, including the US, will continue doing what is in their best interests, regardless of treaties and resolutions.

Of course, and that's exactly the way it should be. But YOU said (in post #162) that the UN didn't give us backing for military action, and I'm telling you that the UN-approved 1441 gave us precisely that.

[Cap'n Crunch]

I agree about the UN, somewhere along the road things went wrong. With all the different political viewpoints, capitalism, socialism, communism influencing the decisions, no wonder it's a mess.

What are we gonna do when Bill Clinton is the head of the UN and Hitlery is the President of the US????

[Cap'n Crunch]

Isn't that contradictory? Sometimes we go along with the UN and sometimes we don't.

I think we should have pushed for more and harder inspections. I don't think Saddam was a danger to us while the inspections were going on.

So what changed with our "allies" opinion with 1441? And if you could, can you tell me when 1441 was signed?

[Kevin Curry]

I certainly don't think that terrorist attacks against us are going to stop because we ousted Saddam.

Reagan rang Gaddafi's chimes in 1986 and Gaddafi got very quiet. Very little terrorism has been hatched in Libya in the intervening 17 years.

Osama bin Laden was emboldened by the Blackhawk Down ambush in 1993 and came to believe Americans were too weak-willed to suffer more than a handful of casualties, that they would pull up stakes and flee the Middle East if he could just kill a few thousand. Our response post 9/11 including the Iraq Operation has put the lie to that belief. In short, there is reason to believe that everything we have done post-9/11 will serve and has served to reduce our risk of terrorist attack. We won't eliminate all terrorist attacks, but compared to the number of attacks we might have suffered we are likely doing quite well.

[Mr. Mojo]

if you could, can you tell me when 1441 was signed?

The resolution was signed Nov. 8, 2002. Why do you ask?

Isn't that contradictory? Sometimes we go along with the UN and sometimes we don't.

Not contradictory at all. If the UN agrees with us, fine. If they don't, then f/k them. We'll look out for our own interests, and if the socialists don't like it, then they'll just have to learn to accept it ....because that's the way it's going to be.

[Cap'n Crunch]

It seems to also depend on which president you have in office. These terrorists are like crack houses, shut one down and two more pop up to take their places.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Why do I ask? Good question, I went away from the computer for awhile and now I'm too tired and lost my train of thought.

I'm not too tired to say that this whole thing rings a bit hollow to me. And now it's time for bed.

[ninenot]

...a scenario so realistic that it is frightening. That's why the 2nd Amendment is so important.

[ninenot]

Yah, hey--terrorists are bad and will continue to exist--but IMHO the larger problem is just beginning to emerge, and that's the unification of Federal, State, and local police and intelligence agencies (PatAct utilization of CIA in domestic intelligence.)

Why am I concerned? Simple. Hillary's pushing it and using the 'first responders are being impoverished and over-run with duties' line to hook Fed dollars into local copshops. Eventually the local copshops will look like the formerly-local Government schools: State-and Fed-run disaster scenes.

[BlackElk]

Thanks for your kind comments.

[BlackElk]

Am I? Is the wrong Catholic I am tagging another one of the little group of professional malcontents including schismatics who define their Catholicism by their resistance to John Paul II?

Well, you can understand the confusion you have caused. Actual Catholics do not despise the pope. They obey him. They follow him as befits the regard we owe to the Vicar of Christ on Earth. If you want to be regarded as Catholic your submission to ecclesiastical authority needs a tuneup.

Et cum Spiritu Tuo!

How you treat Peter is how you treat Jesus Christ Who sent Him.

[BlackElk]

It is a good thing that you do not substitute name-calling for actual argument. You have yet to respond to how YOUR posted linked column of BBC in which Tony Blair says that he and the pope are in agreement could possibly be consistent with the lies about the pope which you rehash.

Let's see. I stand with the Roman Catholic Church. You stand among its enemies. What in history suggests to you that your position will survive the Church? I thought not!

[Eva]

I have been thinking the same thing, that the Pope is no longer in control, someone is using him, telling him what to say. I think that he is too old to do the job.

I am not Catholic, but my husband was raised Catholic and never really cut the cord to his childhood religion, that is until scandal of the pedophile priests surfaced and the Pope failed to take action.