He is a conservative and his views were consistent with just war theory.
Is it his style that got him banned? Or are we forbidden to take issue with President Bush over the war plans involving Iraq and other nations?
I do not understand this banning at all, especially when other Freepers are allowed to roam the threads with endless anti-Catholic invective.
I hope those who are so satisfied with our activity in Afghanastan,note that many who live there are not that happy with the return of the Northern Alliance. There are those that think the pederasts with their "boy toys" back on the streets,the reopening of the drug routes and the "oil" question diminish the glow of the "democracy" we wish to bring them after we liberate them from the evil "Taliban".
While I agree with CG's post #3 for the larger part,I disagree with CG's characterization of George W Bush, I think too many people equate smart with glib. He is not glib,he is not articulate but I believe he is smart and sincere. I also believe he is misguided,as are so many people these days;there are so many lies and so little trust,we have created and live in a "culture of death",and so many are too dead to notice.
You missed one of CG's Foes. That being, me.
I was going to respond to CG by stating that I agreed with about 80% of the Facts which he presented -- his Material Facts, if not perhaps his Tone or "style" of presentation.
However, aside from his strange opinion of the Afghan War as being "unjust" (as Sinkspur points out, even the Pope agreed with the Justifiability of that war -- and this is coming from a Pontiff who can't even wrap his Papal Tiara around the morality of the Death Penalty for child-sodomizers and baby-killers), I don't necessarily disagree with the general thrust of CG's criticisms.
I will say that, in relation to the Article, if GW Bush's thinking is becoming more generally "Calvinistic", he certainly has a long way to go. For just one example, his attempts to "go behind" the backs of Congress and implement his "Faith Based Charities" plan by Executive Order rather than normative legislation. As my own Pastor said from the Pulpit (and I paraphrase -- reflecting the position of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in general), "We have no desire whatsoever for even a single penny of Caesar's Faith-Based Socialism; and we consider the very concept an abomination".
If GW Bush is becoming more "Calvinistic" in his thinking, he is becoming "half-Calvinistic" at best. And I pause to reflect that, in the case of a Ruling Magistrate, the combination of a Wesleyan belief in "personal choice, personal holiness" combined with a Calvinist (or at best, "calvin-esque") belief in "God's ordination of the Powers that Be" could theoretically result in a very dangerous cocktail of "Messianic" hubris on the part of the King. Mmmmm? Grist for the Mill....
As a hypothetical exercise: if we were truly willing to engage in a Foreign Policy of "HUMILITY" as CG suggests... a foreign Policy which is "humble" enough to admit, "We were wrong; and we are men enough to admit we were wrong... we should never have gotten involved in Iraq's squabble with Kuwait in 1990; therefore, the Sanctions end today, the "No-Fly Zone" ends today, the Bombing ends today... we will leave you alone, and leave you to the judgment of Hell"... does anyone really suppose that Saddam would continue to pursue vengeance against the US? He never did in the 1980's, he was happy enough to poison-gas the Iranians -- until we presented ourselves as a Threat to his Power. If we removed ourselves as a Threat to his Power, would he continue to seek to visit Harm upon us? All he cares about is Power, after all; everything else is quite negotiable.
It scarcely matters, of course. As Sinkspur observes, CG is behind the times; "the train has left the station"... We are going to War, tens of thousands of Civilians will be butchered by the Instruments of Death, and Hussein will be deposed -- rather quickly, I imagine. It is all becoming academic; and, if God is gracious, maybe it will end there. Though I rather doubt it.
But nonetheless, I should have liked to engage CatholicGuy in an Argument on such subjects.
I can't now; he has been Banned. Perhaps I will be Banned also, for (partially) agreeing with (some) of his criticisms.
But I will miss him in the Theology debates. As concerns adversarial Theology debates, I always found his Postings to be rather like dining on a good cut of Filet Mignon -- that is, tender meat, and easily chewed up. But, even if easily dissected and easily digested, at least his Arguments were juicy and poignant -- not stale, bland, and warmed over.
I didn't agree with all he wrote, but when it came to originality and creativity, not to mention knowlege, Catholiguy was one of the best Freepers. Banning him is a travesty, and says more about FreeRepublic than it does him. It says more about where this country is headed, and it says that there are some real dopes here, if they can't handle having their political views questioned.
St. Chuck, I'll toast you a glass of Wine, to that sentiment.
(even if it does not, in fact, transmogrify into literal human blood).
Best, OP