Posted on 03/03/2003 2:46:58 AM PST by HAL9000
I never said that. I just said that the Church is not a worldly instrument, and is not able to provide worldly solutions to problems.
In fact, in my original statement, I didn't mention the Pope at all.
Go ahead and attack the President with your Heavenly mole sarcasm. It'll make you popular, but not necessarily right.
Reagand did invade Grenada. Reagan didn't want to set off a world war by invading Russia.
The time to drive Hussein from office is now, before he gets nuclear weapons.
The pope may see more clearly than folks here that disarming Iraq through military pressure should be tried before invading a country that hasn't attacked us.
Hussein will never fully disarm. He must be driven from power. The Pope is giving Bush cover to do what he has to do.
The last thing the Pope wants is to back the West, thus giving credence to binLaden's "crusade" of Islam against Christianity.
The Pope doesn't want war, but he knows full well that he is powerless to stop it.
Thanks to Gulf War I and President George H.W. Bush, forty-first President of the United States.
All of which goes to prove the wisdom of nipping a would-be Nebuchadnezzar in the bud.
As far as I am concerned, the Catholic Church was once a great institution when the Bishops and Cardinals actually rode into battle to wage war as soldiers for Christ and beat back Moslem invaders. The Pope is joining the 'axis of evil'???
A quote from the time of Charles II is not 'Catholic bashing'? An era in English history when the Mayor of London put up a plaque blaming the Great Fire on 'Papists'?
You're either ignorant of English history, or deliberately trying to mislead.
Saddam is no Nebuchadnezzar, my dear. He's Noriega, with oil fields.
PS: quality poem, on your FR page.
Fine.
But not in this way.
And where did I say that, newbie?
Instead of manufacturing something you feel comfortable countering, how about addressing the actual issues in my posts?
Go get 'em, Laurel! But I'll bet deathly silence is your only answer to those questions.
Yes, there are. But there is something going on at a deeper level, too. It is almost as though (for a certain type of insecure, zero-accomplishment personality) slandering their betters closes the accomplishment gap. I don't know whether that emotion has a name but for sure it's associated with the very worst in human nature. I think we need to robustly oppose it especially when it is directed at someone whose whole life has been devoted to the service of others, like the man in question. One thing that's REALLY annoying, is that (in the shambles I laughably call bookshelves) I can't find my copy of D'Souza's Reagan. Almost sure the Gipper had some admiring, comrade-in-arms compliments for Pope John Paul. Regards, By.
Saddam with Kuwait's oil fields and Saudi Arabia's oil fields and some nukes would not be Noriega.
JPII has a long history of backstabbing American foreign policy in the Middle East, and Christianity generally.
...and if my aunt wore army boots, she'd be my uncle.
He'll be stopped. His dream now is to get through the next two weeks, in one piece. I know it's a necessary part of psyops and the war build-up to demonise Saddam as a dangerous opponent, but surely us Freepers are too well-informed to be seduced by that spin. Unless he has the imagination, and civilian support, to fight a house-to-house war in the cities, this will be a very short campaign.
Pope John Paul II has done more for America (and the free West) than any non-American alive. Your ingratitude is a personality flaw, indicative of your cultural influences.
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.