Posted on 04/18/2008 1:15:26 PM PDT by BenLurkin
It’s also a FACT that turning Iraq into an explicitly moslem country (instead of a secularist thugocracy) has been bad for the Iraqi Christian community. Our failure to contain the islamic tribal militias immediately following the invasion made life very difficult for them. Things are looking up for the moment ... but we have a responsibility (since we invaded and changed their government) to see that they are not persecuted.
“While Benedict did not mention any country, this appeared to refer to the United States, which led the 2003 invasion of Iraq despite a Security Council refusal to approve it.”
al-Reuters is making a false arguement. Our action in Iraq had already been approved by the council. UNSC Resolution authorized Member States [ to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area].
‘All necessary means’ includes military action. Saddam would not comply with the resolutions.
But for the Pope to have stood against our intervention shows really bad judgment.
Are you disagreeing? He seems to me to be saying that there are universal rights which governments must respect.
I think that is not a misstatement at all. Quite the contrary.
First off, I congratulate you for recognizing that this is a matter of prudential judgment. Some folks are confused on that matter.
However, that too was widely misrepresented by MSM ... while Pope John Paull II consistently spoke against war, he also consistently reminded Saddam Hussein of his "obligation" to comply with "the legitimate demands of the international community" in order to avoid war.
For some odd reason, the MSM chose not to report that. I only ever saw in in zenit (Vatican News). ABCCBSNBCCNNFOX didn't want you to know the whole truth.
As the UN did for years. Impotent gesture.
The Pope comes across as quite ineffectual in these matters which could have taken the lives of millions over the long term.
Thank God for the US. We did what what right regardless of the Pope, the UN and the rest of the world who were to weak to take effectual action.
He reminds me of Jimmy Carter in that he speaks to things as they should be, not as they are. Bless their hearts, they simply don’t realize that their intentions and desires are in no way binding on those who wish Pope’s followers or our country nothing but ill will.
“Are you surprised that the Pope is not an American first?”
I am surprised that the Pope would care about the USA “undermining” that foul stench from hell called the UN.
I fail to see the down side of undermining the UN.
Thank God for the US. Thank God for the Pope.
“He reminds me of Jimmy Carter in that he speaks to things as they should be, not as they are. Bless their hearts, they simply don’t realize...”
Your opinion of Carter is far too high. He’s more than an idiot, he’s a traitor.
I would be disappointed if the pope cared about anything other than one holy catholic and apostolic Church and anything that he thought would advance that.
He was talking about natural law, which is actually not accepted by two groups: the UN, and the Muslims.
Positive law refers to legal codes created by an authority, and is not necessarily based on natural law. Natural law, that is the laws built into the world by its Creator, are not ritual laws (Islamic law) or political laws (UN). Natural Law is the foundation of all other law, and certain crimes - murder, for example, and by extension, abortion - are always opposed to it, because Natural Law is based on the idea that Man was created in the Image of God and therefore has certain inherent rights. In other words, the same legal theory that is behind our Constitution.
The Pope is a smart and subtle man, and what he was telling the UN - except that most of them are too dumb to get it - is that natural law exists, is universal, and has got to be the foundation for any international body.
Why do you take al Reuter's interpretation of this? The Pope said nothing of the sort; in fact, he said that the international community had a duty to intervene in cases of grave violation of human rights, and Saddam's country certainly fell into that category. Also, the US actually DID have the approval of the UN, something that Reuters has conveniently forgotten.
“I would be disappointed if the pope cared about anything other than one holy catholic and apostolic Church and anything that he thought would advance that.”
Tell me you don’t believe the UN does that.
Not thanking him for the Pope in this instance.
And when the United Nations, France, Russia and possibly Germany and Canada are raking in $Billions in a "Oil for Food" fraud" should we just stand aside and allow them and Saddam to rape and murder the Iraqi country and people?
The Pope has plenty of Catholic business to attend to, he should do so.
You’re right, he is an idiot. What someone once called a ‘useful idiot’.
Its not what I think thats important. Its what the Pope thinks and he is a whole lot smarter and better educated than you and me.
Sadly, many (perhaps most) societies are godless, or worse are in the thrall of false gods.
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.