SI
SI
Advertise on SI

 Politics | The Iraq War And Beyond


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: George Papadopoulos who wrote (8793)4/4/2005 12:11:21 PM
From: average joe   of 9018
 
George you've done quite enough damage poisoning people with your goat kebabs to adopt a superior moral attitude here.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: George Papadopoulos who wrote (8793)4/4/2005 1:30:43 PM
From: Crimson Ghost   of 9018
 
Pro-Zionist, pro-war posters should be banned from this thread if it is to survive.

The mainstream media is full of their lies -- no need for it here.

The neo-cons are moving to restrict the free speech of college faculty opposed to the their war-mongering agenda.

Let's give them a taste of their own medicine.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (7)

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (8799)4/4/2005 2:29:52 PM
From: rrufff   of 9018
 
I can see that the bigots here that blame the world's problems on their fear of Jews, or strictly hate the US, whatever the topic, are having a hard time getting their "message" across.

I feel badly for them.

As they are having such difficulty figuring out how to ban posters, I for one volunteer to no longer post here provided no poster here posts to me or about me.

Then maybe these bigots will be able to post to each other and enjoy their hitleresque musings.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: cavan4/4/2005 2:33:14 PM
   of 9018
 
US envoy says pope considered Iraq war 'defeat for humanity'

2 hours, 24 minutes ago Politics - AFP



LOS ANGELES (AFP) - The former US envoy to the Vatican, Jim Nicholson, recalled Pope John Paul II's vocal opposition to the US-led invasion of Iraq on the grounds that war represented a "defeat for humanity."


AFP/File Photo

"There was a clear disagreement," Nicholson said of the rift between the Vatican and the White House over the use of military force to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein.


The pope, who died Saturday, "was a man of peace, and he always hoped for the peace option," Nicholson said in an interview with the Denver Post.


"If he could keep war from breaking out, there's always a chance that peace would break out," Nicholson said. "That was his position about Iraq; he made that clear to me. He also said that war is a defeat for humanity, that war is not always inevitable."


In a failed attempt to sway President George W. Bush from a military strike, the pope had sent an emissary to Washington in the run-up to the war.


"The president had a great deal of respect for the pope, so he took it very seriously," Nicholson said in a separate interview with CNN.


Although differences emerged over Iraq, Nicholson said the pope had been "very supportive" of the US-led war on terror launched after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.


During an audience with the pope just days after the attacks, Nicholson said the pontiff had offered his condolences to the American people and condemned the terrorist action as "an attack on humanity."


He also suggested that the pope and President Bush had forged a close bond, especially over their shared commitment to encouraging a "culture of life."

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: cavan4/4/2005 2:38:18 PM
   of 9018
 
Pope changed world without armies

Mon Apr 4, 8:54 AM ET Top Stories - USATODAY.com


By Rick Hampson, USA TODAY

When Josef Stalin was told that Pope Pius XII opposed his policies, the Soviet leader famously replied: "How many divisions has the pope?"




A half-century later, when the Soviet empire had fallen without a bullet being fired, Stalin's last successor made an admission: "Everything that happened in Eastern Europe in these last few years," Mikhail Gorbachev said, "would have been impossible without this pope."


"This pope" was John Paul II, who, by the time he died Saturday, had demonstrated the power of the papacy, inside the church and out. But his legacy is debated even as he is mourned. Will he go down as "John Paul the Great?" Or did he wound the institution he plainly loved by holding power too closely for too long?


He was contradiction personified. In the world, he was a liberal, fighting for political freedom and religious tolerance. In the church, he was a conservative, fostering the traditional, hierarchical Catholicism he knew in Poland.


He espoused human rights around the globe, yet stifled dissent in the church. He reached out to people everywhere, yet those at the margins of Catholicism felt ignored.


He alienated many liberals, gays and feminists by refusing to reconsider church doctrines.


Despite his insistence on personal sexual morality, he was slow to respond to a priest sexual-abuse scandal.


John Paul II took office in 1978 as a novelty - a Pole and the first non-Italian pope in 455 years - and became a revolutionary. He began his papacy with the words, "Be not afraid!" and followed his own advice. He went places no pope had been, met people no pope had met, fought battles no pope had fought.


He was alert as well to modern challenges to Catholic doctrine: Two weeks ago, his Vatican condemned a Florida judge's order to remove the feeding tube from Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged American woman who died Thursday.


He served longer than any other pope in more than a century. He traveled farther and named more cardinals and bishops than any other pope. And he elevated more new saints than the previous 17 popes combined.


He reached out to Jews, Muslims and people of other faiths. He spoke against capitalism and communism, spoke up for the poor, spoke up for life as he defined it from very beginning to very end. "I am the voice of the voiceless," he said in 1979 on his first overseas trip as pope.


He preached the gospel on every continent save Antarctica, in the process traveling more than 750,000 miles - the equivalent of 30 times around the world. If St. Peter was the "rock" on whom Jesus said he would build his church, Peter's 263rd successor was a rolling stone.


As his biographer George Weigel observed: "It is a very obscure corner of the planet that has not been in some way touched by the life of this pope and by his proposals."


Shaped by World War II


Born Karol Wojtyla, he was the last major world leader to be shaped by World War II. "I learned the great lessons of my generation - humiliation at the hands of evil," he wrote. The Nazis invaded Poland and made him a forced laborer. The communists tried to drive his church out of business.


Thanks to the jetliner and the communications satellite, "he was able to make himself more present to the world than any other pope, and the world changed because of that presence," says Gerald Fogarty, a Jesuit priest and professor of church history at the University of Virginia.


In his first months after becoming pope in 1978, John Paul II shattered the image of a reclusive, cautious monarch shuttered behind the Vatican's walls and protected by advisers. This pope had been a mountain climber, skier, poet and actor. He liked to hug and joke and sing. You didn't have to be a theologian or diplomat to understand what he was saying.





Because of John Paul II's example, his successor will have to be more than the CEO of the Roman Catholic Church. He will have to be a celebrity as well as a preacher, a pilgrim and an evangelist. "There is no reversing this," Weigel said. "The church expects it. The world expects it."

The former actor knew the value of an image and the power of a gesture. As long as he was able, he kissed the ground in every nation he visited. He went to the prison cell of the man who shot him, and forgave him. He waved a finger to publicly rebuke one of the priests who took a post with the Nicaraguan government in violation of Vatican rules.

New archbishops used to receive the pallium, a wool vestment symbolizing their ecclesiastical authority, in ceremonies at their home cathedrals. John Paul II began calling them to Rome each June to personally bestow the pallium, thereby underscoring both his authority and his affection.

John Paul also determined how his successor will be selected - and by whom. He revised the election process in 1996. And he has appointed all but three of the 117 cardinals eligible to elect a pope and most of the bishops who will serve under him.

His appointments moved the church's center of gravity into the Third World, home to roughly a third of the cardinals who will choose the next pope. Anyone who was shocked by a Polish pope should be prepared for the possibility of a black, brown or yellow one.

John Paul II did not merely proclaim that a non-violentfaith could change the world; he proved it. In Europe, he supported Solidarity, the labor movement in Poland that began the fall of European communism. In Missouri, he saved the life of a convict on death row. The pope's personal appeal for clemency was granted by a governor who favored capital punishment.

He preached to some of the largest crowds in history, including one estimated at more than 5 million in Manila in 1995. By some estimates, John Paul II was seen in person by more than a billion people.

Staid Vatican ceremonies became "pep rallies to broadcast the pope's views," according to Fogarty. So many people wanted to attend papal Masses and general audiences that the events had to be moved from St. Peter's Basilica to the square outside.

Stand against communism

John Paul's greatest moment came in June 1979, when he returned to Poland as pope. Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev warned Polish officials not to receive the pope: "It will only cause trouble."

He was right. The pope's visit showed the world that Poland loved Catholicism and hated atheistic communism. In nine days, he was seen by one of every three Poles. As he proclaimed the importance of Polish independence, crowds chanted, "We want God!"

A year and a half later, with the Soviet Union on the verge of invading Poland to suppress Solidarity, the pope wrote Brezhnev a personal letter, implicitly comparing any Soviet incursion to the Nazi invasion of 1939.

Communism, he later remarked, was a rotten tree; all he had to do was shake it.

Viewed through the lens of American politics, the pope was an enigma - "to the left of liberal Democrats on social issues and to the right of conservative Republicans on moral values," in the words of Thomas Reese, a Jesuit priest and church observer.

He was also a conservative on church governance. Bishop Karol Wojtyla was an enthusiastic participant in the Second Vatican Council, which met from 1962 to 1965 and abolished or undercut many of the old ways, such as the Latin Mass and meatless Fridays. But Pope John Paul II was more concerned with stabilizing the church after Vatican II than rekindling reform.

The pope apologized for centuries of mistakes by laity and clergy but vigorously upheld the church's opposition to abortion, artificial birth control and homosexual relations. He choked off debate on celibacy and the ordination of women.

Some dissident theologians, such as the Rev. Charles Curran of Catholic University of America in Washington, were dismissed from positions at Catholic institutions. U.S. Rep. Robert Drinan, a Jesuit and former dean of the Boston College Law School, was told not to seek re-election because the pope did not want priests directly involved in politics.

John Paul failed to solve at least one fundamental crisis: the shortage of priests. Scott Appleby, a church historian at the University of Notre Dame, said the pope "bet the future on recruiting more priests." But at the end of his papacy, the church faced the specter of full pews and empty rectories.

Nor did he appear to play a particularly effective role in dealing with the American church's sex scandals, in which hundreds of priests going back decades were dismissed or resigned for offenses ranging from molesting boysto consensual sex with women.

Although the pope was not personally implicated, his papacy was marred.Despite major court cases dating back to 1985, John Paul "did not instruct bishops not to reassign abusers" and "had almost nothing to say about what was going on until April 2002," said EileenFlynn, a Catholic writer and professor at St. Peter's College in Jersey City.

The pope called American church leaders to Rome to discuss the scandal and later approved their policy for dealing with molesters in the clergy. He told a worldwide meeting of young Catholics in Toronto in July 2002 that "the harm done by some priests ... to the young and vulnerable fills us all with a deep sense of sadness and shame."

Reaching out to the world

The pope often tried to use his office to promote peace. "Heads of state came to regard him as an essential partner in working for world peace," Fogarty said. The pope opposed not only the Gulf War in 1991 and the Iraq war in 2003 but also the U.S. military action in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Diplomacy also strengthened the church's ability to evangelize. When the pope visited Mexico City in 1979, the church was still under restrictions dating to the Mexican Revolution in the early 20th century. The pope could not celebrate Mass outside a church, and the president of Mexico met him only in his role as a private citizen. When the pope returned in 1999, after relations were established, he held Mass in Aztec Stadium in Mexico City and was greeted as a visiting head of state.

John Paul did far more than any pope to improve the church's relations with Jews. In 1986, he became the first pope to visit the main Jewish synagogue in Rome. In 1993, he established diplomatic relations with Israel. In 1998, he formally apologized for the failure of many Catholics to help Jews during the Holocaust.

"A thousand years from now, when nobody knows what a communist was, there will still be Jews and Catholics," said Reese, the Jesuit church analyst. "And they will see the end of the 20th century as the time when their communities made peace and began to become friends."

Yet John Paul's papacy also saw many moments of tension with Jews. He canonized Edith Stein, a Jewish convert to Catholicism who died in the Holocaust. He promoted to the status of "blessed" Pius IX, the 19th-century pope who allegedly referred to the Jews of Rome as "dogs." He granted an audience to Austrian President Kurt Waldheim, despite controversy about Waldheim's role in the German military during World War II.

John Paul believed he was destined by God to lead the church into the third millennium. Having triumphed over fascism and communism, he felt he could do the same over individualism and materialism - problems that were far more tenacious.

But the pope's true legacy might not yet be apparent. Weigel, his biographer, said John Paul believed he had planted ideas about social justice and Christian faith "that will flower many years after his death."

Karol Wojtyla thought that was part of his mission. As he said when introduced to a farmer in Iowa in 1979, "We are all farmers."

How many divisions has the pope? Some, Winston Churchill once noted, are "not always visible on parade."



Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Doug R4/4/2005 3:12:03 PM
   of 9018
 
By the 1990’s, securing energy resources and limiting the growth of the economies of China, India, Russia, Brazil and Venezuela became paramount. Even with the US colonization of Iraq in 2005, there was not enough oil & gas to satisfy both US needs and those of the high growth nations. The historical record shows that the resource domination was the real goal of the disingenuous US War on Terror. And with the US removing itself from international diplomacy and treaty, and refusing to share the wealth, world war was just a step away.

With this backdrop, the US reserved the right to invade oil producing and transit nations, threaten countries for forward basing rights, and demonize and destabilize irregular nations like China, India and Russia (the term “irregular warfare” appeared during this time). The US deftly employed the cosmetics of religion, freedom and democracy, and glorified, even deified, all matters military in preparing its people for the real struggle that was ahead (also allowing US gas prices to rise). So, without much fanfare, four years into the 21st Century, the US made it official: “We are a Nation at War.” And with that, US President George W. Bush’s National Defense Strategy of March 2005, and General, USAF, Richard Myers’ National Military Strategy of the USA (released in 2004)
64.233.187.104 
set the global conflict into motion.

Those two documents served as the catalyst for the rapid build-up of international alliances designed to neutralize the US attempt to dominate world energy markets.

WWIII was initiated by the US, a nation with 4.5 percent of the world’s population that, until war’s end, was consuming over 50 percent of the world’s resources. At issue was the US attempt to dominate oil & gas supply, demand and transit.

The US invaded portions of China and Russia through the “Stans”, and attacked Iran from Iraq and Afghanistan. It convinced Pakistan to invade India, and Israel to secure Saudi Arabia, Syria and Kuwait. England was left to deal with the continental European powers France and Germany. From its bases in Costa Rica, Colombia and Honduras, the US moved swiftly to take the oilfields of Venezuela. The plan called for shock and awe and submission. But the world had not sat idly by as the US schemed. US and allied forces were sucked in, encircled and forced, in many cases, to surrender. They were trapped in the seas of indigenous populations who gave them no quarter. Buoyed by initial successes, the US and its allies never saw the conventional counterattack that followed coming. It was unlike any the world had seen.

Suffering defeat and stalemate on the conventional battlefield, the US and its allies resorted to the HNO solution (Hiroshima-Nagasaki Option) on the pretext that millions of lives—mostly American--would be spared. They fired nuclear weapons on forces overrunning the US and its allies on the Asian continent and in North America, specifically Alaska. The response was swift: a nuclear counterattack eliminated the remaining US Carrier Groups, US refining capacity and Taiwan as an independent entity. Pakistan, being overrun by India, opted to switch sides. Japan and Australia did the same moving to assist the anti-US coalition.

As the nuclear portion of the conflict cooled, the US realized that it had literally run out of gas. The domestic front was itself a war zone with well-armed American guerilla groups openly fighting the forces of the US Northern Command, Homeland Security and local police. Everywhere around the world the US was in retreat. England was in talks with France and Germany for terms of surrender. Israel was in retreat and had one foot in the ocean.

The world’s water and air supply were contaminated and billions of carcasses—human and otherwise--lay rotting. Disease and malnutrition would take hundreds of millions more. All this for oil & gas that, for the most part, has been depleted.

The Treaty of Jakarta, signed in 2045, brought an end to the global conflagration that was World War III. That conflict saw the US, Pakistan, Israel, Japan, Taiwan, England and Australia in bloody conflict against China, India, Russia, France, Germany, Iran, Venezuela and Brazil. Other nations joined the fray and formed uneasy alliances with one side or the other. For example, Vietnam lent its considerable knowledge of combat against US forces to China. Mexico took sides with the US and put its population surplus at the disposal of the US military apparatus. The war killed billions, put to waste and made uninhabitable sizeable areas of the globe, and led to a global pandemic that killed millions more.

mparent7777.blog-city.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: George Papadopoulos who wrote (8793)4/4/2005 4:31:54 PM
From: Chas.   of 9018
 
I have very carefully read the Forum header that precedes this forum and would like to give my opinion/answer of the questions put forth therein....

it essentially asks'..."what will the World think of the USA invading Iraq, what are the consequences...?"

that's it in a nutshell....

The entire world and specifically China, has set up and taken notice of a new USA posture, every country on the planet now thinks twice before putting into effect any policy that may effect the USA in any way.
This is a good thing for all Americans everywhere...
regards

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Doug R4/4/2005 4:55:10 PM
   of 9018
 
Green light for Iraqi prison abuse came right from the top
Classified documents show the former US military chief in Iraq personally sanctioned measures banned by the Geneva Conventions. Andrew Buncombe reports from Washington
03 April 2005


America's leading civil liberties group has demanded an investigation into the former US military commander Iraq after a formerly classified memo revealed that he personally sanctioned a series of coercive interrogation techniques outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. The group claims that his directives were directly linked to the sort of abuses that took place at Abu Ghraib.

Documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reveal that Lt General Ricardo Sanchez authorised techniques such as the use of dogs to intimidate prisoners, stress positions and disorientation. In the documents, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, Gen Sanchez admits that some of the techniques would not be tolerated by other countries.

When he appeared last year before a Congressional committee, Gen Sanchez denied authorising such techniques. He has now been accused of perjury.

The ACLU says the documents reveal that the abuse of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere was the result of an organised and co-ordinated plan for dealing with prisoners captured during the so-called war on terror that originates at the highest levels of the chain of command. It says that far from being isolated incident, the shocking abuse at Abu Ghraib that was revealed last year was part of a pattern.

"We think that the techniques authorised by Gen Sanchez were certainly responsible for putting into play the sort of abuses that we saw at Abu Ghraib," Amirit Singh, an ACLU lawyer, told The Independent on Sunday. "And it does not just stop with Sanchez. It goes to [Defence Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld, who wrote memos authorising these sorts of techniques at Guantanamo Bay."

In the September 2003 memo, Gen Sanchez authorised the use of 29 techniques for interrogating prisoners being held by the US. These included stress positions, "yelling, loud music and light control" as well as the use of muzzled military dogs in order to "exploit Arab fear of dogs". Some of the most notorious photographs to emerge from the Abu Ghraib scandal showed hand-cuffed, naked Iraqi prisoners cowering from snarling dogs.

Six weeks after Gen Sanchez issued his memo, a subsequent directive banned the use of dogs and several of the other techniques following concerns raised by military lawyers. The ACLU says that at least 12 of the techniques listed in the memo went beyond the limits for interrogation listed in the US Army's field manual.

"Gen Sanchez authorised interrogation techniques that were in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and the army's own standards," said Ms Singh. "He and other high-ranking officials who bear responsibility for the widespread abuse of detainees must be held accountable."

The Abu Ghraib scandal sent shockwaves around the world and further undermined US credibility in the Arab world. In the immediate aftermath, insurgents who captured and beheaded a US engineer, Nick Berg, said they had done so in retaliation for the abuse at the infamous prison west of Baghdad, where prisoners were sexually humiliated and tortured.

A number of low-ranking reservists have been charged over the abuse. An alleged ringleader, Charles Graner, 36, was convicted last January and sentenced to 10 years in jail. At his trial his lawyer, Guy Womack, claimed his client was being used as a scapegoat. "The government is asking a corporal to take the hit for them," he said. "The chain of command says, 'We didn't know anything about this stuff'. You know that is a lie."

When he appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee in May 2004, Gen Sanchez flatly refused approving such techniques in Iraq, and said that a news article reporting otherwise was false. "I never approved any of those measures to be used ... at any time in the last year," he said under oath. The ACLU accuses him of committing perjury and has asked the Attorney General to investigate. In a letter to Alberto Gonzales, the group said: "Gen Sanchez's testimony, given under oath before the Senate Armed Services committee, is utterly inconsistent with the written record, and deserves serious investigation. This clear breach of the public's trust is also further proof that the American people deserve the appointment of an independent special counsel by the Attorney General."

A number of investigations have been carried out into the abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. While some have referred to a break-down in the chain of command, none have placed responsibility with senior officers or politicians.

Kathy Kelley, a spokeswoman for the anti-war group Voices in the Wilderness, said the new documents obtained by the ACLU showed a pattern of abuse by US forces. "It saddens me but I am not shocked," she said.

Gen Sanchez is currently commanding general of the US V Corps based in Germany. He has yet to comment on the release of the memo. A Pentagon spokesman declined to comment.

The Pentagon originally refused to release the memo on national security grounds, but passed it to the ACLU after the group challenged it in court. Mr Rumsfeld last week dismissed suggestions that it had been withheld to save the Pentagon's embarrassment.

But the ACLU said the reason for the delay in delivering the more than 1,200 pages of documents in which the memo was contained was "evident in the contents", which included reports of brutal beatings and sworn statements that soldiers were told to "beat the fuck out of" prisoners.

news.independent.co.uk 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: smackdown4/4/2005 7:26:08 PM
   of 9018
 
Rename this the Comedy thread. LMFAO

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: smackdown who wrote (8806)4/4/2005 8:13:14 PM
From: James Calladine   of 9018
 
Extra: The Rude Pundit's Favorite Conversation He Ever Had Related to the Pope:

The Rude Pundit's lover in the late 1980s had an intensely Catholic sister. She was in high school still, One day she comes into the house and announces to the Rude Pundit and said lover, "I just got the tape of Tony Melendez, that singer who performed for the Pope. He's the one who doesn't have any arms."

"The one who plays with his toes?" The Rude Pundit asked, fondly remembering fondly the sight of Melendez, eyes closed, pluckin' that fuckin' acoustic for all he was worth with his toes. And how Melendez sobbed when John Paul kissed his head after he was done. Such miracles - a boy who can play guitar with his toes. "Is he blind, too?"

"No," said the sister. "I don't think so." And she put on the cassette. The parents of the sister and the lover gathered around, the mother powerfully moved by Melendez's vocal stylings and, of course, the toe pluckin'. Who wouldn't be? The sister asked the Rude Pundit, "What do you think?"

"It's okay," said the Rude Pundit.

"He's playing with his toes."

"So?"

"So you don't like it," she said, getting all teenage girl pouty. "You can't even play the guitar. He's playing it with his toes."

"We should forgive his playing because of the freak factor? If he sucks, he sucks, and who gives a damn how many limbs he has."

"But he played for the Pope."

"Sucks for the Pope. It's America. You'd think there'd be a better armless Catholic guitar player somewhere around here."
// posted by Rude One @ 11:46 AM


rudepundit.blogspot.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.