posted on January 31, 2003 12:18:41 AM new
Though I am not religious, most of my friends and those whom I have known throughout my life are. Besides the obvious irony in the article which appeals to me, I was also reminded of the many stimulating hours of discussion. Perhaps some of that will be revived on the national level once again.
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 31, 2003; Page A18
The National Council of Churches will begin airing a television commercial today in which a bishop of the United Methodist Church, President Bush's denomination, says going to war against Iraq "violates God's law and the teachings of Jesus Christ."
............
Many of the nation's large Christian denominations, including the leaders of the Catholic, Episcopal, Presbyterian and Methodist churches, have expressed opposition or strong reservations to war with Iraq. Some Southern Baptist and other evangelical ministers have declared their support for war; most Jewish organizations have not taken a position.
posted on January 31, 2003 04:40:14 AM new
I strongly oppose any war with Iraq, also. I find it hard to believe that Saddam is in partnership with bin Laden. So, I don't buy into that end of it. Aren't they supposed to be enemies and don't they have different agendas? Enlighten me, please!
What I find interesting is:
most Jewish organizations have not taken a position
I wonder what would have happened if WE didn't take a position on their fight with the Palestinians?? I suspect the situation we have been in since (with the Middle East), may not have arisen at all.
Interesting article, but not surprising. I would have expected most churches to take a stand against a war. This war would cost us more than just lives.
posted on January 31, 2003 07:46:53 AM new
Hey Borillar - You see this??????
Many of the nation's large Christian denominations, including the leaders of the Catholic, Episcopal, Presbyterian and Methodist churches, have expressed opposition or strong reservations to war with Iraq
--------------
I always love it when non-religious people will use statements of the religious to support their points. But any other time....what out...they'll fight religion tooth and nail.
posted on January 31, 2003 08:58:02 AM new
Me too, Linda, and I say that as a risk to the appearance of my independence and individuality since me too seems to be a popular refrain lately. However, unlike us, many people who aren't aware of History or have forgotten it, may not know that Christianity has both a good and evil side. When that dark side rises in any religion, just as it has with some Muslims, it's important for the people to be reminded and not taken in by false prophets, especially those with the political power to do great harm. Yes, they should be fought tooth and nail.
If I'm not around here much for a while, which I know will disappoint many , it's because I've taken on civic and personal projects which are pretty time consuming for the present.
posted on January 31, 2003 09:46:14 AM new
CBlev - If you find it hard to believe there's a connection between the AQ and Iraq then you haven't read all the sites and articles where these connections are discussed. Do a search on Al-Qaeda. I'd suggest a Yahoo News search. You will find articles from all over the world where other countries, and ours, show why they believe there is this cooperation between the two going on.
A report from The Washington Post, for example, cites AQ deal with Iraq for gas. There are articles that make a connection about Iraq selling nerve gas to AQ. An article from The New Yorker described the relationship between Saddams intelligence services and al-Anser- a bin Laden affiliated terrorist group.
I think you might change your mind on whether or not there is a connection between the two. But don't wait to hear it on the evening news. Unless you read a wide range of news from other countries on this subject, you're not likely to find much.
posted on January 31, 2003 01:58:30 PM new
Thanks, Linda_K. Between my full time job, Ebay and the other part-time jobs I have to make ends meet, I'm out of the loop. Will do that search.
The fact that someone finds it hard to believe that there's a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq has nothing to do with failure to read what *you* choose to read, Linda. I can't rely on what you suggest reading because apparently you can't read a simple story in the Washington Post without being snowed by Bush propaganda.
According to that article, the Bush administration received a "credible report" that Islamic extremists took possession of a chemical weapon.....They "suspect" that the transaction involved nerve gas. (No source is identified and no evidence is provided) The article is replete with conditional clauses such as, If the report proves true".
Exerpts from the Washington Post article:
"On the central question whether Iraqi President Saddam Hussein knew about or authorized such a transaction, U.S. analysts are said to have no evidence."
"Knowledgeable officials, speaking without White House permission, said information about the transfer came from a sensitive and credible source whom they declined to discuss"
"Even authorized spokesmen, with one exception, addressed the report on the condition of anonymity. They said the principal source on the chemical transfer was uncorroborated, and that indications it involved a nerve agent were open to interpretation."
"Have they obtained chemical weapons?" Johndroe said. "I do not have any hard, concrete evidence that they have." Pressed on whether the information referred to a nerve agent, Johndroe said "there is no specific intelligence that limits al Qaeda's interest to one particular chemical or biological weapon over the other."
"An official elsewhere said the message resulted only from an analyst's hypothetical concern."
Linda, I could go on and on but then I would have to copy paste the ENTIRE STORY...Heaven forbid. LOL!!!
When his crusade goes terribly wrong, as it is likely to do, Bush will owe a lot of people an explanation. Meanwhile, we must do whatever we can, nonviolently, to oppose this military messianism.
antiquary, Now's a good time to be busy on time consuming civic and personal projects.
posted on January 31, 2003 02:59:05 PM new
Helen - I was offering a suggestion for Cheryl to do a Yahoo.com search on 'Connection Between Iraq and Al-Qaeda' so she could review and see for herself...make her own informed decision.
The offer was made was to someone I believe might at least be open minded, unlike yourself.
The Iraq-al Qaeda Connection
THIS MORNING'S front page article in the Washington Post, "Report Cites Al Qaeda Deal For Iraqi Gas," should not come as a surprise. Over the past months, we have had several detailed reports of links between Iraq and al Qaeda. For example, in "The Great Terror (March 3, 2002)," Jeffrey Goldberg of the New Yorker described the relationship between Saddam Hussein's intelligence services and al-Ansar, a bin Laden-affiliated terrorist group in Northern Iraq, which a government official in today's Post says was involved in smuggling the nerve agent out of Iraq.
In the current issue of Vanity Fair, David Rose reports on additional links between Baghdad and the al Qaeda network. And in October, CIA director George Tenet flatly declared in a letter to the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee that based on credible reports "Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda members in areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs."
What all of this means is that the president has been right in saying that the coming war to remove Saddam is part of the overall war on terrorism. Regime change in Iraq and the destruction of al Qaeda are two related fronts in one war, and both fronts should be prosecuted aggressively and simultaneously.
William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard.
And on the Yahoo.com search for those who don't believe ANYTHING your government says....you'll find reports of the same from intellegency reports from other countries too.
posted on January 31, 2003 03:39:20 PM new
Linda, Vanity Fair and The New Yorker?
It's possible that Iraq has nerve gas. After all, we sold it to them several years ago. But there is no evidence that Saddam sold it to Al Qaeda
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene."
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
posted on January 31, 2003 04:36:05 PM new
Here's a little ditty to whistle while you work, Antiquary.
IF YOU'RE HAPPY AND YOU KNOW IT, BOMB IRAQ
If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.
If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.
It's "pre-emptive non-aggression", bomb Iraq.
Let's prevent this mass destruction,bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's good enough for me
'Cos it's all the proof I need
Bomb Iraq.
If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
(And he tried to kill your dad),
Bomb Iraq.
If your corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.
Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq
Anon
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on January 31, 2003 05:16:31 PM new
>Hey Borillar - You see this??????
What it is important to note is that while we do not have the moral authority and certainly not the common sense in going to bomb Iraq, we will end up doing just that and it might be the right thing to do. Realize that just because a cause is Right does not automatically make it Just or Moral.
Should we go to war with Iraq? I don't see how we'd ever get Saddam to stop his ambitions to conquer the gulf region and end up directly controlling two-thirds of the world's oil supplies, nor is there any real hope that he'll just tuck tail and run until the actual shooting starts.
Therefore, the question becomes, "What is Good for the World and What is Good for America concerning Saddam and are they the same thing?"
If we let Saddam slide by to finish developing WOMD, will he be a conventional leader and harbor them against attack from foreign countries? If he uses them for self-defense at this point, he would still have Moral Authoity. Can we afford to wait until he gasses Israel to go wipe him out? Do we arrest and execute someone before they commit a capital crime?
In all likelihood, Saddam would use WOMD to intimidate his neighbors and use it on them if they resisted. A Saddam Hussien that controlled two-thirds of the world's oil supplies might not be a bad thing for the world, maybe it would be. But certainly, it would be extremely bad for Israel, because Israel would be nearly and completely surrounded by a madman butcher dictator.
What to do?
edited for no reason.
[ edited by Borillar on Jan 31, 2003 05:18 PM ]
posted on January 31, 2003 05:24:15 PM new
To Add: I would much rather see America put this 300 BILLION TAXPAYER DOLLARS to ONE TRILLION TAXPAYER DOLLARS to be used to get Saddam out and to rebuild iraq used to a) Nearly instantly change all new automotive vehicles over to non-petrolium fuels and b) To subsidize the cost of said changes, fuel costs to the consumer, and the cost of installing a support infrastructure for said fuels if need be.
What a world of difference that would make! For the environment, for the consumer, for America! Saddam could sit on all two-thirds of the world's oil supply and we and the rest of the world couldn't care less. The world's most valuable real estate will become worthless desert once more.
Yes, a TRILLION DOLLARS properly spent would do the trick. Heck, we could even have a car trade-in program where the government would pay 50% of the cost on the first family vehicle purchase that doesn't run on petrolium.
Right?
edited for no reason.
[ edited by Borillar on Jan 31, 2003 05:26 PM ]
, it's because I've taken on civic and personal projects which are pretty time consuming for the present.