An Old European in the New World Order
Feb. 16th, 2003 03:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
arisbeOld Europe (as Mr. Rumsfeld calles it), led by Old Rome (as we Byzantines call it), is standing up to our perhaps well-intentioned but certainly ill-advised president. As one who has citizenship in the European Community, as one raised as a Roman Catholic who is still in communion with the Church he was so long a member of, I am cheered no end. How long Europe can get away with its resistance to the dictates of Empire, it may be long enough to restrain us from the worst atrocities against the civilian population of Iraq. Civilization is often preserved by the delaying actions of the defeated -- recall the legend of King Arthur's stand against the Saxons.
I have the following from the Zenit news agency. Please read it, especially if you support this war and are tempted to dismiss all critics, or if you oppose it and want to see who is with you.
Frank
Vatican Isn't the Only One Wary of War
Charges of Interference and Pacifism Don't Hold Up
ROME, FEB. 15, 2003 (Zenit.org).- As the possibility of war in Iraq grows, the Church is also feeling the heat. The repeated pleas for peace issued by the Pope, members of the Roman Curia and assorted bishops' conferences have been criticized by some observers as evidence of either unjustified interference, mere pacifism or not-so-subtle anti-Americanism. On closer examination, however, none of these charges holds water.
How then to interpret John Paul II's statements? In an interview appearing Feb. 10 in the Italian paper La Stampa, Cardinal Sergio Sebastiani, who had been nuncio in Turkey for 10 years, explained that the Church is proposing a detailed plan for coping with the situation. The Holy Father's interventions, he said, are aimed at exhorting the parties involved to reflect on the consequences of their actions, not least of all for the sake of the Iraqi civilians.
Asked by the interviewer if the Vatican risks being perceived as hostile to the United States, Cardinal Sebastiani replied that the real scandal would have been if the Pope had not spoken out to try to halt the conflict.
On the Vatican-U.S. question, Giorgio Ruini, editorialist for L'Osservatore Romano, said that he "categorically excludes" attempts to portray the Pope's position as anti-American. Any attempts to link the John Paul II's statements to the anti-war, anti-American sentiment of some groups would be a betrayal of the Holy Father's intentions, Ruini said in the daily Il Messaggero of Feb. 10.
Ruini explained that it is vital to maintain united the concepts of peace and justice. In this sense the Vatican's position is not at all "pacifist," Ruini affirmed, but rather in favor of a "pacification" of the situation. Such a pacification would involve removing the causes of conflict, he added.
One such requirement demands that Iraq collaborate fully with the U.N. inspectors, explained Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, the special papal emissary sent to Baghdad this week. He warned that war would be a genuine catastrophe, the Italian paper La Repubblica reported Feb. 10.
Distinguishing principles
Church leaders keenly recognize the dangers to security due to terrorism, as they do the unsavory nature of Saddam Hussein's regime. Yet they hasten to point out the need to avoid confusing the fight against terrorism with military action in Iraq.
A Sept. 13 letter written to George Bush by the president of the U.S. bishops' conference, Bishop Wilton Gregory, noted that the previous year his predecessor had told the American chief executive that "the use of force against Afghanistan could be justified, if it were carried out in accord with just war norms and as one part of a much broader, mostly non-military effort to deal with terrorism."
Bishop Gregory continued: "We believe Iraq is a different case. Given the precedents and risks involved, we find it difficult to justify extending the war on terrorism to Iraq, absent clear and adequate evidence of Iraqi involvement in the attacks of Sept. 11 or of an imminent attack of a grave nature."
His letter further observed that "the United States and the international community have two grave moral obligations: to protect the common good against any Iraqi threats to peace and to do so in a way that conforms with fundamental moral norms." The letter went on explain how military action would not satisfy the moral norms governing the use of such force.
Recruiting for bin Laden?
Some observers object that these arguments are based on a merely practical assessment of military matters, and therefore outside the competence of bishops. However, the points made by the Pope and bishops are echoed elsewhere.
For instance, a Feb. 9 analysis by Michael Dobbs in the Washington Post notes that many members of the foreign policy community, senators and senior military officers consider that "although the Bush administration may have demonstrated that Hussein is an evil man with evil weapons, it has yet to make the case that he poses an imminent threat to the peace and security of the United States that can only be defused through war."
Regarding the fight against terrorism, David Gardner in a Jan. 27 opinion piece in the Financial Times warned that a war in Iraq "would provide Mr. bin Laden with the groundswell of support he was denied after the attack on the twin towers and the Pentagon. An assault on Iraq is the best recruiting sergeant imaginable for his absolutist brand of Islamism, an ideology bordering on fascism."
Then there was the perspective of a soldier-turned-chaplain. Gary Stone served for 33 years in the Australian army, first as an infantry officer, and then for the last seven years as a chaplain. Writing in the Jan. 12 issue of the Brisbane diocesan newspaper, The Catholic Leader, he noted that one of his commands involved heading a peacekeeping contingent on the Iran-Iraq border in 1989-90.
"I have seen, felt, even 'smelt' the evil emanating from the regime of Saddam Hussein," Stone wrote. He supported the 1991 war to liberate Kuwait, and considers that the fight against terrorist activity morally justifiable. Yet, he contends that an attack on Iraq "can only be tenuously linked to the war on terrorism."
Stone continued: "It is my great fear that unilateral action against Iraq by the U.S. and allies like us will greatly swell the ranks of Islamic fundamentalists and unleash forces of evil that it will be extremely difficult to contain."
The Pope speaks
That John Paul II is in no way motivated by anti-American sentiments is obvious by his statements in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. In his address two days later to James Nicholson, then the new U.S. ambassador to the Holy See, the Pope recalled: "In my recent meeting with President Bush I emphasized my deep esteem for the rich patrimony of human, religious and moral values which have historically shaped the American character."
And he added: "In my pastoral visits to the United States, and above all in my visit to Denver in 1993 for the celebration of World Youth Day, I was able personally to witness the reserves of generosity and good will present in the youth of your country."
Nevertheless, the Pope has also been equally firm in his rejection of war. "War itself is an attack on human life since it brings in its wake suffering and death," he told the Vatican diplomatic corps on Jan. 13. War, explained John Paul II, "is always a defeat for humanity." As an alternative he proposed recourse to "international law, honest dialogue, solidarity between states, the noble exercise of diplomacy."
To a world on edge with the fear of terrorism, the Church sends a double caveat: Not only would a new war in Iraq be morally unjustifiable, it would likely worsen the situation.
I have the following from the Zenit news agency. Please read it, especially if you support this war and are tempted to dismiss all critics, or if you oppose it and want to see who is with you.
Frank
Vatican Isn't the Only One Wary of War
Charges of Interference and Pacifism Don't Hold Up
ROME, FEB. 15, 2003 (Zenit.org).- As the possibility of war in Iraq grows, the Church is also feeling the heat. The repeated pleas for peace issued by the Pope, members of the Roman Curia and assorted bishops' conferences have been criticized by some observers as evidence of either unjustified interference, mere pacifism or not-so-subtle anti-Americanism. On closer examination, however, none of these charges holds water.
How then to interpret John Paul II's statements? In an interview appearing Feb. 10 in the Italian paper La Stampa, Cardinal Sergio Sebastiani, who had been nuncio in Turkey for 10 years, explained that the Church is proposing a detailed plan for coping with the situation. The Holy Father's interventions, he said, are aimed at exhorting the parties involved to reflect on the consequences of their actions, not least of all for the sake of the Iraqi civilians.
Asked by the interviewer if the Vatican risks being perceived as hostile to the United States, Cardinal Sebastiani replied that the real scandal would have been if the Pope had not spoken out to try to halt the conflict.
On the Vatican-U.S. question, Giorgio Ruini, editorialist for L'Osservatore Romano, said that he "categorically excludes" attempts to portray the Pope's position as anti-American. Any attempts to link the John Paul II's statements to the anti-war, anti-American sentiment of some groups would be a betrayal of the Holy Father's intentions, Ruini said in the daily Il Messaggero of Feb. 10.
Ruini explained that it is vital to maintain united the concepts of peace and justice. In this sense the Vatican's position is not at all "pacifist," Ruini affirmed, but rather in favor of a "pacification" of the situation. Such a pacification would involve removing the causes of conflict, he added.
One such requirement demands that Iraq collaborate fully with the U.N. inspectors, explained Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, the special papal emissary sent to Baghdad this week. He warned that war would be a genuine catastrophe, the Italian paper La Repubblica reported Feb. 10.
Distinguishing principles
Church leaders keenly recognize the dangers to security due to terrorism, as they do the unsavory nature of Saddam Hussein's regime. Yet they hasten to point out the need to avoid confusing the fight against terrorism with military action in Iraq.
A Sept. 13 letter written to George Bush by the president of the U.S. bishops' conference, Bishop Wilton Gregory, noted that the previous year his predecessor had told the American chief executive that "the use of force against Afghanistan could be justified, if it were carried out in accord with just war norms and as one part of a much broader, mostly non-military effort to deal with terrorism."
Bishop Gregory continued: "We believe Iraq is a different case. Given the precedents and risks involved, we find it difficult to justify extending the war on terrorism to Iraq, absent clear and adequate evidence of Iraqi involvement in the attacks of Sept. 11 or of an imminent attack of a grave nature."
His letter further observed that "the United States and the international community have two grave moral obligations: to protect the common good against any Iraqi threats to peace and to do so in a way that conforms with fundamental moral norms." The letter went on explain how military action would not satisfy the moral norms governing the use of such force.
Recruiting for bin Laden?
Some observers object that these arguments are based on a merely practical assessment of military matters, and therefore outside the competence of bishops. However, the points made by the Pope and bishops are echoed elsewhere.
For instance, a Feb. 9 analysis by Michael Dobbs in the Washington Post notes that many members of the foreign policy community, senators and senior military officers consider that "although the Bush administration may have demonstrated that Hussein is an evil man with evil weapons, it has yet to make the case that he poses an imminent threat to the peace and security of the United States that can only be defused through war."
Regarding the fight against terrorism, David Gardner in a Jan. 27 opinion piece in the Financial Times warned that a war in Iraq "would provide Mr. bin Laden with the groundswell of support he was denied after the attack on the twin towers and the Pentagon. An assault on Iraq is the best recruiting sergeant imaginable for his absolutist brand of Islamism, an ideology bordering on fascism."
Then there was the perspective of a soldier-turned-chaplain. Gary Stone served for 33 years in the Australian army, first as an infantry officer, and then for the last seven years as a chaplain. Writing in the Jan. 12 issue of the Brisbane diocesan newspaper, The Catholic Leader, he noted that one of his commands involved heading a peacekeeping contingent on the Iran-Iraq border in 1989-90.
"I have seen, felt, even 'smelt' the evil emanating from the regime of Saddam Hussein," Stone wrote. He supported the 1991 war to liberate Kuwait, and considers that the fight against terrorist activity morally justifiable. Yet, he contends that an attack on Iraq "can only be tenuously linked to the war on terrorism."
Stone continued: "It is my great fear that unilateral action against Iraq by the U.S. and allies like us will greatly swell the ranks of Islamic fundamentalists and unleash forces of evil that it will be extremely difficult to contain."
The Pope speaks
That John Paul II is in no way motivated by anti-American sentiments is obvious by his statements in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. In his address two days later to James Nicholson, then the new U.S. ambassador to the Holy See, the Pope recalled: "In my recent meeting with President Bush I emphasized my deep esteem for the rich patrimony of human, religious and moral values which have historically shaped the American character."
And he added: "In my pastoral visits to the United States, and above all in my visit to Denver in 1993 for the celebration of World Youth Day, I was able personally to witness the reserves of generosity and good will present in the youth of your country."
Nevertheless, the Pope has also been equally firm in his rejection of war. "War itself is an attack on human life since it brings in its wake suffering and death," he told the Vatican diplomatic corps on Jan. 13. War, explained John Paul II, "is always a defeat for humanity." As an alternative he proposed recourse to "international law, honest dialogue, solidarity between states, the noble exercise of diplomacy."
To a world on edge with the fear of terrorism, the Church sends a double caveat: Not only would a new war in Iraq be morally unjustifiable, it would likely worsen the situation.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-02-16 09:29 pm (UTC)Okay, I agree. Let's not go to war. Let's instead congratulate ourselves on sticking to noble principles of peace. Which means we must look the other way about what Sadam is doing to his own people, as if it isn't happening.
The horrors in Iraq will continue indefinitely, regardless of the presence of the UN inspectors. A war, on the other hand, has the goal of putting the horrors to an END.
It all boils down to a choice. Do something to correct an outrage, which just might work. Don't do anything, and the outrage is guaranteed to continue and get worse.
Yes, Saddam must go
Date: 2003-02-17 06:19 am (UTC)America needs strong allies in Europe, not weak subjects. At this point we can all profit greatly from each others' wisdom.
Questions to " Yes, Saddam must go"
Date: 2003-02-23 05:54 pm (UTC)as I have seen lately from people
around here who mostly discuss
it in terms, say, of accusing Bush of owning
interest in the duct tape industry...
I am not quite sure I grant the premise
that Sadaam absolutely must go, but if he
must go and if there is no way to move him
short of war and if as you say then war is
necessary...what sort of war would you propose?
my fear would be that reduction in force
entails less casualties at one time but
more time and potentially all sorts of further
suffering in the general population etc...
obviously we are not the joint chiefs but
is there a sort of plan of attack you would
think appropriate?
+Seraphim
Re: Questions to " Yes, Saddam must go"
Date: 2003-02-24 07:53 am (UTC)I am not much of a strategist or tactician. And I think the North Koreans are a greater threat than Saddam. They have the bombs, they have the delivery systems, and they say they would use them.
My thought about the coming war is that we ought to be able to lay siege to Baghdad without first decimating its civilian population by saturation bombing. That sort of thing has bad consequences in the long run, and a not very long run at that. Besides being just plain wrong.
saturation bombing
Date: 2003-02-24 08:03 am (UTC)go, I would certainly agree about saturation
bombing but I think you would agree that
some bombing of select targets must be
undertaken if there is to be a military operation
at all, AND we must be ready for and shrug off
the Iraqi guided tours of what appear to be
some civilian target etc because obviously
they can be partly or fully staged and even with
the finest technology which I am at moments
like the live journal access problems unsure we
have, there are going to be misses but I would
say up to a point that goes with determining
that we must remove Sadaam.
I will on the other hand agree that anything
like a carpet bombing of the city would be
morally unacceptable and also I should think
unnecessary, is there such a plan being
bruited about? to flatten it? havent seen it
and hope not
Re: saturation bombing
Date: 2003-02-24 10:00 am (UTC)800 missiles to hit Iraq in first 48 hours
By Andrew West and agencies
January 26 2003
The Sun-Herald
The US intends to shatter Iraq "physically, emotionally and psychologically" by raining down on its people as many as 800 cruise missiles in two days.
The Pentagon battle plan aims not only to crush Iraqi troops, but also wipe out power and water supplies in the capital, Baghdad.
It is based on a strategy known as "Shock and Awe", conceived at the National Defense University in Washington, in which between 300 and 400 cruise missiles would fall on Iraq each day for two consecutive days. It would be more than twice the number of missiles launched during the entire 40 days of the 1991 GulfWar.
"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," a Pentagon official told America's CBS News after a briefing on the plan. "The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before."
well how many should we use?
Date: 2003-02-24 10:22 am (UTC)presumeably if you have a war at all
the object is to end it isnt it?
else the intended kindness of prolongation
becomes something terrible or so it
would seem to me...
800 if rightly targetted, and again granting
your premise that Sadaam must go, could
be economical of life couldnt it?
+Seraphim.
Re: well how many should we use?
Date: 2003-02-24 10:27 am (UTC)seem to
Date: 2003-02-24 10:32 am (UTC)course with you it is wrong. as you say
he seems to say that with the no safe place
business... but perhaps people who are into
this thing in an intense way clutch a bit at
words, or so it seems to me with live journal
posters. I do not know that 800 targeted missiles
in 2 days would be excessive distributed over
the whole area... and again just taking your
not my premise that he man must go...
but its hard to discuss these things without
being a bore(hard for me) perhaps you should
say to me back to your beads priest.
+Seraphim
Re: seem to
Date: 2003-02-24 12:59 pm (UTC)