atinymonkey Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2820085.stm The Pope appeals to halt the efforts to provoke war with Iraq. President Bush, as a born again Christian, ignores God's one representative on earth. Is Bush leading us into a religious war? To whom does Bush answer to? What precisely will it take for a reconsideration of the state of play? Bush has stated that he doesn't require the consent of the United Nations to respond to threats to American security and plans to move against Iraq without the support if necessary. Where will this conflict lead us if it is instigated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 I don't like to think what sort of precedents the Bush Administration will be setting by going ahead in the manner you described. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 The Pope appeals to halt the efforts to provoke war with Iraq. President Bush, as a born again Christian, ignores God's one representative on earth. In reality, the pope is really just a self-appointed 'God's one representative'. I don't think he's anymore God's representative on earth than the pencil in front of me. Though, as a Christian, he does represent God in a way, he doesn't speak for God. This of course, assuming you believe the Judeo-Christian way. Anyone who doesn't believe in God can disregard the previous paragraph. Is Bush leading us into a religious war? I don't really think so, though the muslim population might like to believe that. Do you mean religious war as in war against religion, or, since we're ignoring the pope, it might have religious consequences. What precisely will it take for a reconsideration of the state of play? I apologize in advance for this attrocious pun, but it will take a divine miracle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 The reason I believe Bush and Blair are pushing ahead with this is because due to them being a) white and b) western they think they have the god given right to carry out 'regime change'. this sounds like something from Colonial times which I presume is what Bush is yearning for - an American empire. what damn right do these two monkeys have to decide who is evil and who isnt? its a bit hypocritical to PUT saddam into power, sell him weapons, ignore other dictators then announce that an invasion into probably the most unstable and explosive area in the world will apparently lead to peace. Blair recently referred to it being a 6 day war. oh it is, is it? the same war between isreal and arab arimes that lasted a few days in the 60's? which then mutated into the 35 year war they STILL fight in isreal and occupied Palestine? so an invasion wont allow iraqi military commanders to take whatever biological agents they can lay their hands on and move on to other countries as warlords, with the most horrific weapons ever developed? is that containment? maybe if the US didnt pour rifles bullets bombs and helicopter gunships into Israel, the most agressive, violent and expansionist country in the world, it might actually achieve something in the middle east. I pity the poor american and british soldiers who will die in this ridiculous conflict, as well as the thousands of iraqis which will be bombed then forgotten about a few days (or even hours) later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted March 9, 2003 Author Share Posted March 9, 2003 I was leaning more towards the religious consequences of the war rather than the benefits of the actual conflict. I should have worked harder to take the anger out of the post! I see the logic that the Pope presents about the conflict in Iraq lighting the tinder in the middle east, the Taliban being only one example of a faction that is out to destroy the west. American political machinations have always revolved round swift decisive action, but as we know it is not always effective and can simply fan the flames. The Middle Eastern countries are scared of America at the moment, which may lead trouble, and the major supporters of the US, the UK, have a worse record in that area than any other western country. I can conceivably see Iraq being used to unite the Middle East against the west. Let’s face it, they control the world economy if they cut off the oil supplies. Does Bush have a plan that takes this into account, if not who will he listen to before it goes to far? I'm guessing the Pope would have had the best chance to warn Bush, if he had listened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 Didnt mean to change the subject, Its just George Galloway did a lecture at my school on Friday. hes the MP for Glasgow - Kelvin. He frequently visits Iraq and is probably the most vocal anti war politician in Britian (arguably). he managed to persuade me about the futility of the whole crisis. but anyway, religion. I think Bush believes he has some right to go ahead with this because of his religion - because to him Christianity is the bigger more powerful religion, the one which constitutes more powerful industrialized countries. He clearly doesnt care about the different religions of the people who live in the Gukf - Turkey will probably occupy Kurdistan and Turkey doesnt even recognise the Kurds as a race! they call them mountain turks. there is a lot of hatred between these two and Bush hasnt even mentioned it, he just wants Turkey to give him another flank on Baghdad. Id say his consultation with the Pope was more political than religous tho. From Bush's position that is. I doubt the Pope would have anything new to say on the matter with respect to the real situation - the UN, rising tensions in the surrounding countries and the future consequences. theres a cultural difference here as well. British operations in Ulster have led us to a mind-set of minimum force, urban life going on as normal and trying to keeping hated factions together. American military doctrine seems to revolve around overwhelming force, an attitude to collaterall damage thats verging on apathy and also, what I find strange being british, a belief that one should support his president out of some patriotic feeling. Obviously this isnt the unilateral case for an army the size of that of the US but these are just the views of British people and to an extent the rest of Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted March 11, 2003 Author Share Posted March 11, 2003 Ah well, politics is the science of the possible, so long as it remains possible for war I guess the disscussion is pointless. I wonder if it is still an option to make the war impossible by Hussain stepping down. I have the feeling we will be drawn into this affair, and our involvement will be overshadowed by the US. At least our support will be no more of a footnote in history should this ignite the middle east. I'm off to heckle Mr Blair by following him round, clapping really slowly, with a sad look on my face. That seems to really get to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 I dont think anyone will remember the mass objections to this war when people look back on it. The million people plus marches, the slaughterings Blair has taken on the media, the outcry of opunion in this country against war, people will look back and only see Britian deployed troops in the Gulf because America did and it looked like a good bandwagon to jump on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now