John Paul And Iraq

[Era Might]

So I'm thumbing through Pope John Paul II's Encyclical Letter "Sollicitudo Rei Socialis", and I come across this particular section:

[quote]Peoples or nations too have a right to their own full development, which while including - as already said - the economic and social aspects, should also include individual cultural identity and openness to the transcendent. [b]Not even the need for development can be used as an excuse for imposing on others one's own way of life[/b] or own religious belief.

--#32[/quote]

This, I think, sums up the problem we have in Iraq. We are trying to impose on an Islamic world our own democratic way of life, and I'm growing cynical. Unless the Iraquis want democracy for themselves, it will never succeed. It doesn't matter how much the West thinks they "need" democracy (compare with JP's "need for development"). It is not ours to give. It's something that needs to be taken, as Americans once "took" it.

I think John Paul recognized this, and I think that it was one of the reasons why he was so personally opposed to the war. Removing Saddam may have served a practical end, but it was shortsighted. What will become of Iraq now? Yes, we have done a good job post-war training Iraqui forces, but it all goes back to the original point. Iraq is part of a Muslim world that is fundamentally different from our Western, Christian world. When America leaves, the only hope is the Iraqui people. Are they willing to adopt a democratic society, and more importantly, are they willing to fight for it? Extremist Muslim forces will fight to the death for Iraq once US troops leave, and in a thoroughly Muslim world, already uncertain of its own future, I think they may prevail.

Agree? Disagree?

[Church Punk]

I completely agree with you, in my unbiased opinion. This has actually been my stand on the war from the beginning, even when my friends were having their tires slashed by Americans!

The Iraqi people must want to have a democracy; it has been their custom for 1000s of years in this area of the world to have kings and rulers over their countries as well as under Islamic law.

I feel that with such a corrupt regime Hussein ran, they needed some sort of change. Was this change up to the American’s to implement? I am not sure.

After the west leave Iraq to stand on its own, my fear is that the country could turn to be over run by these extremist militants and thus the country could be controlled by an even worse government under extreme Islamic law much like Afghanistan with its Taliban regime and the people will be treated in an even more horribly than Hussein treated them.

Edited January 3, 2006 by Church Punk

[toledo_jesus]

the problem is that when their system of government not only fosters but supports outright a terrorist mentality, that system becomes a threat to our way of life.
Meaning, we either take care of it like intelligent people, or we suffer. Meaning, we tear down the ineffective and dangerous system, then [i]nurture[/i] a democratic (and therefore, benign) government in the Middle East. This will take a long time, much longer than America has historically been used to engaging itself.
We are not going to be out of Iraq for a long time, despite what the generals say about troop withdrawals. We'll probably maintain a presence in the area for a decade or more. Our great-grandchildren may see peace in the region.

I'll say it again, unless you have a few 300+ level Poli Sci courses under your belt, it will be really difficult to adequately treat this subject. Literature on the war is fairly interesting, but it must be taken in the context of America's historical position.

To figure out Iraq, look at the Philippines.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

It's too confusing for me. I think they had to destroy Saddam's culture of fear and torture in Iraq, but I do not know how it is going to work from here on.

[franciscanheart]

i agree with you but i cant say that i dont support the war or the troops. the very scary but very real fact is that one the US forces leave, what happens is out of our control. we have to live with whatever happens when we leave, be it good or bad (in our eyes) and let it be. we can't stay there forever. there will be a point when our men turn their backs and leave and they will not be able to prevent an overthrow of what they shed blood to establish. does that make me feel just awful? yes. but things have happened and our president made a decision based on evidence he had at the time. do i agree with him? yes. do i like it? no. who likes war? what happens now is in God's hands and i hate to think of the many Iraquis who may (and probably will) die when our forces leave, but again, we can't do anything about it.

i also feel it a bit excessive to continue to discuss whether invading in the first place was the right thing to do. it has been done. let us stop focusing on what has already been done and focus on what is happening now and will happen in the future.

i understand that right now we are trying to set up a democracy but let us not debate whether it is good or bad but rather brainstorm to figure out how to either keep it up and running in a safe manner for them (if it is truly what they want) or how to pull out safely (for all people) and allow them to go back to their own customs and way of life whilst maintaining a non-terrorist run legislation or dictatorship rather.

[rkwright]

its hard to universalize that statement...does it not lead to complete apathy in the world?

We should stick up for our fellow human beings especially when they're in danger becuase of their way of life, not let them be killed while trying to 'develop'. I think respect for human life is a cause that is worthy of imposing on other countries not matter what their stage of development

[Era Might]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Jan 3 2006, 01:06 PM']its hard to universalize that statement...does it not lead to complete apathy in the world?

We should stick up for our fellow human beings especially when they're in danger becuase of their way of life, not let them be killed while trying to 'develop'.  I think respect for human life is a cause that is worthy of imposing on other countries not matter what their stage of development
[right][snapback]844520[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well, in some circumstances, yes, it is our duty to impose the virtue of life on other nations. The most obvious example would be Europe and the Holocaust. Although you probably could argue that America entered the Second World War because of Pearl Harbor, and not the Shoah, nevertheless, European Jews and everyone with half a barrell of sense WANTED the Third Reich overthrown. The world couldn't just sit by while Jews (and eventually Catholics) were eliminated.

But, as I said, in the context of the Iraq war, there is a different reality. It is not merely a question of human aid to other humans who welcome this aid, but a clash of civilizations. Like Church Punk said, the resurgence of an even worse Islamic extremism in post-war Iraq is something that could not be taken lightly. I know we like to think that we can help Islam develop its own vision of democracy and pluralism, but we are assuming that this is a legitimate development in the Islamic tradition. Maybe it is, but it is Muslims who are going to have to make it. Otherwise, we are putting the proverbial robes (democracy) on a pig (the Islamic worldview). A lot of Iraquis despised Saddam, of course, and his brutality, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are ready to be turned into a virtual Western nation.

And I agree with Hughey to an extent, that we need to look forward, but I think a moral evaluation of the war itself is vital, because it could easily repeat itself in future administrations. Although John Paul II and Benedict XVI do not exercise prudential authority, as I said, perhaps their vehement opposition to the war ran deeper than prudential considerations, and involved essential moral principles of Catholic doctrine. This is what struck me about the passage cited in "Sollicitudo Rei Socialis".

Edited January 3, 2006 by Era Might

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Jan 3 2006, 06:12 PM']So I'm thumbing through Pope John Paul II's Encyclical Letter "Sollicitudo Rei Socialis", and I come across  this particular section:
This, I think, sums up the problem we have in Iraq. We are trying to impose on an Islamic world our own democratic way of life, and I'm growing cynical. Unless the Iraquis want democracy for themselves, it will never succeed. It doesn't matter how much the West thinks they "need" democracy (compare with JP's "need for development"). It is not ours to give. It's something that needs to be taken, as Americans once "took" it.

I think John Paul recognized this, and I think that it was one of the reasons why he was so personally opposed to the war. Removing Saddam may have served a practical end, but it was shortsighted. What will become of Iraq now? Yes, we have done a good job post-war training Iraqui forces, but it all goes back to the original point. Iraq is part of a Muslim world that is fundamentally different from our Western, Christian world. When America leaves, the only hope is the Iraqui people. Are they willing to adopt a democratic society, and more importantly, are they willing to fight for it? Extremist Muslim forces will fight to the death for Iraq once US troops leave, and in a thoroughly Muslim world, already uncertain of its own future, I think they may prevail.

Agree? Disagree?
[right][post="844397"][/post][/right][/quote]

i'm sorry man but I disagree.

i mean i understand the fact that you're saying that freedom and democracy should be taken and not given.

i would say with Iraq's case it's different. it's something that they've never heard of, never tasted freedom. if we don't bring it to them they are not gonna take it.

we removed Saddam...Iraq doesn't have a strong structure yet. it's still suffering from the wounds that Saddam has inflicted. look at it this way Iraq is hurting and the US is it's crutches. we can't just leave them hanging like this. we need to stay here until the wounds are healed.

i mean yes we are in Global War on Terrorism. we need to keep training these Iraquis. we need to continue our Humanitarian Missions. i'm saying we can' t just leave them hanging. we can't leave them now.

i understand that some of them doesn't realize the concept of freedom and democracy. some of them reject it. i don't blame them. i mean some of them see it as this... "if freedom comes with graffiti..then i don't want your freedom" "if freedom comes with pornography..then i don't wnat your freedom" which is what they view the western world is.

you should see the faces of the people here when they see us. i mean little kids that run around in Iraqui streets are so happy to see us. they run up to our HWMMV's screaming "water water water!!!" or "food food!!!"
Iraq needs help no doubt in that.

we need to keep training Iraqui forces. we need to stay here and finish what we started. so that when we actually do leave in the future they are ready

to be totally honest with you i do not wanna leave this place.

look at these [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=45055&hl="]faces[/url]

i also wanna share this link

it's a power point so you can only view it if you have microsoft power point

[url="http://tiamzon.net/reinnier/IfIDieBeforeYouWake.pps"]http://tiamzon.net/reinnier/IfIDieBeforeYouWake.pps[/url]

[Lounge Daddy]

Disagree
This statement by JP2 applies in no way to Iraq because we are not forcing a specific constitution and leadership on Iraq, any more than we did in Afghanistan.

To say that we are forcing democracy on Iraq is pretty much saying we are forcing the citizens of Iraq to chose who leads them and how.
It was the previous leadership that imposed a rule of law on the Iraqi people, and offered the people only death and fear… and no choice.

What the coalition has offered Iraq is the freedom to choose. I do not see anything oppressive about freedom from oppression.

Remember, the people of Iraq CHOSE their interim government, they wrote their own constitution and were free to vote it up or down. And they recently chose their permanent leadership.
They made their own choice while before they were not able to do so.

Interesting thing about their constitution, an early draft had some language that would have created an Islamic state out of Iraq – but they elected not to go that direction.

[Era Might]

[quote name='ReinnieR' date='Jan 3 2006, 02:38 PM']i mean yes we are in Global War on Terrorism.  we need to keep training these Iraquis.  we need to continue our Humanitarian Missions.  i'm saying we can' t just leave them hanging.  we can't leave them now. 
[url="http://tiamzon.net/reinnier/IfIDieBeforeYouWake.pps"]http://tiamzon.net/reinnier/IfIDieBeforeYouWake.pps[/url]
[right][post="844575"][/post][/right][/quote]

I definitely agree here. We have to do what we can to restore Iraq to some semblance of viability. My wider point is that perhaps we shouldn't be in this position in the first place. I know we have to stay in Iraq. As I said, my fear is that there is no concrete end in sight. What does it mean to "win" the war, or more generally, to leave Iraq victorious? I respect what the troops are doing over there, but I'm starting to feel like they're going over there for a nebulous cause, if that makes sense.

[quote]Remember, the people of Iraq CHOSE their interim government, they wrote their own constitution and were free to vote it up or down. And they recently chose their permanent leadership.
They made their own choice while before they were not able to do so.[/quote]

Good points, all. But they come with an important distinction: this was all done with the United States over their shoulder, more or less instituting a democratic outlook for the region post-war. When the United States leaves, and Iraq is faced with the difficult question of its Muslim, non-Western identity, will they stay the course the United States has set out for them?

I don't know. This whole situation is vexing. I guess we have to just pray for the best.

[Myles Domini]

I disagreed with the War in the first instance but as Hughey rightly said its done now and there's no point in dwelling on the past. We've made a mess and we've got to fix it the real question is how. Personally I believe America made a mistake in changing its middle Eastern policy. What it should've done is simply replace Saddam with a pro-Western dictator rather than try and create a democratic state in a country where the majority of the people probably wouldn't mind having a Shiite Ayatollah ruling them.

The PC bridgade might balk at my words but the fact of the matter is people have just got to start being realistic about the way the world is. 21st century man is a ridiculous animal with no sense. He seems to believe that by promoting diversity and tolerance that somehow you can have world peace? Of all the airbrushes placed over the Holocaust this I think is the greatest and most foul.

The Holocaust does not prove that people cannot live in peace unless we're tolerant. The Holocaust proves that if you want to hate someone enough you will. Joseph Goebbels met Hitler a convinced communist and left his first meeting with him proclaiming him the saviour of Germany. Heinrich Himler's behaviour prior to becoming a Nazi gave no inclination of what he would become as head of the SS. What the Holocaust teaches us is that when things go wrong people pick a scapegoat and for all intents purposes the Jews were and are an easy target for hate mobs. There were some pretty rich Jewish families in Germany well integrated into the society before Wall Street Crashed and it was their integration that caused their downfall. Tolerance and diversity are mere placebo's which cover up the truth about man: He has fallen from grace and is likely to blame someone else for what goes wrong in his life. After all isnt that what both Adam and Eve did when confronted by God? It was the woman you gave me...it was the serpent...

What does this have to do with Iraq? Nothing and everything. The fact of the matter is, for instance, Iran is predominately Shiite but its president can unite his people with Sunnis by simply calling for Israel's elimination. Give people a common enemy and all of a sudden we're all friends, we're united in our hate and at the moment the hatred of the Muslim world is directed straight across the lands beyond the Bosphorus and the Atlantic. Have elections in Syria lessened the anti Western feeling of the Hezbollah guerilla's living there? What about in the aforesaid Iran?

As Briton whose soldiers are out there with the American boys I have to say people must stop living behind rose tinted glasses and face the truth. According to the popular perception the West is pro-Israeli, the West is anti-Islam, the West is the big bad we've all got to draw together against to fight. It was wrong to oust Saddam but it has proved even worse to try and create a democratic state in his wake.

What we should've done is what all the great states in the past history of man did: Conquer the land and set up a client Kingdom. It sounds distasteful but for all intents purposes wasnt that what we were doing in the 80's? I seem to remember British PM Maggie Thatcher selling Saddam weapons...

All that was required was the replacement of Saddam with another dictator equally as feared but more moderate, more liberal in his atittude and more willing to give civil liberties to his people. The destruction of the dictatorship of Saddam has led to widespread instability and chaos in the civil polity. There's no way that a poltical system as changeable and alien to the Iraqi's as democracy was going to set up a stable landscape. Supporting a benevolent dictatorship would've been a far better policy because Era Might is right: they wont remain on a Western course when we live and we shouldnt be there in the first place!

Principally I dont believe it wasnt a just war and secondarily (and more certainly) it was a stupid war. Saddam was an evil man but he was a materialist with no real religion apart from when he needed peoples support. For the Western world having such a despot on the throne rather than having a zealot wasnt such a bad sitaution to be.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Jan 4 2006, 11:48 PM'] When the United States leaves, and Iraq is faced with the difficult question of its Muslim, non-Western identity, will they stay the course the United States has set out for them?

I don't know. This whole situation is vexing. I guess we have to just pray for the best.
[right][snapback]846303[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
vexing indeed...
the same doubts were expressed before, like in the former empire of Japan.
and history has forgotton the negative voices who expressed doubts on democracy in Japan

and history is repeating itself
the negative voices on the issue of Afghanistan have faded
and the same is happening with the nay-sayers of democracy in Iraq…

the nay-sayers said we will lose in Iraq, the first election would see no one at the polls, the constitution would be a disaster, and that the other elections would see failure.
None of this has happened and history will remember only the people who saw things for what they really are, and things are going very very well.
Any new democracy starts off a little shaky, and the U.S.A. is no exception
Because of our HELP – not imposition – Iraq should do just fine.

But in the end, it’s Iraq's choice.
I am optimistic

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Myles' date='Jan 5 2006, 01:20 AM'] What it should've done is simply replace Saddam with a pro-Western dictator rather than try and create a democratic state in a country where the majority of the people probably wouldn't mind having a Shiite Ayatollah ruling them.
[right][snapback]846473[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
no, what we should have done is what we did, let the Iraqi people choose. why replace a dictator with another dicator?
in that case we WOULD be going against the point made by JPG quoted at the beginning of this thread:
[quote]Not even the need for development can be used as an excuse for imposing on others one's own way of life or own religious belief.[/quote]

a dictatorship would be an opposition, a democracy offers a choice


...and we had EVERY reason to be in Iraq