Saturday, February 15, 2003

Sickening. This is why we have firing squads.
Kofi Annan says the U.N. may need to issue yet another resolution. Pardon me, but file this one under WTF? And then what? When it becomes evident that Iraq is still not cooperating and our "cowboy" president is still determined to get rid of Saddam will the U.N. issue a "double dog" resolution? I can see it now: "This time we really mean it Saddam. Don't make us issue another resolution, because we will. Really. A TRIPLE DOG resolution. Don't make us do it...." This ass-clown should be tearing my movie tickets in half and telling me that the show is in the 4th theater on the left, NOT overseeing a large, multinational organization. Good Lord.
This and this make for interesting reading in light of the recent behavior of Germany and France (AKA "Axis of Weasels") regarding Iraq. Thanks to Chicago Boyz for the links.

Friday, February 14, 2003

Aziz is now going to Assisi to pray with monks for peace? Aziz would take no questions today from Israeli journalists? Amazing how the man calls himself a Christian, do you suppose that he has ever heard what Christianity originally stemmed from, the idiot? I can't take this stuff anymore!!!! Tomorrow a blog unrelated to Iraq. And soon, I will have links when I write this stuff for those of you that like to follow up on the sources. It is one of my own largest peeves, however, I ask for forgiveness, I'm still learning the technical parts to this.

Thursday, February 13, 2003

Kerry's thoughts for the day, take them for what you will:

Today I think that most of us are accepting that there will military activity in Iraq. It is only a question of when it will be announced.

I have heard a lot out there lately about the peace-preaching of clerics of various sorts. I have a few thoughts on this. First, it depends on where you live. The military is a vital part of our own parish, without the Navy base, our parish school numbers would be cut such that the school would not be able to operate. Thus, our religious community and our military community are entwined. Our religious community depends on monetary and populist support from our military, as our military community depends on our religious one for mostly "moral support" (you can take that both ways). Our priests verse their homilies accordingly, we have large services for Veteran's Day and Memorial Day. We had a parish school/parish/Navy/police and fire dept combined service for 9/11 this year. A "peace plant" shares a spot with a tribute to our military in the school. What is realized here, is that the desire for peace courses in the hearts of most all of us. It is especially desired by those that desire to follow Christ's example in their lives, particularly clerics. I believe that what is being missed here is in the translation of what that means. Our enemy, in this case is not the Iraqi people, as it was not the Afghan people, or the German people, the Vietnamese, or the Japanese as individuals. Being the largest "superpower" country and one of the largest Christian poplulated countries left on the globe, if we are to wait, and follow Jesus to the cross, to be nailed upon it and die, so that then, in our name, some may rise up in idignation and realize what our quiet suffering was for would be too late. There would not then be enough left to carry on the exact thing that we are trying to perpetuate, the freedom to live as Christ meant us to. All of this talk of "just or unjust war", of whether or not we are giving diplomacy enough of a chance, are we being the merciful people that we purport to be as Americans is to be expected.

Truly, our religion is dual in nature. We realize that evil can work through humans, but that the ultimate triumph over evil is to love in spite of it. NOT to love the evil itself though. That is where I think things get confused. I would imagine that even the Pope would see someone that has done the things to untold numbers that Saddam has as evil, but would he smite him down with might, or try to win him over with the "love of Christ"? I often think of St. Paul riding along persecuting, killing Christ's followers, and then having his "epiphany" whereupon Christ comes to him in a vision of sorts and questions him, and the change in him is immediate. In a religion that believes in such things, it is not hard to understand the desire to believe that with Christ's love anything is possible. The difference is in the nature of the man to begin with. Does torture, killing, and power over others give him an inner satisfaction; a happiness of the most perverse nature, or is it that he has been raised to do such and knows no other way? In Saddam's case, I think that the answer is clear.

Most of you will realize that I am speaking as a Catholic, but that Catholicism is one of many Christian based religions, so that this applies to many.

We are the most altruistic nation in the world. We give more aid in money, food, supplies, and untold needs to others more than any other country in the world. We are filled with people of many cultures, religions, and beliefs. Most of them, however share one common ideal, that of what America stands for. Freedom. It comes with a high price sometimes, but it is a price that we must pay, just as our founders did, just as Jesus did, as Moses did, as so many did in the history of time, for it to still be alive today. We are the keepers of that freedom, and we must defend it now, or peace and mercy shall die alongside it.

Tuesday, February 11, 2003

Kerry's vent:
If I see one more thing about "Iraq making concessions for U2 planes" I am going to lose it! How can they concede something that they already "conceded" in 1991.

As far as all of the people that don't want war, not many people actually "like" going to war, or actively want it to happen, however, history has shown us that in times it is a justified and necessary fight. I love all of these people in Hollywood that think that they know better than those actually having to do the job. No matter what they say about Bush, they can hardly say that he is a "war monger" if they are as "open minded" as they claim to be, he hardly hides his Christianity as his guiding influence. Thankfully after his State of the Union address some people are getting that, with his proposals on funding for the AIDS crisis in Africa, etc. To anyone reading that thinks it is easy to say that if you aren't on the receiving end of the destruction of war, I have more to lose than a lot of these people, my husband is still IRR in the Navy, and could get called up and we have close friends that will have to fly missions if it goes more than a couple of months. My husband's two brothers are in the Army, and his father died serving the Navy for this country. I'd like to see Sean Penn giving equal time to the families living on military bases without their husbands and wives, moms and dads so that he has the freedom to take trips to Baghdad. I'd like to see him talking to those that have nightmares, depression, and all of the other horrific fallout from living through 9-11-01.

Do people actually believe these people that "report" from the streets of Baghdad about the "anti-Americanism" that is there? As if anyone that values their own or their families lives are going to say anything against the regime! I can much more appreciate the Pope's sending a "peace envoy" to try admittedly "as a very long shot" to get the Iraqi regime to cooperate. That is the moral high road, to strive for peace until every possiblity is exhausted, but we differ on where that line is drawn. They've had 12 years to co operate. Anyone in basic management or parenting should get this. It is like saying to your child, "if you keep treating your toys poorly then we will take them away." "Now we really mean it this time, you'd better stop." Imagine a parent doing that for 12 years with a kid. Guess what you'd have? An out of control kid that then believes that nobody is going to follow through because that is the experience. Guess what we have? A dicator that is out of control for the same reasons, thanks to the fabulous leadership of the UN. The lack of commonsense just baffles me.

OK, another Iraq related thing. Tom is going nuts over the word "unilateral". "We are making unilateral moves, rushing to war", you can read in various periodicals on a daily basis. Guess what folks? There are somewhere about 16 nations with us, that isn't "unilateral". And as far as a rush to war, we've been in a "war" with Iraq still since 1991. There was a cease fire agreement, which they have violated at every turn for 12 years. Yes, we have to take some responsiblity for not pushing the UN to do something before this. We have hardly been a rush to war, when it has been 12 years that we have tried the waiting game, which has only fostered growth of defiance and production of weapons of mass destruction. September 11 has changed everything, that is a reality. Boy, it is a good thing that we "waited" to deal with Al Queda and Bin Laden, huh? What does it take for people to get it?

God Bless our troops, our President, our people, every last one, and especially those that misguidedly don't understand that much as you wish for peace, you can not negotiate it with a fanatic.