What action you suggest he does? To send the Swiss Guard? It may be unreal to you but that is what is happening, this last defense of yours is what is unreal.
The Pope should get off his lazy butt and excommunicate Saddam, that’s what! That’ll fix him! 
That honestly wouldn’t surprise me. But then I actually believe that you really are that stupid.
What would surprise me is if you, or Coldfire for that matter, actually addressed the issues that December has raised rather than simply blathering on with your totally unsubstantiated opinions which, quite frankly, I don’t give a damn about.
Has the Pope condemned the possibility of war on Iraq? If so, has he offered any truly viable alternative that would remove Saddam from power? If not, isn’t he, in effect, supporting the continuation of Saddam’s regime even if he also condemns some of the actions of that regime?
And didn’t Saddam, in Dec. of 2000, call for a “Holy War on Israel? Isn’t Saddam providing $25,000 to the families of people who murder Israeli civilians? Might it not behoove the Pope to take the strongest possible stand against such an “out of control” individual. If not, why not?
Has the Pope ever actually condemned the “suicide bombers” in Israel, or has he merely “……expressed sorrow and worry over the news of the attacks……?” Hell, even Arafat condemned the bombings more strongly than that.
Why did the Pope choose to meet with, and thus give legitimacy to, Ikrema Sabri after Sabri made comments along the lines of “……”a lot less” than six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis……” and “…….Israel had exaggerated the Holocaust for political purposes……” and “…….It’s not my fault if Hitler hated the Jews. Anyway, they hate them just about everywhere…….” And shouldn’t the Pope have condemned Sabri for these sorts of remarks as he was publicly asked to do by a group of Jewish leaders and Holocaust scholors? Or is “holocaust denial” alright as long as it’s the Pope?
I’m not saying that there are no arguments to rebut these points, but I’m sure not gonna hold my breath waiting for you to make ‘em, Guinastasia. Not as long as there’s a Pit to run to.
GIGObuster, you’re making December’s point for him. If the Pope is actively working to encourage Saddam to take those actions which will ensure Saddam’s continuation in power, and you’re quote makes it clear to me that the Pope’s intent is to avoid war and, like it or not, that means Saddam stays in power; then isn’t he also supporting the continuance of the the current situation, even if, on some level he disapproves of that situation?
Remember that December’s original argument was that opposition to the war has the effect of supporting Saddam’s regime even though the people involved do not have that intent.
The action I would suggest is to acknowledge that Saddam is not disarming, and that the world therefore has a thorny problem, with no ideal solution. The solution could involve military action, negotiations, threats, sanctions, etc. The difficultly of the problem is a good reason for the Vatican to recognize that its solution is not within their sphere of expertise. The problem has more than just a moral dimension.
Here’s an interesting article, which is critical of the Vatican. It contrasts the speed with which they took on issue of Iraq, which is peripheral to them, versus the slowness with which they are dealing with their own sex abuse scandal.
Actually, it does say to me that the Pope regards the government of the Netherlands as legitamate and acceptable. And that implies that he considers “legalised marijuana, hookers, abortion, and euthanasia” to be acceptable even though he may not approve.
By extention, meeting with Iraqi envoys implies that the Pope regards the Iraqi government as “legitamate and acceptable.” Given that he is sending that message, shouldn’t the Pope do more to make it clear that he disapproves of things like “Holy War on Israel” or “suicide bombers?”
He hasn’t shown any reluctance to publicly condemn Israeli actions of which he disapproves.
“How many divisions does he have?” - Joseph Stalin
That argument is still a false choice. And many others have taken that argument to task.
Indeed it is a moral dimension for a religious leader!! You fifth level of hell obtuse typist!
And of course it is outside his sphere, but bringing that up is precisely what is illogical, the Pope cannot force anybody in this situation, it only gives advice, you are only attacking him and not the message that he brings! That is why being called a Troll is the least of your problems right now.
Again, not supporting a war(which will certainly cost lives on both sides) to remove a regime is not the same as supporting the regime. Not supporting a particular proposed potential solution is emphatically NOT the same as saying the situation is just peachy as it is. Except in your mind of course.
Enjoy,
Steven
I know what you’re saying, mtgman, and I agree completely. However, those who see the world in terms of black and white choices and simple “good vs. evil” dichotomies will never see that, unfortunately.
That group seems to include Hussein, bin Laden, Bush, and december… such illustrious company he keeps! :rolleyes:
zigaretten, you amuse me:)
Sorry, that last post by LadyAvalonian was actually by me. I forgot my wife was logged in. :smack:
Avalonian, join the club. You watch … she’ll log in using stealth technology. You’ll swear you were logged in, and then you’ll see five posts you made using her SN.
By the time my SO gets to 200 posts probably one of every five of those will have been me posting as her accidentally. Even with using different browsers…
Sorry, I missed the part where “many others have taken that argument to task.”
Assuming that you’re talking about the original thread, I see…….
…….plenty of the all too typical “snide one-liners."
…….several posts from people who would have appeared a lot more intelligent if they simply hadn’t posted.
…….two posts supporting December’s original point.
……a number of posts which basically say “well I’m against the war and I don’t support Saddam, so there….” But which completely fail to address the actual point that December made in his OP.
……one person who appears to admit that they didn’t even read the entire OP.
……etc, etc, etc.
I spot only a couple of actual attempts to deal with the “real” argument and I certainly don’t spot anything that “takes it to task.”
But, given that it’s been almost 200 years since Burke said “all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing” and, as far as I know, philosophers are still arguing over the implications; I kind of doubt you’re going to find closure in a SDMB thread.
Still, I guess tossing around insults is a lot more fun than actually debating things, isn’t it?
“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.” — Hannah Arendt
That’s my job.
Yes, damn that John Paul II! How dare he associate with such ner-do-wells as the people of the Netherlands. Why Christ himself went out of his way to avoid prostitutes, outlaws, and social renegades. What kind Christian example does the Pope think he’s setting here?!?
And economic sanctions, weapons inspections, the “no-fly zone”, and all the other measures the international community is imposing on Iraq(not to mention EXTREME scrutiny) somehow equals “nothing” in your mind? Very interesting. Two people with completely off base definitions of common words like “support” and “nothing” in the same thread.
Enjoy,
Steven
I wish to be the post of dissent! I have come to defend december.
So many have called him a troll and requested the ultimate punishment for trolldom. I’m here to say that december is not a troll.
A troll is a person who posts sentiments contrary to their beliefs (or inconsistent to their beliefs) in order to illicit a response. december does not do this. december actually believes the crap he posts. Do you know what I really think about him? If only the rest of the conservative jerkoffs were as singleminded and empty in their beliefs. Us right-thinking individuals would crush that stupid semi-logic in record time.
The truth is december is the left wing’s easily refutable poster boy. I’d hate it if we didn’t have him to kick around.
And december is unfailingly polite about about it, unlike many of you.
TO: Comrade december
FROM: Commissar elucidator
Biggirl has exposed your secret identity and mission. While it is possible that it may go unnoticed, the Central Committee has decided to close down your mission. Your successes in pretending to epitomize a right-wing chucklewit are admirable, but she has exposed your agent provacatuer mission, albeit unwittingly.
At your discretion, you may continue to undermine the running dogs captialist swine actuarial industry. However, we deem it advisable you shut down your decembrist identity at once. Still can’t believe they didn’t catch that!
Yours in revolution,
Commissar elucidator
CC: Comrade Stoid
Comrade Xenophon 41
Secret Agent Scylla
Zigaretten, I see that this is the only way you have to defend december for the slur that has caused this pit thread, amusing, but just a muddle the water effort. It still remains a stupid statement.
As for the other thread:
“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing” was a phrase the anti-war protesters took to hearth; surprisingly, I don’t agree with many or their positions but it is undeniable that they believe that what Bush is doing is not right but evil, in essence he has wasted all the 911 good will of the world by chasing the secondary target on a forced timeline. And ignoring more pressing treats.
On that thread, Point 3 of december was:
3. Saddam cheered the anti-war demonstrations. He considered them to be supporting his regime.
Jshore said:
“So what! He’s fucked in the head. He also uses the U.S.'s aggressive stance toward him to try to fuel a sense of patriotism and desire to defend Iraq from the Iraqi people. Does that mean that such aggressive stances support Saddam? Totalitarian regimes use all the news to their advantage.”
“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.” — Hannah Arendt
So what happens when you actually choose evil? Think about 911, how many WMD’s were used there that Sadam has now?
The inspections are IMO saving soldier’s lives by destroying more of those weapons, even I who thinks a war could still be necessary, thinks only an idiot will drop the oportunity to pull more teeth of the tiger before the fight.
Biggirl: Ok, then he is a Jerk, I can change my mind! 
In any case: I want to make it clear that I was making notice that many are calling him a troll (not me) but that is not his bigger problem right now.
Klaatu: what he said about the Pope was polite? :smack:
No……this has nothing to do with the december “slur.” This concerns you’re suggestion that december’s original argument, and my subsequent restatement, has previously been “dealt with.” Is that really so complicated?
Let me go over this again, since it appears that both Mtgman and yourself have completely missed my point (which may, admittedly, be due to bad communication on my part). december’s OP begins:” I know that almost all sincere Iraq war opponents believe that they oppose Saddam Hussein as well as opposing war. However, I maintain that they actually are supporting Saddam.”
This is the key issue. This is what the debate is supposed to be about. It appears to me that december is admitting up front that most opponents of the war have “good” motives and are sincere about their motives. But, whether they like it or not, their opposition to the war has the effect of allowing Saddam to stay in power and that constitutes a form of support for Saddam. (You may want to actually look “support” up in the dictionary Mtgman, one of the many definitions is “to provide a basis for the existence or subsistence of.” It doesn’t have to mean one “likes” something. And I don’t consider that to be an unusual use of the word.)
That’s what Edmund Burke was talking about when he said “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” He’s discussing a moral (or ethical) dilemma. Is a person who fails to prevent evil guilty of supporting evil? This is what philosophers have been arguing about for years and this is a legitimate argument in the case of Iraq. (And arguing that one is doing “something,” though maybe not enough, just adds another dimension to the debate Mtgman, it doesn’t end it.) (Note that this is an issue that can deal with many cases other than Iraq, but when december starts the debate, he gets to define the territory.)
This is the issue that nobody dealt with in the first thread. Oh sure, Jshore replied to one of december’s original three points supporting his argument, but I think that even you will admit that there is nothing in Jshore’s response that addresses the ethical dilemma which lies at the heart of december’s argument.
You are finally coming close in your latest post. Arguing that opponents of the war are simply responding to a competing dilemma, namely that the war itself is “an evil” and that doing nothing to oppose that war would just be supporting another form of evil; strikes me as a valid argument. But I don’t find that argument in the first thread. (Though I’ll admit that elucidator was pretty close.) And I still don’t think the issue has been “taken to task.”
And the Hannah Arendt quote was just supposed to be a sort of “tag line.”
Well Zigaretten, that is a clarification, I would say though that closer to the end it looks like there is no good reply to my point, but still the fact remains that THIS thread is a Guin pit thread against december regarding his Pope “opinion”, do you agree on that with him? Or you think it is better to continue with a highjack to a position that needs to be discussed on that other thread, not here? This is, BTW, why I mention that you are mudding the waters, you are ignoring the forum where we are.