No more silence about the extermination of Christians

Fr. Martin Fox on the slaughter and persecution the Church is facing in the Mideast.

Like Patheos Catholic on Facebook!

Patheos Catholic LogoCLICK HERE TO "LIKE" PATHEOS CATHOLIC ON FACEBOOK

Good for John Rhys-Davies!
Demand Obama Recognize Christian Genocide
At Convention, Knights of Columbus Call Attention to Suffering Middle Eastern Christians
One Christian is Slaughtered Every Five Minutes
  • Frank Gibbons

    Pray, pray, pray for these poor souls.

  • kirthigdon

    I actually don’t think there has been much silence. I find this widely reported in secular media. But what to do about it? Certainly pray and contribute to relief organizations as Father Fox recommends. But urge our elected officials to do something? Something for them always means war and killing. Urge them to support Christians as the US supports Israel? Israel is conducting a wholesale slaughter of Gazan Palestinians including children, women, the sick and disabled, etc. Do we want the US regime to “do something” similar in Iraq? It already has and that has lead to the present deplorable situation. And Pope Francis has already spoken against responding to violence with violence. Here is something we could urge that is in keeping with the exhortations of the last several vicars of Christ. End all arms aid and ban all arms sales to any country or group. The arms the US has provided to the Iraqi army and to Syrian rebels seem to be falling into the hands of the Islamic State anyway through capture or defection.

    Kirt Higdon

  • Andy

    I have read about in the MSM and alternative news feeds – I am not sure what we – meaning the US as an entity can do. I know personally that prayer and donations to those routs that Father Fox has provided is vital.

  • kenofken

    Probably the only real solution at this point is to resettle these folks here or in Canada or perahps – bribe Kurdistan to give them shelter.

  • Petey

    honestly, this story has been all over the place, and rightly so.
    the blogger links to CNEWA, I’ve touted them before, now doing it again here.

  • Martin Fox

    Mark: thanks for the link.

    As far as my perception of silence, I’m glad to hear others are seeing it covered. I admit I don’t watch any TV news, and I haven’t been listening to NPR lately, my usual radio news source. So maybe my perception is skewed.

    As far as what our government ought to do…I certainly don’t want more war, but it seems to me there are more options. For one, we could shelter these folks. Second, I find it hard to believe the US is so impotent that it simply has no possible way to influence events, even quietly or “back channel.”

    Overall, I believe that if you create enough pressure on politicians, they get motivated to find a solution.

    Full disclosure: I have commented here many times under another handle, which is entirely legit; but I wanted to thank Mark in my own name; and I’ll not use my other handle on this thread. I.e., no chicanery (which I assume our host can detect? I dunno how, but some people do know how to do that).

    • Mike Blackadder

      Father, I think you are right in your perception of media silence on this issue. Thank you for your passionate concern for our brothers and sisters and your call to action.

      What I don’t understand is this attitude that has decided ‘military’ is a dirty word. It’s OK to throw money at a problem, to give press conferences, but the dear sacrifice that we pay in blood and treasure somehow doesn’t qualify as Christian virtue?

      Innocent people are engulfed in violence and other injustice around the world, especially our Christian brothers and sisters in the ME, and maybe we should acknowledge that while it’s good to pray and to give money that it’s also EASY. It’s questionable that we would endorse inaction in the face of this terrible injustice as we enjoy peace for ourselves and others suffer who could use our help.

      The US is rendered impotent and unable to pursue a peaceful resolution exactly because we’ve thoroughly convinced enemies of peace that we would never commit to stopping them, and we will disparage those who do.

      • wineinthewater

        I think the reason military has become a dirty word is because we’ve seen example after example of military intervention costing us dearly and not making things better. There might be a solid military solution, but it is hard to believe that after looking at the disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan.

        • Mike Blackadder

          Well it’s a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy when we engage in a propaganda war for the other side. For every time an Al Qaeda insurgent was chased out of Iraq someone at home was blaming our soldiers for civilians killed by terrorists and arguing that we should withdraw.

          These voices are and have been the greatest possible comfort to the ambitions of those who seek to oppress others. The bottom line is this evil is tolerated especially when it is perpetrated by Muslims against Christians.

          • Petey

            wow, your post is like 2003 all over again

            • Mike Blackadder

              Sorry Petey, which part reminds you of 2003? The fact that I mention Al Qaeda in Iraq or something else?

        • kenofken

          Our military interventions and our broader and longer policies of armed imperialism are 100% responsible for creating the conditions of persecution and genocide now affecting Christians (and many others) in the Middle East. Since the 60s, our policy has been to prop up incredibly corrupt and brutal regimes for our own strategic and financial convenience, helping to create the conditions of hopelessness and poverty essential for extremism. Many of these countries were, at the time, largely secular societies taking significant steps toward modernization.

          We, and our “ally”, Pakistan, created the Taliban as a proxy army for various convenient ends. Our absolutely senseless war in Iraq replaced one brutal dictatorship with another brutal, but completely inept dictatorship. Al Qaeda and and it’s psycho younger brother movement ISIS/ISIL, would never have taken shape, let alone run rougshod all over the Iraq/Syria corridor, had we not reduced the country to a failed state. Christians in Iraq and Syria, certainly, are dying and being driven out in droves precisely and entirely due to our “help.”

          • Mike Blackadder

            Congratulations, barbarians have now defeated the once great American presence that actually sustained relative peace in the civilized world for the past 60 years.

            This relativism which cannot distinguish the legacy of America in influencing the world through foreign policy, holding to an exceptional standard of selflessness and charity, and the likes of Saddam Hussein, ISIS and militant Islam is destructive to peace in the world. You would think that the last 6 years would provide a glimmer of that reality, but apparently not.

            I know you disagree kenofken, but it’s actually not a good thing that America has been rendered impotent on the world stage. It means that while the world is sheltered from the occasional error, misjudgment and political roller coaster of the American creature that the far more predominant characteristic which abhors injustice, that pities the oppressed and suffering regardless of race or creed is what is really lost and the impact is being

            • Mike Blackadder

              .. felt.

            • jroberts548

              Seeing as how we gave Saddam Hussein the chemical weapons he used against the Kurds, and that we have been arming and are still arming rebels in Syria, it can in fact be difficult to distinguish between American “selflessness” and the likes of Saddam Hussein and militant Islam. Is the difference that we selflessly gave Saddam weapons, out of a pure-hearted altruism, and he selfishly used them? Are we selflessly prolonging the civil war in Syria because we’re just swell, generous people? Do we selflessly support the Wahhabi theocracy of Saudi Arabia, just because we love Allah that much, and not for some other reason?

              • Mike Blackadder

                I don’t know Roberts, maybe the explanation is that what we try to do doesn’t always work, especially when we aren’t COMMITTED to what we’re doing. Maybe we’re generally misguided in our conviction of human decency and the righteousness of self determination and we imagine our own values exist in others. Isn’t that disgusting?

                We’re not perfect, and we even commit evil, but when we conquered the ME 10 times over we didn’t TAKE it like we could have. That makes us unlike any other superpower that maybe ever existed. We have tried other things including self deprecation and we’ve been wrong. But we didn’t decide to set Chemical bombs on Kurdish civilians. We aren’t arming Syrian rebels because we love war but because we oppose oppression and genocide but don’t want to enter the fray ourselves.

                We choose our battles and sometimes we get it wrong, but that doesn’t make us evil and it doesn’t mean we should berate ourselves and our elected leaders to the point that it is unacceptable for us to ever respond to injustice when it’s in plain sight.

                • jroberts548

                  So we gave Hussein chemical weapons without expecting him to use them? We supported the Syrian rebels enough to prolong the fight, but not enough to win because we hate oppression?

                  That’s insane. We gave Hussein weapons because we were using him in a proxy war against Iran, and we didn’t care what civilians he gassed. We know what it would take to end the civil war in Syria – much like what we did in Libya – but we don’t do it because we’re using this as a proxy war against Iran and Russia. This isn’t because our leaders love peace, but because they think pulling Iran and Russia into an ever more costly civil war hurts Iran and Russia. We don’t care about the cost to the Syrian people.

                  But I guess this does make us unlike any other world power. Typically, when other countries pick a side in a fight, they think someone will benefit from it.

                  • Mike Blackadder

                    I think it would be more accurate to say that we aided Saddam in developing chemical weapons and supplied him with materials. And I don’t see what basis you have to claim that no one ‘cared’ if civilians were attacked with chemical weapons. Obviously we care, obviously if there was some secret evil plot from the Reagan administration which planned to have Saddam turn chemical weapons on non-military targets then it would be a political disaster and perhaps grounds for war crimes if these secrets were discovered. I can’t speak to Reagan’s level of caring any more than you.

                    You maybe imagine that Reagan is just as evil as Saddam, though he was a secret evil person. Maybe it makes you feel good about your view of the he world; I don’t care. Americans shouldn’t engage in the sacrifice of military action for peace in Iraq, and when we avoid doing that by using proxies to fight our battles that’s also always bad. But pretending there aren’t problems and victims of genocide and oppression across the world is OK. That’s wonderful, thanks for sharing.

                    • jroberts548

                      If I were a dead Kurd, I wouldn’t feel any better or more alive knowing that Reagan felt really bad about helping kill me.

                      Reagan’s personal evilness and caring doesn’t matter, except as between Reagan and God. Reagan’s – or even Saddam’s – personal, moral culpability is unknowable to us. It’s radically, fundamentally subjective in the sense that it’s not humanly knowable by someone outside the subject (It is, of course, ultimately objective, but only with respect to God’s knowledge). Because we can’t possibly say anything at all about Reagan’s – or even Saddam’s – personal level of sinfulness, we can only talk about objective things. What matters, as regards our ability to talk about them, is what about Reagan is objectively knowable.

                      Objectively, Reagan (and other relevant government officials during his administration) did not care. Their subjective caring is unknowable. Objectively, the Reagan administration gave Saddam, a murderous dictator, chemical weapons. Objectively, the Reagan administration, and its successor, continued to support Saddam until the invasion of Kuwait. Saddam first used chemical weapons by at least 1983. The invasion of Kuwait was in 1990. I’m sure Reagan and Bush felt just awful about supporting Saddam. That didn’t stop them from objectively supporting him for 7 years after he used chemical weapons, including 2 years after the Halabja massacre.

                      Presidents don’t get credit for feeling bad about supporting someone who uses chemical weapons when they keep on supporting him.

                    • Mike Blackadder

                      Oh okay, so it is the ‘objective caring’ that you’re talking about. Because I can objectively know how much someone cares about something. That’s weird because I figured it was pretty straightforward to interpret that someone’s feelings are subjective and not objectively known. Maybe next we can argue about what green looks like. Lol

                    • jroberts548

                      You keep on wanting to talk about crap that’s irrelevant. I don’t care whether Reagan was evil. I don’t care how evil ISIS is. What matters are the effects of the policies and the conducts that we engage in. The respective moral culpabilities of Reagan and of ISIS members might be an interesting theoretical discussion; none of that changes that we:
                      1) Armed Saddam Hussein.
                      2) Armed Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons precursors, even after he used chemical weapons in 1983, and continued to do so until the invasion of Kuwait.
                      3) Invaded Iraq in 2003.
                      4) Didn’t commit nearly enough troops or money to rebuilding Iraq, and, as a result, Iraq has spent a decade with considerable civil unrest, periodically blossoming into civil war.
                      5) Have spent nearly a decade propping up the corrupt, ineffectual Maliki, even when his party lost the election and when he jailed, tortured, and killed his political opponents.
                      6) Are supporting the rebels in Syria.
                      7) Aren’t supporting the rebels in Syria enough to determine the outcome, but just enough to prolong the war, which benefits ISIS.

                      The moral culpability of any individual actor here doesn’t matter. What matters is that what’s happening in Mosul is a result of 35 years of insane, incoherent, objectively evil US foreign policy.

                      When you turn one country into a failed state with a government bordering on a dictatorship, and you arm militant religious extremists in the next country, something like what is happening now is exactly what you can expect to happen.

                      Surely, haven’t we done enough to the people of Mosul?

                    • Mike Blackadder

                      No actually your entire argument doesn’t seem to lead to any suggestion of what could be done for the Christians and others persecuted and/or exiled from the ME under militant Islam. Your main point seems to be that either we created the problems we are now talking about or that we have no moral authority as a country to do anything in the Middle East because we’re actually the primary actor for violence in the region. Therefore nothing.

                      America’s foreign policy surely is insane, particularly if in your mind you magnify every instance of poor judgment while disregarding our successes and disregarding the reality of what unfolds when we’re not there! Certainly if in our minds we attribute the most uncharitable possible motivation for every foreign policy decision we only see ourselves as the bad guy.

                      Meanwhile there are actually other actors in the region under a demonic religion and ideology who are OBJECTIVELY invading people’s homes and lands, exiling killing and converting inhabitants through violence. I don’t want the job trying to deal with people who think and act that way, to try to respond to those who need our help, or with dictators who are not held accountable for their actions to their own people, because their laws are backward and oppressive.

                    • jroberts548

                      We did create the problems that we are now talking about.

                      We don’t hold dictators accountable for their actions to their own people. In fact, in Saddam’s case, we rewarded him with more chemical weapons. We did eventually hold him accountable for his actions towards Kuwaitis, and for whatever imagined actions he might have taken towards us.

                      I don’t have to attribute any motivations to anyway. I know what we did (which you’re not disputing) and what the results were (which you’re not disputing, except to also blame ISIS, which doesn’t alter what the results of our actions were). I don’t care what our motivations were. I don’t care if Reagan supported Saddam because he had a good faith belief that Saddam was good, or if Reagan supported Saddam because Reagan hates Kurds. His motivations don’t matter to me; mustard gas is mustard gas, regardless of your motivations.

                      I don’t care what our motivations are in prolonging the war in Syria. It doesn’t matter if it’s because we hate Assad or because we want a proxy war with Russia or for any other reason. The effect is the same.

                      What foreign policy successes am I selectively ignoring? Libya? Egypt, which just had another military coup this year? Vietnam? Haiti? Afghanistan? Ukraine? Are there any countries, other than Germany and Japan, where our meddling has made that country better off?

                    • Mike Blackadder

                      “We did create the problems that we are now talking about.”

                      No, actually we didn’t. In what way did we create the problem of Christian, Jews [and Muslims] being persecuted in the ME by radical Islamists? What are the consequences of NOT opposing communism, Iran, Saddam Hussein under the circumstances that our leaders faced? What are the consequences of not aiding Syrian rebels or supporting South Vietnam? Are you capable of seeing both sides of the coin or do you really mean to dig your heels in on this ridiculous assertion that America is actually ‘just as bad’ as Hitler and Hussein and Al Qaeda? Why haven’t we ‘meddled’ in England or Canada or Israel or France? Is there perhaps a bit of a sampling bias here? Is it really fair to say that we ruined these other countries or is it fair to say that they have problems which is exactly why we ‘meddled’ in the first place? And besides, I acknowledge that there are many things we did that cause harm even if it was not our intention, but yes these countries are better off in many ways due to our involvement.

                    • jroberts548

                      The consequence of not intervening in Vietnam would be the defeat of the south Vietnamese by the north, and a communist government in Vietnam. This was the same as the consequence of intervening in Vietnam.

                      The consequence of not opposing Iran in the 80s would likely have been a chemical weapons free Iraq, as we would not have been giving Iraq chemical weapons. Another consequence would have been not invading Iraq in 2003 (because Iraq would not have had and used the chemical weapons we gave them)

                      The consequence of not aiding the Syrian rebels would likely be victory by Assad over ISIS. This would be a good thing, at least for the people of Mosul. It would also mean a victory by Assad over the other rebels, which may or may not be a bad thing.

                      I didn’t say we were as bad as anyone. I said our actions frequently have bad consequences. That can be true regardless of how good or bad we are.

                    • Mike Blackadder

                      Wow

                • Marthe Lépine

                  If I remember correctly, the US choose their battles so carefully that they were among the last, or even the last to commit to WWII when most other countries had long recognized that Hitler was evil? Seems to me that it took a direct hit such as Pearl Harbour to wake them up…

                  • Mike Blackadder

                    You’re correct. War is not what anyone wants. Roosevelt was trying really hard to help Churchill as much as he could but didn’t have congressional or public support to do more until after they were attacked.

                    Even when the enemy is Hitler committing the atrocities of the Nazi regime and basically trying to conquer the world we don’t want to fight. And at the end of the day that policy of staying out of a war happening across the ocean was irresponsible, and counterproductive to an objective of living in peace over the long term.

                    And the American attitude of avoiding war with Hilter was not peculiar. It was same with virtually every European nation as well, there was no willingness to act until war was upon them. Churchill was very vocal about the dangers of allowing Germany to pursue armament I the early thirties and the push among other European nations to engage in disarmament as a peace policy. Even after waiting much too long Hitler could have been stopped in 37, but every measure was taken to avoid the cost, even after Austria and Poland had been occupied. Peace through appeasement is not a new concept. It is the only reason that WWII even happened, and the US were a part of the problem. If not for Roosevelt, Churchill and the gumption of the British and Russian people Hilter probably would not have been stopped.

            • Marthe Lépine

              Very interesting new definition of “selflessness and charity”. So you are calling “selflessness and charity” many US foreign policies that had the effect to sell more US weapons (at great profit) to countries in Asia and Africa in order to selflessly strengthen the US position against the USSR during the Cold War? You are considering as “selflessness” those US foreign policies that help support the interests of Big Oil in the Middle East, such as, for one example, being so friendly with powerful families in Saudi Arabia, in spite of the fact that most of the Sept 1/01 terrorists came from that country? You call “charity” some of the foreign policies that installed and supported some terrible dictators in Latin America in order to both serve the interests of US corporations and destabilize assumed “communist” governments re: the Cold War. I could go on, but I don’t have the time, and I think I am correct in assuming that several books have already been written on those matters.

              • Mike Blackadder

                So in your ‘unclouded’ judgment you don’t see any difference between the American standard of how to treat other people and that of Saddam Hussein or ISIS? How about Hitler, are we atleast a little better than Hitler?

                These are bad people Marthe. They are accountable for their actions. I know it’s hard to believe but it isn’t an unrealistic government/corporate/big oil conspiracy that is behind all human strife.

                And by the way; preventing the spread of communism, [objectivly ;)] the single most brutal murderous ideology in the history of mankind was a worthy achievement. Winning the Cold War was a service to everyone, not just America. America is selfless because we fight and die, we give and we help and we don’t take from others even though we are strong enough to do so. It is perfectly ordinary and expected that our government will act to promote trade to benefit it’s citizens and economy, and sometimes to place restrictions on such trade in the form of sanctions etc. Expect more from our country, but see the good too and be proud.

      • jroberts548

        We paid in blood and treasure. We spent that blood and treasure destroying Iraq’s infrastructure and installing an ineffective Shia government that is too weak and too disliked to do anything to protect its own borders. The only thing our blood and treasure has gotten us has been a decade of civil war in Iraq, including the destruction of the Church in Mosul.

        Unless you’re in the military, calling for us to pay in blood and treasure is EASY as well. It’s even EASIER than praying and giving money if It isn’t your blood.

        • Mike Blackadder

          “a decade of civil war “, That’s disturbing. If even NOW you are peddling that nonsense then either you are dishonest or your worldview has blinded you to reality.

          Yeah, it seems to me that the infrastructure that we did destroy in Iraq was mostly done when we debilitated their chemical weapons capability when their government was producing stockpiles of chemical weapons in the early nineties. When sworn enemies of the United States and those dedicated to evil were no longer holding such infrastructure we actually acted to build infrastructure not tear it down. Again you can point that finger at the terrorists rather than those who gave their lives protecting the innocent from them.

          And thanks for demonstrating the point that I was making. It’s no wonder given this kind of one sided slandering of military campaigns that we question our own moral authority even as we spent 10 years doing everything we could to protect the lives of others and as we are now called only to protect others.

          • jroberts548

            I’m not blaming the soldiers, the people who actually made sacrifices. I’m blaming the people that sent them there for no discernible reason with no discernible goals. I’m blaming the Americans who armed Hussein in the ’80s, many of whom were the same Americans saying we needed to disarm Hussein in the ’00s. At the list of people responsible for the mess in Iraq, the people who comprise our armed forces are at the bottom of that list, behind virtually every American politician.

            Of course, the terrorists are morally culpable for their own acts. We’re culpable for our own acts. Our own acts include arming Iraq, supporting Iraq even while it used chemical weapons in the Iraq-Iran war, invading Iraq, inadequately rebuilding Iraq, and doing everything we can to foment Shia-Sunni conflict throughout the Near East, including in Syria where we helped prolong the civil war by funneling arms and money to the rebels, including, at least indirectly ISIS.

            Also, this isn’t spoken, so it’s libel, not slander. And military campaigns aren’t persons, so you can’t libel them. If I’m libeling anyone, it’s every relevant member of the US government from 1980 to now, during the entirety of which our Iraq policy has been insane and incoherent, at best, if not actively destructive.

            • Mike Blackadder

              We should be ashamed of a foreign policy that would abide Saddam Hussein as an influence over other people. We should be proud of the soldiers and commitment that achieved so much in Iraq I the face of every disadvantage, including a total lack of support from the rest of the ‘civilized’ world. It is not INSANE and INCOHERENT to fight for peace on behalf of people who want peace.

              It is, however, costly. And if the argument was to say that we should not go to Iraq and we should not put boots on the ground or commit forces to prevent the rise of radicalism and persecution because some of our soldiers will die, and that it will cost too much money, then that’s one thing. I’m not even arguing that point. But I won’t say nothing in the face of false rhetoric that holds America accountable for the actions of those who are the antithesis of America, and won’t abide the suggestion that this contorted worldview is some reason to give up trying.

              • jroberts548

                What did we achieve in Iraq? Look at Iraq, and tell me what we achieved. We put so much money into building their army, and thousands of them surrendered and handed the fancy equipment we bought for them to ISIS. We accomplished nothing. It’s a failed state.

                I’m not holding America accountable for ISIS’ actions. I’m holding America accountable for our own actions.

                And it is too costly. It’s too costly because, based on our track record in the near east, there’s literally zero chance we’ll accomplish anything.* Respect for the troops should include not sending them to die for no discernible reason. We already did that in Iraq once.

                ETA: *It might be slightly above non-zero. It we modeled the occupation off Japan, Germany, and South Korea, it could work. We would need millions of troops there, committed to staying for decades. We would need to put trillions more dollars into rebuilding Iraq. There’s no chance we’ll do that, but if we did, we could accomplish something.

                • Mike Blackadder

                  Well then leave them to the wolves Roberts. But own it.

                  You’re plain wrong that nothing was accomplished in Iraq. A great deal was accomplished after fighting tooth and nail at home for legitimacy and against insurgent forces in Iraq to turn the tide of violence. Iraqis were given a chance and Americans earned the confidence of the people after having proven their commitment to stand by Iraq and to seek peace in stark contrast to those who opposed us. And we summarily surrendered all that when we decided that we wanted to prove the ‘success’ of a policy of complete withdrawal.

                  Roberts, I thought that the reason there was violence in Iraq was that we were there as a sort of magnet for further bloodshed. I thought that the conventional ‘wisdom’ was that leaving would solve the Iraq problem. Now after the absolute failure of this irresponsible and nonsensical policy you have the nerve to point the finger at those who propse the exact opposite and who actually advocate commitment to obtain peace? Go home.

                  I’m done arguing this point with you. It’s a poisonous and false mindset that really perceives American foreign policy and it’s influence as comparable to Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and this mindset has evidently led you to embrace nihilism and to peddle it to others. I couldn’t disagree with you more about the responsibilities America has in the world and where we should go with here. Others can obviously decide for themselves.

                  • jroberts548

                    We left when the Iraqi government refused to sign a new status of forces agreement. Our choice at that point was leave or reconquer the government we’d just set up. Since we weren’t willing to commit millions of troops and trillions of dollars, we chose correctly.

                    I don’t embrace nihilism. I don’t see how believing that it’s wrong to ask someone to die for no purpose is nihilist.

                    All we accomplished in Iraq was setting up a Shia government that was hated by the Sunnis. There’s a reason thousands of well armed Iraqi soldiers ran away and gave their expensive, American funded guns to ISIS. It’s because everyone hates Maliki. Maliki* even lost his reelection campaign, but our government decided to keep him in office anyway. The ony thing we accomplished in Iraq has been propping up a hated leader who can’t control anything outside Baghdad.

                    How many American lives was that worth? How much was it worth in blood and treasure to give Iraq the weapons that ISIS is using now?

                    The only thing we could do that would work would be to send million of troops, and commit to staying at least forty years. No one wants to do that.

                    *ETA. I misremembered it being Chalabi, instead of Maliki. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/obamas-disastrous-iraq-policy-an-autopsy/373225/ We supported Maliki, despite the democratic choice of the Iraqis not to. We supported him while he drove secular Sunnis out of government, even while we funded militant Sunnis across the border in Syria.

                  • Marthe Lépine

                    Again, your ideology has clearly clouded your mind

                    • Mike Blackadder

                      These are pointless remarks if you have no substance to offer.

              • Marthe Lépine

                So you think that the US should “put boots on the ground or commit forces to prevent the rise of radicalism and persecution”? And who voted for the US to be the policemen of the World? As well, the problem is the way the US are likely to define “the rise of radicalism and persecution”. From past historical experience, it has included destabilizing perfectly legally and democratically elected governments that the US did not approve of, such as was done when replacing Allende in Chile to put in his place Pinochet, a man who was later convicted of crimes against humanity, who apparently acted with the full blessing of the US. And that is not the only example. With that kind of “idealism”, I think the US should stay the h*** out of other countries’ “life” unless specifically and clearly asked to do so by authorized parties such as the UN. Otherwise, the US meddling can be, often rightfully, seen as economically and politically motivated, for example by Big Oil or by the industrial military complex.

          • Marthe Lépine

            Said as a true ideologist blinded by his ideology.

      • Martin Fox

        Mike:

        I’m not reflexively against using the military to help deal with problems like these; but in this particular case, I am — pardon the pun — gun-shy about getting back into that mess. And my reason isn’t that the military can’t do anything; but because the politicians — and, now, many of the people — won’t back them.

        I was against the Iraq war when the President proposed it; but once Congress voted for war (which they did, but a lot of them pretend they didn’t), we were in; and then for me, it became a question of completing the job honorably. In my own opinion, I think we finally got things stable; and then the troops were completely withdrawn and everything went to h***. I’m broken-hearted about that, and I don’t want to send another soldier into that mess, if that’s what we’re going to do to their sacrifices.

        • Mike Blackadder

          Father, thanks for your reply. Excellent points. You’re right that it would be exceedingly unfair to ever commit our soldiers to something we are not prepared to back up with our leadership and civilian population. Obviously my criticism should not have been directed at you.

      • kenofken

        So can we infer that you’ll sign up for a tour of duty in Syria or Iraq if we launch a ground war then? Pay a visit to http://www.goarmy.com. If you report back here with your orders, I promise I won’t disparage you.

  • Marthe Lépine

    Here is an item that I did not see, but in my opinion should certainly have been, in our national (for the time being) news media’ site, cbc.ca, not even in its section on politics, but only in our own Catholic Register:

    From: http://www.catholicregister.org/item/18519-harper-denounces-persecution-of-christians-in-iraq
    Harper denounces persecution of Christians in Iraq
    By Deborah Gyapong, Canadian Catholic
    News July 23, 2014

    • virago

      Been following it a Fox, Breitbart, and Drudge. And of course the Register!! But first on Drudge, unsure about the direct source, CAN maybe.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X