Osama and our founding fathers are equals...

[Skins24]

according to Marcy Kaptur.

From the woman who apologized to France and Russia for our actions, we bring you...

Threat of war spurs U.S. soul-searching

Mix of politics, religion is strong, Kaptur warns

By DAVID YONKE

BLADE RELIGION EDITOR

Before launching a military strike against Iraq, Americans should consider their own history to remember how powerful the mix of religion and politics can be, U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D., Toledo) said.

"If you think back to our founding as a country, we are a country of revolution," Miss Kaptur said in an interview this week.

She and the Rev. Jim Bacik, pastor of Toledo’s Corpus Christi University Parish, will speak at a workshop Friday for local Catholic leaders titled "Preaching and Teaching Peace in the Face of War."

When America "cast off monarchical Britain" in 1776, it involved the help of many religious people who had fled repression in other countries, the 11-term Toledo congressman said. Among the nontraditional American revolutionaries were the Green Mountain Boys, a patriot militia organized in 1770 in Bennington, Vt., to confront British forces, she said.

"One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown," Miss Kaptur said.

In Iraq and other Arab nations where revolutions are potentially brewing, religious fervor will play a vital role in shaping political events, she said, and the United States must be careful "not to get caught in the crossfire."

"I think that one thing that people of faith understand about the world of Islam is that the kind of insurgency we see occurring in many of these countries is an act of hope that life will be better using Islam as the only reed that they have to lean on.

"I think that people of faith understand that for many of the terrorists, their actions are acts of sacred piety to the point of losing their lives. And I think that people of faith understand that there is a heavy religious overtone to the opposition."

If the United States ousts Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and seizes the land, it would not resolve the underlying problems leading to political and social upheaval, she said.

"Even if we take the ground, we do not share the culture," she said, "and in the end we have to learn to coexist in a world with religious states that we may not agree with and find ways to cooperate."

Miss Kaptur, a lifelong member of Toledo’s Little Flower Catholic Parish, said her political and moral views were influenced by her family’s tradition of Roman Catholicism and service in the U.S. Marine Corps and Army infantry.

"Our tradition is to exhaust all reasonable means before one goes to war because our family, like so many others in our area, knows the price of war," she said.

The standards of the "Just War Theory," developed by Saint Augustine in the 4th Century, are not clearly defined in the present U.S.-Iraq showdown, Miss Kaptur said.

"I think that’s why there is so much angst and division over this because we’re in the gray area here," she said. "People of religious tradition are making their voices be heard very loudly on this one. I think there’s sort of an instinctual sense that something isn’t right here, and while they know there is a problem they are not sure that war is the solution."

The Catholic tradition calls for embracing the poor and the dispossessed, Miss Kaptur said. Rather than initiating military action, the United States should try to counter the poverty and repression that breed terrorism in the Mideast.

"I think food and education will help stem the poverty of the young people who are being drawn into terrorism every day," she said.

"The reason I think this is such an important moment in history is because the United States cannot become the target of the anguish of the dispossessed in the most undemocratic region of the world."

----

So the people who made this country be are equivilant to the terrorists who purposely target thousands of a certain type (Americans, Jews...) of (innocent) people for their religious beliefs?

[codeorama]

I don't understand.... Saddam is not Islamic... where is religion coming into play? or is the person who wrote this an idiot?

[Kilmer17]

or is the person who wrote this an idiot?

WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER

[redman]

Toledo must be so proud!

[Sarge]

Another proud graduate of the Karl Marx school for Democrats

[BG]

What was so bad about what she said

:laugh: :jerkoff:

[Yomar]

who cares...

[TheKurp]

Shows you what happens when you get a bunch of right-wing conservatives posting a response to an article authored by a Democrat.

They don't even respond to any of the points made, nor are they interested in whatever truth may be evident.

First of all Codeorama, whether Saddam is genuinely Islamic or not has nothing to do with the point of the article. But just for the record, after the Gulf War Saddam began wrapping himself, figuratively speaking, in the green-and-white Muslim flag. He has spent millions to construct mosques and State-run Iraqi television now broadcasts lengthy readings of the Quran. Posters are displayed everywhere showing Saddam praying.

The analogy made between this country's founding and extremist Islamics is, to say the least, repulsive, but some of the article is spot on. Specifically, one cannot argue with the following:

In Iraq and other Arab nations where revolutions are potentially brewing, religious fervor will play a vital role in shaping political events, she said, and the United States must be careful "not to get caught in the crossfire."

"I think that one thing that people of faith understand about the world of Islam is that the kind of insurgency we see occurring in many of these countries is an act of hope that life will be better using Islam as the only reed that they have to lean on.

"I think that people of faith understand that for many of the terrorists, their actions are acts of sacred piety to the point of losing their lives. And I think that people of faith understand that there is a heavy religious overtone to the opposition."

If the United States ousts Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and seizes the land, it would not resolve the underlying problems leading to political and social upheaval, she said.

.

But far be it from me to expect any kind of rational dialogue from the right-wingers on this board whenever something is written by a Democrat.

"Bury your head in the sand", comes to mind.

[codeorama]

That's the first time on this board I've been accused of being a Right Winger...:laugh:

PS: I don't doubt you Kurp, I've just never seen Saddam associated with Islam... So if I'm wrong... sorry!

[TheKurp]

Sorry for the confusion Codeorama. I was specifically referring to everyone EXCEPT you and IAMBG.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by TheKurp

Sorry for the confusion Codeorama. I was specifically referring to everyone EXCEPT you and IAMBG.

No problem, Left, Right... what difference does it make..

I really had never seen Saddam associated with Islam... shows what I know.

[Mad Mike]

As I have said before. Sadam would have no problem kissing up to militant Islamists if it serves his purpose. He would gladly make nice with Bin Laden and hand him the weapons to attack us. Best to handle it now and get it over with. I hope every last terrorist and radical goes to Iraq to help Sadam. Come one, come all to fight Jihad. The US has nothing but good intentions toward you. We wish to send you to a happy place with lot's of virgin wives.

[Glenn X]

But far be it from me to expect any kind of rational dialogue from the right-wingers on this board whenever something is written by a Democrat.

Oh, please, Kurp. Get over yourself. You’re grasping for nuggets of wisdom in the comments of someone who is, at best, extraordinarily naïve and, at worst, incredibly stupid (Kaptur conflates the religious convictions of the Patriots with the xenophobic zealotry of extremist Islamist terrorists, for goodness sake!), and you expect a pat on the back for it? :laugh:

"Even if we take the ground, we do not share the culture," she said.

The same was true of Imperialist Japan at the end of WWII. However, by most accounts, within a span of roughly 10 years the Americans had almost completely uprooted the militaristic culture that had led the Japanese to join with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy in a war against the rest of the world. Keep in mind that Japan was a country in which it was believed that their Emperor, Hirohito, was descended from their deity, that their Emperor was a literal god on earth, and yet a scant decade later the U.S. got the people of Japan to largely cast such beliefs aside.

You’re telling me that America can’t do this again in Iraq? Saddam is not the Hirohito of Iraq, Kurp. He is not viewed by the Iraqi people as the Second Coming of Mohammed or Allah’s Chosen One. As evidenced by the mass surrender of Iraqi soldiers during the opening hours of the Gulf War, not even “the few, the proud, and the brave” of Iraq are willing to fight to the death for Saddam Hussein -- which the people of Japan were certainly prepared to do for Hirohito during WWII. The reality is that the people of Iraq despise Saddam and his repressive, Stalinist dictatorship. When he is gone, only the severely addled of Baghdad (and elsewhere) will weep for him.

"I think food and education will help stem the poverty of the young people who are being drawn into terrorism every day," she said.

Educating the Iraqis in the ways of representative democracy can’t begin until Saddam is out of the picture, as he represents a clear impediment to such education.

As for food, we’ve already tried that. The United Nations’ Oil For Food program has been a colossal failure, rife with corrupt doling-out procedures by the Iraqi regime that siphon away foodstuffs intended for the needy of Iraq into the clutches of Saddam. Hussein then turns around, sells the foodstuffs on the blackmarket, and funnels that ill-gotten capital into his beloved military.

"Our tradition is to exhaust all reasonable means before one goes to war..."

Ms. Kaptur, here’s the tale of the tape:

12 years

17 U.N. resolutions

Continued Iraqi non-compliance regarding WMD disarmament

Continued Iraqi violations of the Gulf War ceasefire, most notably of the no-fly zones

What more do you need to see, Ms. Kaptur?

Kurp, though this may be a shock to your system, it is indeed possible to have a point of view on this and other issues that is different from your own and Ms. Kaptur’s, and yet still be well-reasoned, well-thought out, and sincerely held. Amazing, no?

[Kilmer17]

Did you really mean that Kurp? Or was this an example of you playing devils advocate? THat's so conveniant isn't it. YOu can bash others but when called out you can claim you didn't really mean it.

I find it disgusting that anyone would defend a person that compares OBL to our founding fathers. You should be ashamed. But you probably didnt really think or mean that right?

[TheKurp]

Glenn X,

Your response is exactly what I'm looking for. Bashing the author instead of addressing the message is weak and full of self-righteous indignation. You addressed the points with a reasoned point of view, and that's all I seek.

There is no right or wrong on this issue of war with Iraq. There is only choosing the lesser of evils. Let's not confuse justification with probity. Innocent lives will be lost and there is no moral ground on which to defend this inevitability. We as a country find ourselves, hopefully reluctantly, having to execute an option that is against the law on an individual level. Meaning, we cannot go out and preemptively attack someone because we think they intend to harm us. It will land us in front of a judge. Yet we are about to perform this act on an International level, and innocent lives will pay the price on both sides of the conflict. The bigger picture states that the U.S. is backed into this position because to do nothing might mean instead, the loss of thousands of lives on our own soil.

The bottom line is, it's a dilemma. One that deserves dialogue because each side of the issue recognizes that their stance is not so completely right that they shut out and hurl insults at anyone who tries to raise questions.

Kilmer17,

Let's make a distinction here. I'm not bashing others for having an opinion. Rather I'm bashing others who have no opinion other than to castigate a person whose opinion differs from theirs.

[Kilmer17]

That wasn't my opinion. I was just playing Devils advocate.

[stratoman]

Glenn x is right on with his assessment. I think kurp needs to be Hannitized. www.hannity.com

[redman]

Kurp-

I didn't write a point-by-point response to this piece because I try not to waste my time by responding to drivel. You and I have had good debates in this forum. To accuse me of of not being "interested in whatever truth may be evident" in the article and of "burying my head in the sand" is ludicrous. I obviously believe there is no truth to be had in that article.

And it's not because she's a Democrat. It's because she's foolish.

[Glenn X]

Kurp, I understand what you’re saying and I’ll readily concede the following: I’m not Kreskin. I have no crystal ball that can see the future. Ultimately, the future is unknowable. We’ll find out what it’s like when we get there. (Well, we with the notable exception of Saddam Hussein will, anyway. ) It’s certainly possible that I could be completely wrong. The U.S. military could invade Iraq and the whole operation could turn into a protracted clusterf*ck instead of the quick, smooth-as-silk endeavor that I figured it would be. I could end up being totally incorrect in my assertions on The Iraq Question. I acknowledge that.

However, I feel that Bush, whatever you may think of him and his sometimes lacking grammatical skills, is doing the right thing here. If Bush ends up failing, he’ll be doing so while trying to do something wonderful and tremendous rather than myopic and self-serving. No reasonable person can assert that Iraq is a bang-up place as-is, with a vicious madman like Saddam in charge. If what Bush is attempting to do works to any significant degree, the people of Iraq -- and perhaps the Middle East in general -- will be better off for it for generations to come.

Moreover, you’re wrong when you say that the U.S. has no legal right to go after Saddam Hussein. You seem to be forgetting that the 1991 Gulf War was brought to an end by way of a ceasefire agreement that Saddam signed off on, a ceasefire agreement that Saddam has continually violated since it went into effect. Hell, the man even has his troops regularly fire on Allied aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones! Surely, Kurp, you recognize that one of the most basic rules of military engagement is that if Soldier A from Army A fires on Soldier B from Army B, it is completely reasonable and rational for Army B to assume that a state of war then exists between it and Army A and proceed accordingly.

The reality is that we’re not declaring or re-declaring war on Iraq, Kurp -- although it would be completely proper for us to do so in light of Saddam’s repeated ceasefire violations. Saddam Hussein has been trying to draw us into a military engagement for more than a decade. The only difference between now and, say, several years ago is that we currently have a president in office who has actually taken note of what Saddam is up to and given it the consideration it deserves.

Do I want a war with Iraq? No. Would I like to see a non-violent resolution to this matter? Absolutely. War sucks. That may sound like a trite assessment, but it’s true. Wars get people killed, most importantly our people -- our soldiers. I don’t want to see that happen. The decision to send our troops into harm’s way is one that I’m glad I don’t have to make, and it’s times like these that I certainly don’t envy the person who’s in the position of being Where the Buck Stops. However, unlike you, Kurp, I don’t place the onus for this particular decision on George W. Bush. I place it on Saddam Hussein, who could immediately end this whole situation peacefully if he really wanted to.

[Tommy-the-Greek]

The real difference between 1776 and now is quite simple. The green mountain boys didn't go to London and murder 3000 Brit civilians. The Boston tea party destroyed property not lives.

The Brits were an occuping army here in 1770's. That led to the the revolution and we kicked them out. Show me where we have done the same in the last 12 years to the arabs? We helped to liberate kuwait and gave it back to the people. We will do the same for Iraq. They won't have to kick us out we will leave on our own and have no intention of staying there for years to exploit there resources.

Sure all revolutions are a violent change of government and that is where the simalarities end.

[NavyDave]

TheKurp and that Toledo representative are great example why we need school vouchers for kids so they can receive the proper education and correct version of Amnerican History.

I dont expect all people who havent ventured out of the US to understand how great this place is but comeon, you cant be that dense.

All of the terrorist apologists should have to live in those countries with out benefit of American rights and see how horrible our country is.