Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (17864)	3/9/2003 12:12:30 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

>>>We're being hustled.<<< That's pretty much it, in a nutshell. Everyone should seriously consider this possibility. I already have, and view it as fact. Ironically, the Bush Administration and its stringalong of talking media heads are behaving in the very same manner that constitutes the bulk of their own complaints against Saddam. I really can't tell you how impressed I am when Bill Bennett, the former secretary of education comes on to tell us why we should go to war. I mean doesn't that make you just wanna go sign up for the war!?!

To: stockman_scott who wrote (17864)	3/9/2003 12:41:43 AM
From: Patricia Trinchero	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

Praying for Peace Bishop Melvin G. Talbert and President George W. Bush share the same faith, but one preaches for a peaceful resolution in Iraq while the latter prepares for war By Jennifer Barrett NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE March 7 — On Thursday, President George W. Bush went on national television to warn that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein posed a direct threat to U.S. security and to try and prepare Americans for the growing possibility of a U.S.-led attack on Iraq—perhaps within days. WHEN ASKED ABOUT his faith, Bush told reporters that he still prays for peace. But he is also preparing for war. That has caused friction with a number of religious leaders, whose prayers focus on more diplomatic solutions. A day earlier, Pope John Paul II had implored Roman Catholics around the world to fast and pray for peace and sent a personal plea to President Bush. Even members of the president’s own United Methodist Church have pleaded publicly with the president to give peace—and the U.N. weapons inspections—a chance. Is he listening? NEWSWEEK’s Jennifer Barrett spoke with Bishop Melvin G. Talbert, the United Methodists’ top ecumenical official who has appeared in national TV ads urging the U.S. government to “let the inspections work,” about the fading prospects for peace. Excerpts: NEWSWEEK: You and the president share the same Methodist faith. Yet you have said that an attack on Iraq would “violate God’s law and the teachings of Jesus Christ” while the president continues to support using force, if necessary, to remove Saddam Hussein and says he is at peace with that decision. How do you explain that? Bishop Melvin G. Talbert: It’s clear to us that he is not following the teachings of his own church or the teachings of churches that believe in a “just war” theory. He is following a clear ideology that is not a part of any particular church that I know of. It’s an ideology of control that we find ourselves totally in opposition to. Our church takes a strong stance against war but allows room for those who choose to be a part of the military. It comes down on the side of conscience. There are times when, if you are attacked, for example, you should defend yourself. But it should never be the first resort—only the last resort. Would there be any justification for war with Iraq in your view? Personally, I’d be willing to consider it if the United Nations supported it and we had exhausted all other possibilities. But until that happens, I think we have no right unilaterally to go in and take over another nation. If this is based on the fact that Saddam is a dictator, we must be reminded that there are many other dictators in this world. Are we setting ourselves up to say we must take out every dictator? In fact, we have one in North Korea [Kim Jong Il] who says he has nuclear capabilities, and we have not taken a stand there but have opted for diplomacy. You traveled to Baghdad with other religious leaders in late 1990 to try and prevent the last Persian Gulf War. What happened? It was a very tedious mission. We were on the brink of war. We thought we’d try to get the people of Iraq to blink. We agreed that they had no right to invade Kuwait. But we met with Tariq Aziz, [now Iraq’s deputy prime minister] and he was very tough on us and said we needed to go back and talk to our government. But we left knowing the war would start because they refused to blink. You were also part of a peace mission to Iraq at the beginning of this year and met with Aziz again. Did you leave with a better feeling this time? There were 13 of us, and we spent four full days in Iraq. This time we met with some of the Iraqi people—with leaders of churches and mosques and several NGO groups. We didn’t plan to meet with government officials, but they sought to meet with us. The heads of the Department of Religion and the Department of Health met with us, and so did Tariq Aziz. I don’t think he remembered us as much as I remembered him from the visit in 1990. He was much more cordial and open to dialogue this time. He was frustrated with the fact that the United States was refusing to have any dialogue at all with the government of Iraq … he and the people we met with were pleased to hear voices other than the voices of the government saying we want peace and we don’t want to go to war. But do they believe war is imminent? They believe the United States is very intent on going to war with them. They were hoping that we could be successful in avoiding the war. Do you feel you have been? We’ve made some steps in that direction, but it appears our government has made up its mind. That’s become increasingly clear in the last few days. Still, we are not giving up, and we continue to be vigilant and to say to all governments that will listen that we don’t think this is the way to go. We have sent delegations to Rome, London, Germany and Russia. We were able to see the leaders of those countries. But our own government refuses to see us. That’s very troubling to me. We are a democracy and we talk about peace, and yet our own government refuses to hear a dissenting voice. To hear him [Bush] castigate the dictatorship of a person like Saddam—and I don’t disagree with that—but it is disturbing to see him also operate like a dictator. He’s basically saying, I made up my own mind and I won’t listen to those who disagree. Are we seeing more opposition among religious leaders to an attack on Iraq than we did before the 1991 Persian Gulf War? Yes, very much so. I’ve been talking with other religious leaders and we agree that more religious leaders are more openly opposed to the possibility of this war than there were opposing the Vietnam War even two years into that war. Why do you think we’ve seen more reaction among religious leaders this time? There are many reasons. We are deeply concerned about the way our nation is using its power. We have a strong conviction that we need a United Nations and that our government has not shown a respect for and wholehearted support for the U.N. process. Instead, it is standing over and against the United Nations. We believe we need the United Nations now more than ever. Do you think the national ads and the public pleas for peace prayers have had much effect on the public’s—and on the president’s—opinion? I think the president has been influenced. When he first announced he was going to war his language was quite different than it has been—well, until the last few days. Initially, he was not talking about using the U.N. at all, but then he went back to getting U.N. support. I believe the population has shifted, as well. You don’t get above 50 percent supporting war with Iraq until you get to the fact that the U.N. has indicated that it would support the war. We have been working since June of last year to participate with the public in raising the issue. When we started, they were overwhelming supportive of the president. If he goes ahead now without the support of the U.N. and unilaterally, he will have a tough road ahead. How optimistic are you now for a peaceful resolution? If we could put our support behind the inspectors, I think we could keep nibbling away at the Iraqis and get them disarmed. I think we can still do that. They are dismantling the weapons they found. I don’t think we’ve used up all our diplomatic options. But it seems as though our president is not going to back down now. He will continue to find the excuse to go to war. The question now seems to be when it will happen, not if. © 2003 Newsweek, Inc. msnbc.com