And now for the rest of the story

Jolene, how come you keep leaving out the fact that Sadaam was force fed lots of military equipment and money under the conservative's biggest hero Ronald Reagan? How come you keep leaving out the fact that Bush I had the momentum and allied coalition to remove this evil dictator after the Kuwait invasion? You can blame Clinton and Carter all you want, but please don't be so revisionist as to let Reagan and Bush I off the hook. It seems to me they laid the ground work for the mess Bush II has dismally tried to correct.

One last question, do you honestly think we'd give a hoot at all if there weren't oil reserves in Iraq? The answer to that question lies in Darfur. Oh and by the way, the evil Eisenhower regime was not in power when the evil Axis attacked the United States and her allies--- that would be the evil Roosevelt regime.

Iraq's primary weapons supplier was the Soviet Union, not America. It is true that Saddam was, for a time, supported by the USA but again, context is everything. Let's not forget there was a revolution in Iran followed by a messianic Shiite theocracy calling for America's destruction, followed by a hostage crisis, followed by a major war between Iran and Iraq. Obviously, Americans were not going to support Iran in 1980 or stand on the sidelines and let the Mullahs engulf the middle east unopposed. It's the dream of most Muslims to have a resurgent Islam relive its glory days. You better pray there's never a unified front from Egypt to Iran because it would mean the end of the West and Christianty. Since they choose to worship a violent 6th century caravan raider over Jesus Christ and since they've historically been the aggressors and since the motto of their crusaders is "you love life, we love death"-I think its only prudent to keep the region Balkanized and weak. Maybe that's "mean" but I happen to like my life, country and religion. I wonder why so many here don't.

You are right, Colkoch, America would not be in Iraq there if there were no oil reserves and this is especially apparent in the context of Dafur. But the truth is EVERY nation acts in its strategic self-interest. This uncomfortable fact has been true since the beginning of time: France in Algeria, Belgium in Africa, Israel in Lebanon, Syria in Israel, Germany in the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and on and on. In a world teaming with dictatorships, there are precious few opportunities for individual nations to take the moral high ground. Islam, as a militaristic and expansionist religio-political movement, is certainly not exempt from this-indeed, Europe has been attacked and subjugated by Muslims since the beginning. When Merzifonlu Pasha and his Muslim horde laid seige to Vienna in 1529, Europe should have done what? For today's Liberals-the answer is clear-surrender, but for normal people at the time–no–they killed 15,000 Turks and kicked them out of Europe for good. Now the 64,000 dollar liberal question is: was that happened in 1529 warmongering by the "Christian Right," or a culture defending itself?

Fast forward to today. Islam is still terrorizing us. If you think that its somehow unbecoming of America to act in its strategic interest, then de facto, you would have been ok with being absorbed into Greater Germany or the Soviet Union or Al Queda today. Normal Americans are NOT ok with the defeat of this nation by terrorists, communists or dictators. I pose the question again: If its "immoral" for America to defend itself in strategic wars because our allies might not be democracies, or captured enemies may be imprisoned or someday might get hurt, what's a practical Liberal alternative to strategic threats or aggression on our nation? Anyone?

1. Muslims worship God alone, the voice of Muhammad is as Prophet.

2. Most Muslims are just like you and I, they have practical hopes and dreams for themselves and their children.

3. The most obvious united front of Islam is the ' Haj ' Pilgrimmage to Mecca as well as local devotions.

4. Keeping the region weak only renders the average Muslim vulnerable to the blandishments of rabble rousing opportunists.

5. War is the absolute last alternative to provocation. It is astonishing that the pleas of both John Paul II and the current Pope fall on deaf ears in conservative circles when it comes to these things. Of course they aren't Patriotic Americans and can't understand what it means to be suspected of fealty to Foreign Principalities.

6. For the Catholic Liberal, Surrender to the will of God is the priority. This is identical to that of the Muslim and a great place for the conversation of reconciliation to start.

7. Conservatives still choose to be captive to the notion that the ' War on Terror ' is being fought and won in Iraq. Ten's of thousands of innocents have paid the ultimate price for the acts of a very few criminals.

Beauty is not opposed to truth. It is simply truth in its most attractive form.

I don't believe Bush/Cheney/et al are Saviors of the world. Those are your words. I'm challenging the notion that America is the main evil in the middle east and the world and that our government should be the primary target of protests and activism-that appears to be the position of the author of these columns and the responders on this board.

In my view, it's impossible to make sense of the paradoxes in liberal political positions without some sort of psychodynamic framework. It's generally acknowledged that leftists/liberals are motivated by strong ego needs—needs for power, attention, praise and fame-which in nearly every case, lead back to poor parental relationships-particularily with the father. Poor ego boundaries from deficient parenting when carried into adulthood give rise to the general rejection of any idea of a fixed "human nature," in favour of the idea that humans are infinitely malleable and that "education" can change almost anything in human behaviour. Unconsciously, liberals equate Christianity (and conservatism ) with adolescent dependency and "secular humanism" with the revolutionary freedom of adolescence. To be a liberal is to be politicized because activism is a projective defence mechanism and "approval" is the dominant unmet need. Invariably, leftists advocate massive changes in the society around them — thus drawing attention to themselves as wise, innovative, caring etc. All Leftists have difficulties with the very idea of the Creator due to some sort of child/parent trauma and this conflict plays out as a want to tear down existing authorities and centers of power, or at least oppose such strong existing authorities as the Church. This antagonism is particularly notable with the Catholic Church, the most powerful of the churches, and any administration or institution in America perceived to be aligned with "Christians." The rejected cry of the child for "freedom" manifests in adulthood as an intense and emotional need for "equality" in society and the belief in "equality" naturally leads to support for redistribution of wealth, foreign aid, feminism, gay rights, abortion, socialized medicine, communism and Islam insofar as these diverse agents act as proxies to oppose the cold "patriarchy" of Catholicism.

In my opinion, the clear and present danger to America is liberals projecting their inner conflicts on the world stage. Why? Because they weaken our ability to defend ourselves across the board. Simple matters such as upholding Christ-given virtues, promoting the family, opposing atheistic ideology or strengthening our defences against terrorism become exceptionally difficult with the constant lugubrious hand-wringing of Chomsky, Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry, Moore, Murtha, Streisand, et al and the abuse and demonizing of conservatives for lacking "compassion".

I confess, I don't understand any of your practical suggestions. Let offer another international challenge put in simple terms: Iran is on the threshold of gaining a nuclear arsenel and has the missles to threaten or destroy southern Europe and Israel. They've made it perfectly clear to you that they desire to destroy Israel. They leadership of Iran subscibes to a form of Shiite end-times theology which predicts a armageddon-like conflagration in the middle east in which they will emerge the victors. Their first nuclear test will happen in 2-3 years and when that happens, every middle eastern nation will have to succumb to Iran's strategic objectives and no Western nation will be able to intervene.

What's your answer to this aggression imposed on you and I? What's your solution to a nation of 65 million, awash in petrodollars, hell-bent on becoming a nuclear power and convinced that you and your country are the Great Satan? The vague sentiments you've expressed don't really solve anything. Anybody?

I am not sure where to start in response to your comment. I am not sure you are truly desirous in understanding the "liberal" or Catholics who think and act differently than you and want to define me and other writers and responders as such, but the way you are going about posting leaves me with the idea that you do not understand the meaning of Catholic and Christian. You've lumped all sorts of people and ideas into the classification of "liberals" and project your own views into some psychodynamic when what is being stated or discussed in these columns has more to do with spirituality and truth-seeking, not about seeking power or ego-driven stuff that you mention.

I am a Catholic, but you insist on a division and in dividing Catholics into classes which you have defined from a psychologically negative standpoint, and not from a Christian standpoint that would resemble truth.

Catholics of the type you are in disagreement with are much more multi-dimensional than your flat-faced analysis has led you to so far. The picture you have of people in general and their actions is in the shadows and not in the light of Christian thought. Therefore, the picture that arises in your view of the world and politics is a psychodrama of falseness, one-sidedness, pretense, dehumanization and fear-driven "insight."

You said: "Poor ego boundaries from deficient parenting when carried into adulthood give rise to the general rejection of any idea of a fixed "human nature," in favour of the idea that humans are infinitely malleable and that "education" can change almost anything in human behaviour."

I was raised in a conservative Catholic family! Now you tell me their parenting was "deficient?!!"

Let me also point out that there is a serious flaw in thinking that people have a "fixed human nature." Let me put it this way: If God thought that people were never open to the idea of salvation, were fixed in their human nature, could never change their behavior from sinner to saint, would He have bothered to send His Son Jesus Christ to educate and save us? Would then the Apostles even had the capacity to HEAR what the Lord had preached to them if their human nature was fixed? Try to answer that.

The psycho-political hypotheses you have presented leaves out the Holy Spirit and the influence of God in our lives. Your points negate the action and spirit of Jesus Christ in our lives and in the Church.

At the risk of exposing myself as a poorly parented, unconciously driven, Creator denying, limp wristed liberal, I'll try to answer your question about Iran.

Again, I have to point out important facts you have left out, such as the fact that Pakistan, India, and Israel all have nuclear weapons. This being fact, Iran will not be the sole power in the area with nuclear capability, nor will it be the only Islamic country. This doesn't even include our own arsenal of Trident ballistic submarines which could respond from half way around the globe. I don't see where Iran's nuclear capability would necessarily mean that "every middle eastern nation will have to succumb to Iran's strategic objectives and no Western nation will be able to intervene." This strikes me as unexamined fear based paranoia.

I've lived the vast majority of my life under similar threats concerning the nuclear capability of the old Soviet Union. I even got to plow on a regular basis around a Minute Man ICBM, spending lots of slow time wondering about the irony of nuclear weapons being planted in a wheat field. But low and behold, all those threats never came to pass because the Soviet Union imploded with a little help from those pesky poles and their pesky Pope. Not a shot was fired, not one country invaded. It was a revolution of people sick of economic and intellectual oppresion. They must have been a bunch of liberals as they attacked the existing patriarchal power structure with strikes, and demonstrations, and all those other liberal 'projections' they substituted for good old Freudian therapy.

In the end it just may be that a similar dynamic will play out in Iran, and the Middle East---an expensive nuclear standoff will be followed by
a revolution of the populace who is forced to pay for it. I don't care how many petro dollars Iran has, it's a very expensive proposition to field a nuclear arsenal and maintain defensive capabilities against neighbors who are not thrilled with what you are doing.

Finally, the US is not a solo player in the middle east. Iran's nuclear ambitions are seen as a threat to more moderate richer Sunni Islamic states like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. It seems to me they have as much, if not more at stake in this region, and maybe we should sit back a little and let these states take the lead. Maybe, just maybe, another Poland will rise to the surface and the dominoes will fall again. But then again, this might just be wishful liberal thinking.