At 06:52 PM 4/16/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: >feel angry when anyone bring up "inaction" or "doing nothing," etc., in this >thread. Nobody is suggesting doing nothing.
I think the word "nothing" is being used as to describe polices that would have the practical effect of contiuing the "status quo" policies in Iraq of the previous 12 years. Given what those policies had managed to accomplish in 12 years, I think that it is appropriate to describe them as the "status quo", or essentially, "doing nothing." >When the majority of churches and Christians >around the world are telling us that what we are about to do is wrong, and >leaders that represent a huge number of them present an alternative, how can >you say there is no evidence? Are they fools? On the other hand, there have been times in history when a majority of Christians were following heresy, so a majority vote is by no means definitive. > My premise >is that when most of the churches of the world say that what you're about to >do is wrong, it is imperative to stop and consider what they are saying, to at >least meet with their leaders and listen. I'm presuming that you meant "most of the Christian churches of the world". I am also quite sure that Bush did consider what they were saying. I certainly have little doubt that he considered the perspective of the Vatican. I'd also note that in 2002, subsequent to the "Axis of Evil" speech, and after a time in which the Washington Post was already reporting on war plans for Iraq, Bush met personally with the Pope in the Vatican. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
