Different Chief, Same War Drums

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Date: October 7, 2001.

Place: Afghanistan.

Event: American bombs start falling on Afghanistan as a reprisal for the tragic events of Tuesday, September 11, 2001.

Legal justification under the Constitution of the United States of America: None.

Results: Under the patronage of billions upon billions of American taxpayer dollars ($653 billion) and the loss of over 2,200 American lives, a "coalition" of military forces, led by those of the United States of America, succeed in installing a corrupt Bag Man in a Karakul Hat as the Mayor of Kabul, Afghanistan, although they call humor him with the title of "President" of the entire Afghan nation.

Conclusion: A moral, legal, economic and geopolitical disaster.

Date: March 20, 2003.

Place: Iraq:

Event: After eighteen months of covert planning and over twelve months of beating the war drums to rid Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of an alleged stockpile of "weapons of mass destruction," most of which had been supplied to him by the government of the United States of America during the presidential administration of President Ronald Wilson Reagan for use in Iraq-Iran War (Reagan's special Mideast Envoy, a chap named Donald D. Rumsfeld, the former and future United States Secretary of Defense, arranged for the transfer) and had been expended during Hussein's attack on the Kurds following the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, American forces invade Iraq.

Legal justification under the Constitution of the United States of America: None.

Results: A sovereign nation is invaded on false pretenses. American forces overthrow and eventually capture Saddam Hussein, who is later executed by his fellow Iraqis. Iraq's borders were made porous that waves of Iranian-trained "freedom fighters" were able to enter and attack American troops and contractors. Over 100,000 of innocent Iraqis have been killed,as a result of the mayhem that ensued, including "accidental" American bombings and shootings, violence caused by international sectional disputes and attacks by Iranian-trained and financed "freedom fighters. Chaldean Rite Catholics and Orthodox Christians have been attacked with utter impunity and without a word of protest from George Walker Bush or his successor, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro. Over three-fourths of the Catholic population of Iraq has been forced to leave the country. The entire infrastructure of Iraq was destroyed, being rebuilt in such a slipshod manner by American contractors that much of it had to be rebuilt again with American taxpayer dollars.

Conclusion: A moral, legal, economic and geopolitical disaster. (See Longer Than World War II.)

Date: March 19, 2011.

Place: Libya.

Event: As part of the so-called "Arab Spring" that had begun in Tunisia, Mohammedan insurgents in Libya, which had been under the control of Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi since September 1, 1969, began to revel in this north African nation. Gaddafi had controlled Libya by strong arm methods and by using the country's riches derived from the exporting of its crude oil to buy own tribal chieftains in this very fractious land. The entire social fabric that held Libya together was rent asunder by the so-called "Arab Spring" that saw the recrudescence of the primacy of tribal chieftains and cells of al-Qaeda  trained Mohammedans ready to fill in the void. Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro decided to act in conjunction with member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which had been formed in 1949 to protect western Europe and the United States of America and Canada from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, if you will recall, to enforce a "no fly zone" over Libya to prevent Gaddafi's military from striking the rebels and their supporters.

Legal justification under the Constitution of the United States of America: None.

Results: After six months of bombing by NATO forces, Gaddafi, who had fled Tripoli, Libya, after it had fallen to the rebels on August 28, 2011, was wounded while hiding in a drain pipe in a remote province on October 20, 2011. Gaddafi was tortured and killed by his captors. Libya has become divided once again amongst various tribal factions and has become a magnet for various al-Qaeda cells composed of faithful, thoroughly orthodox Mohammedan killers who have pored into the country from country of Mali, which borders Libya's immediate southern neighbor, Chad, to the southwest on the continent of Africa.

And, of course, as has been  much discussed, the administration President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., has engaged in an active cover-up of the fact that the attack that took place upon the American delegation in Benghazi, Libya, on Tuesday, September 11, 2012, was the work of of American-supported and funded insurgents, who took arms out of the delegation that the Obama and his then Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, were going to ship to Syria for use by the Mohammedan rebels there, where a civil war has been raging since March 15, 2011. The blood of four Americans, including the United States Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, is on the hands of these odious pro-aborts and pro-perverts. Few Americans seem to care that repeated requests for Americans who were under siege at the Benghazi compound were denied repeatedly by the geopolitical engineers in Washington, District of Columbia.

Arrogant to the core of her feminist being, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton was so bold as to ask "What difference does it make?" to United States Senator Ronald Johnson (R-Wisconsin), who wanted to know why requests made by Americans at the Benghazi compound for military assistance were denied. Johnson explained in a column in USA Today on Wednesday, January 23, 2013, that the truth about what happened in Benghazi, Libya, on Tuesday, September 11, 2012, matters, especially since lies were told during the midst of a presidential election to provide cover for the re-election of a man who had claimed that "terrorism" had been defeated with the killing of Osama bin Laden on Monday, May 1, 2011:

During her Senate testimony, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that approximately 25 Americans who were on the ground or who witnessed the terrorist attack in Benghazi were immediately evacuated. Secretary Clinton also revealed that neither she, nor her senior people, debriefed or spoke with those people immediately after the attack, or for months afterward, to understand what happened. She stated that she didn't want to be later accused of playing politics.

When I questioned her about the misinformation disseminated for days by the administration, most notably by Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice on Sunday news programs five days after the attack, she asked, "What difference does it make?"

If you don't expeditiously debrief the people who witnessed the attack, how can you understand who initiated it, what weapons they used and who may have been involved? How do you initiate a proper response if you don't know what transpired? How do you move properly to protect other American assets and people in the region? How do you know what failures occurred, so that you can immediately correct them, if you have not debriefed the very victims of those failures? And lastly, how do you tell the truth to the American people if you don't know the facts?

Our diplomatic forces in Benghazi were denied the security they repeatedly requested for many months before Sept. 11, 2012. Secretary Clinton stated that she was not told of those desperate requests in the most dangerous region in the world. As a result, our people in Benghazi were ill-prepared to repel or avoid that attack, and four Americans were murdered. For many days after the event, the American people were also misinformed as to the nature and perpetrators of that attack.

In truth, Benghazi is a failure of leadership — before, during and after the terrorist attack.

To answer Secretary Clinton, it does make a difference. It matters enormously for the American public to know whether or not their president and members of his administration are on top of a crisis and telling them the truth. (Sen. Ron Johnson: Secretary Hillary Clinton, you failed.)

 

The United States of America had no business intervening in Libya.

Period.

Conclusion: A moral, legal, economic and geopolitical disaster.

Date: Current

Place: Egypt.

Event: The destabilization of Egypt as a result of the overthrow of corrupt President Hosni Mubarak and the rise to power and subsequent military overthrow of the "Muslim Brotherhood."

Type of American Involvement: Massive economic and military assistance given to the government of Egypt during the reign of Mohammedan dictator Mohammed Morsi.

Result: Just re-read Francis and Barry's Religion of Peace.

Date: Current.

Place: Syria.

Event: Syrian Civil War that pits Mohammedan insurgents against secular Mohammedan Bashar al-Assad, a client of Russia, who is the son if the late Hafez al-Assad, who was a complete client of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Over 100,000 people have been killed in the past twenty-nine months in this ancient country to which Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ sent Saul of Tarsus to meet Ananias on Straight Street in Damascus after He had converted Saul while he was en route to Damascus to persecuted Catholics there with the ferocity that he had shown in Jerusalem against Saint Stephen the Protomartyr and the country in which Saint Peter reigned as Bishop of Antioch until he left for Rome.

The government of the United States of America is claiming that the Syria military, which is controlled by forces loyal to President Assad, has used chemical weapons against the Mohammedan insurgents, thereby justifying the consideration of unilateral American military action against the Syrian military.

Expectations: In other words, here we go again into another moral, legal, economic and geopolitical disaster.

The Russians and Iranians are saber rattling as the administration of Obama and Biden consider circumventing the so-called "Obama Doctrine," which is based upon avoiding the use of American military force without the permission of the United Masonic Nations Organization in cases of "humanitarian need," and reverting back to the former "Bush Doctrine" of acting in a unilateral manner, although none of the hypocrites in the Obama-Biden administration, including Secretary of Defense John F. Kerry, a pro-abortion, pro-perversion Catholic, and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, a Republican who was a critic of the Iraq War during the presidency of George Walker Bush, are dare going to say that they are actually reverting back to the "Bush Doctrine."

No matter who is in the White House, you see, "America's only ally in the Middle East," the Zionist State of Israel, calls the shots. In this instance, of course, Assad must go even though administration claim that "regime change" is not their "focus."

Who cares if the United States of America has no national security interests at stake in Syria?

Who cares if the Syrian becomes yet another Mohammedan stronghold?

The Israelis want Bashar al-Assad gone, and out he will go to join the ranks of Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Hosni Mubarak, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia and Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen as former leaders replaced by faithful, orthodox Mohammedan killers. Yes, the Israelis simply want Bashar al-Assad gone as they fear he will use his alleged stockpile of chemical weapons upon them:

 

Israel braced for fallout from a potential U.S. attack in Syria, as civilians flooded gas mask distribution centers and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held special consultations with defense chiefs and cabinet ministers on the Syria war at its border.

As Western governments step up accusations against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad of using chemical weapons against his opponents last week in a Damascus suburb, Israelis grow increasingly anxious that the Syrian leader could target the Jewish state in an act of desperation.

The nervousness comes despite assessments by Israeli security experts that the prospect of Syria retaliating against Israel in the wake of any U.S. attack is low because Mr. Assad is fully engaged in battling rebels.

A spokeswoman for the Israel postal service, which handles gas mask distribution on behalf of the Israel Defense Force's Home Front Command, said that distribution and telephone orders on Tuesday grew threefold from last week. Telephone hotline inquiries about gas masks grew fourfold.

In a scene reminiscent of atmosphere in Israel before the first and second Iraq wars, a group of dozens of Israelis waited under a sweltering afternoon sun on Tuesday at a Tel Aviv post office to get the military-issued gas masks.

"[Assad] dumped chemical weapons on his own people, so what's going to prevent him from dumping them on us?'' said Amir Cohen, a 66-year-old tour group operator outside the post office. "We've been through it all before—the gas masks, the sealed rooms. We have to take it seriously.''

Israel has sought throughout the Syrian civil war to remain neutral and avoid any perception of intervention. But on Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seemed to call for an intervention in Syria when he joined Western leaders in accusing Damascus of using chemical weapons and said "it must not continue.'' (Israel Worries Rise Over a Syrian Attack.)

Sure, we have been down this "weapons of mass destruction" deception before, which raises the question as to who precisely used chemical weapons in Syria, the regime or the Mohammedan insurgents as it is both reasonable and prudent to proceed with the belief that nothing American policy-makers say in pursuit of the Trotskyite principle of endless war to secure the power of the state over its citizens and to distract them them statist economic policies that are designed to impoverish everyone equally as all are made wards of the civil state.

A report in the French newspaper, Le Figaro, the government of the United States of America has already positioned commandos on the ground in Syria. An Israeli newspaper article reported on the information contained in the story that appeared in Le Figaro:

American, Israeli and Jordanian commandos are currently deployed on the ground in Syria, training and operating alongside the rebels trying to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad, the French daily Le Figaro reported on Saturday. The report has not been corroborated by any official American, Israeli or Jordanian source.

The newspaper said that according to its sources, the joint operation, led by the CIA, began on Aug. 17, when the commandos joined some 300 Syrian rebels near the southwestern city of Deraa, just north of Syria's border with Jordan. A second group of commandos reportedly crossed into Syria two days later, en route to training camps set up by the Free Syrian Army near the Jordanian-Syrian border.

According to military sources quoted by Le Figaro, the U.S. is very reluctant to send ground troops to Syria and is also hesitant about arming the rebels, as some groups are affiliated with radical Islamists, and would prefer to train opposition fighters to hold their own.

French experts quoted by the newspaper said that Washington was interested in created a buffer zone in Syria, free of Assad's forces, while also enforcing a no-fly zone over Syria, which would give the Free Syrian Army an advantage in their efforts to remove Assad from power.

Enforcing the future no-fly zone is why the U.S. deployed Patriot missile batteries and F-16s in Jordan, in June, the report alleged.

Le Figaro further claimed that Assad's anxiety over what he perceives as the West's ongoing interference in Syria is what triggered last Wednesday's chemical attack. A Syrian government spokesman said in July that the regime would not use its unconventional weapons unless the West intervened is Syria's internal affairs.

According to the report, since U.S. President Barack Obama warned in August 2012 that the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime would constitute a "red line" that would mandate an international response, the Syrian president has ordered his military to use them against rebel forces 13 times. (Israeli, US and Jordanian commandos operating in Syria.)

 

Although I am not an alarmist by nature, there does appear to be a serious possibility that the Russians might make an American-led assault the catalyst for a larger conflict, perhaps on the world stage, although to conclude, as some who are professional alarmists despite being wrong almost all of the time about their predicted wars and catastrophes that never come to pass, that an actual exchange of nuclear warheads between Russia and the United States of America is not yet supportable.

Is such a nuclear conflict a possibility?

Maybe, which is just one more reason to take seriously the matter of one's salvation by staying in a state of Sanctifying Grace as there will come a time, whether now or later, when the wrath of God is going to be unleashed on the supposedly "civilized" nations of the Western world, including the United States of America, for its crimes of blasphemy, idolatry, immodesty, indecency, murder of the innocent, both at home and abroad, and for its use of the means of mass communication to propagate lies about "news" in order to increase the power of those in power so that they can play Him, God, and determine the fate of men and of those nations whose actions are no more heinous than their own.

No, it does not matter who the the "big chief" in Washington, District of Columbia, is at any given time. It does not matter if it is the American exceptionalist George Walker Bush or the globalist apologist for all things Mohammedan, Barack Hussein Obama/Barack Hussein/Barry Soetoro. War is always the ready answer for all international disputes no matter who is in power, whether it be those in the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist "right" or in the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist "left."

Indeed, as I noted five years ago, United States Senator John Sidney McCain III (R-Arizona) never met an international conflict to which he has not desired to send American military troops. He even urged Obama/Soetoro in 2011 to send American ground forces into Libya and has been, along with his Bobbsey twin neoconservative war hawk, United States Senator Lindsay Graham (R-South Carolina), a thirty-third degree Freemason, by the way, in the grand tradition of the man he replaced in the United States Senate, the late United States Senator James Strom Thurmond (D-Dixiecrat-D-R, South Carolina), a supporter of American involvement in Syria long before the American allegation that the Assad regime had authorized the use of chemical weapons against Mohammedan insurgents.

[This all prompted me to joke with Sharon at 1:00 a.m., yesterday morning, when I decided to stop work on this current article, that McCain would have provoked World War III in his first term, imagining a scenario in which a "President" McCain, having sought refuge in a presidential bunker deep inside of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado, was asking what nations remained to be attacked following a nuclear conflagration.

[In this imaginary scenario, I said that a presidential aide would say, "The only country yet remaining is Lesotho."

["Well," McCain might have responded, "do they have weapons of mass destruction?"

["Spears, Mister President. Spears."

["They have spears!" McCain might scream. "Let's go after them! Our battle cry will be 'Free Lesotho, Free Lesotho.' We'll protect the ports of Lesotho, that's what we'll do. We'll get rid of the Islamofacists there. You bet we will."

["Mister President, Lesotho has a population that is ninety percent Christian, divided equally between Catholics and Protestants, each of which has forty-five percent of the population.

["There's gotta be a Qaeda cell there, right? Come on, we can always say that the Christians are closet Islamofacists, right? Let's just go get them, free 'em and protect the ports of Lesotho."

"Mister President," the aide would retort, "there are no ports in Lesotho. It is a totally landlocked country inside of the former Republic of South Africa.

["I don't care. We'll free those people if it's the last thing we do. What do we have left to attack them?"

["Boulders,"Mister President. Boulders." "All right, get those boulders over there. It'll be boulders against spears. We should have an easy fight on our hands. Go get 'em!" 

[This loses a lot in the written word. It's much better done in person with my New Yorker's style of mock rage and urgency.]

Contributing also to the madness of this moment is none other than Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, who is still calling for "dialogue" among the warring parties in Syria:

With great suffering and concern I continue to follow the situation in Syria. The increase in violence in a war between brothers, with the proliferation of massacres and atrocities, that we all have been able to see in the terrible images of these days, leads me once again raise my voice that the clatter of arms may cease. It is not confrontation that offers hope to resolve problems, but rather the ability to meet and dialogue.

From the bottom of my heart, I would like to express my closeness in prayer and solidarity with all the victims of this conflict, with all those who suffer, especially children, and I invite you to keep alive the hope of peace. I appeal to the international community to be more sensitive to this tragic situation and make every effort to help the beloved Syrian nation find a solution to a war that sows destruction and death.

All together let us pray. . . All together let us pray to Our Lady, Queen of Peace:

Mary, Queen of Peace, pray for us! (Francis the Delusional renews call for peace in Syria.)

 

This delusional apostate has no understanding that the combatants in Syria have immortal souls that are held captive to the devil by means of Original Sin. Their passions have been inflamed, resorting to what Mohammedans do best: use killing as the means to "resolve" various problems. They do not care if the ten percent of the Syrian population that is Christian gets decimated in Syria as has happened in Iraq and Egypt. They care about total victory. Mohammedans do not care for "dialogue" to end conflicts, and neither do the Zionists for that matter.

Mind you, Catholics are not pacifists. Adhering to the principles of the Just War Theory that were outlined originally by Saint Augustine of Hippo, whose feast we celebrate today, Wednesday, August 28, 2013, and later refined by Saint Thomas Aquinas and have been treated at various times since then by various Catholic theologians, Catholics do indeed believe that there circumstances when the use of force is justified.

The precepts of the Just War Theory demand that military force be used as a last resort in situations when there is a real and legitimate threat to a nation's security and/or in situations where justice has been so disturbed internationally that the only recourse to defend one's nation and/or to restore justice is military force.

Here is what I wrote in October of 2002 about the lack of any justification under the precepts of the Just War Theory for a possible American invasion of Iraq as the then American tribal chieftain, George Walker Bush, and his fellow neoconservative warriors (Richard Bruce Cheney, Donald D. Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, et al.) were banging the tom-toms to rid the world of "weapons of mass destruction" that they said existed in the country of Iraq:

1) There must be a real and imminent threat posed by an aggressor to a nation's security (or to the security of a neighboring nation unable to defend itself). No such threat exists from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The Bush administration has provided zero evidence about the stockpile of chemical weapons Hussein is said to have. Even if he is trying to build nuclear weapons, he has no way of delivering them to the continental United States. Communist China and North Korea provide a more imminent and realistic threat against the security of the United States than Saddam Hussein. Saudi Arabia and Yemen are proven breeding grounds for Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda networks. The Saudi government has never cooperated with the United States to track down those who bombed a residence housing American military personnel in 1996. Why is there no talk of attacking Saudi Arabia or Yemen?

There is only the slimmest, anecdotal evidence linking Hussein to Osama bin Laden and the other al-Qaeda terrorists. It is wishful thinking on the part of Bush and his advisers to want to project such a link onto global public opinion as being so when it is not. President Bush's October 7, 2002, address did not answer these questions. The continued assertion that something is so does not make it so, no matter whether the public has been convinced to believe in such positivistic assertions.

A retired Marine lieutenant general tells me that I am wrong, that he has seen information he cannot divulge that proves Hussein is a real and imminent threat to this country. If the threat has been so imminent throughout the course of the last few months, however, why has the administration waited until after the midterm Congressional elections and until after the resolution adopted by the Security Council of the United Nations to take action. I don't get it. If a threat is truly real and imminent, then it requires an imminent response.

Doesn't Hussein pose a threat to his own people? Maybe. However, as will be demonstrated in my review of the condition of proportionality, the level of the threat Hussein poses to his own people does not justify the sort of military response under consideration by the United States. Indeed, it is possible we will kill, inadvertently, you understand, more innocent people in our crusade to oust Hussein that he has killed since he assumed power in 1969. And it is not at all clear that there is anyone in Iraq poised to succeed him without a real power struggle. How is "democracy" imposed on a country which has no experience of the wonders provided by such modern enlightenment? See Wilson, W., above.

Insofar as weapons of mass destruction are concerned, we should be more concerned about the weapons of mass destruction found in our own nation: the scissors, the scalpel, the suction machine, the saline solution bottle, the interuterine device, the birth control pill, the abortion pill, the morning after pill, and the hands of so-called physicians, trained to "murder mankind in the womb," as the pagan playwright Juvenal noted in the Second Century A.D. We kill far more people every year by means of abortion, both chemical and surgical than Saddam Hussein has killed in all of the thirty-three years of his repressive rule in Iraq. We are more of a threat to innocent life than Saddam Hussein will ever be.

2) All peaceful means to avoid armed hostilities must be exhausted. Yes, Saddam Hussein has not lived up to the terms of the post-Gulf War United Nations resolutions. He has not permitted arms inspectors to have full and unfettered access to places where nuclear and/or chemical weapons are being manufactured and warehoused. Is the next step from this to be all out war, though? There are means to deal with Hussein, including an occasional well-placed military strike upon targets that have been proven beyond question to contain weapons of mass destruction, short of full-scale war. To jump from the failure of a foreign leader, who poses no direct and immediate threat to the security of the United States, to permit weapons inspections to full-scale war is to make a jump over reason itself. If Hussein is a threat to regional peace in the Middle East, he is Israel's problem to deal with ,not ours. How long must the United States serve, as Patrick J. Buchanan noted so ably over a decade ago, the "Amen" corner for Israel, putting members of our armed forces needlessly at risk to do Israel's bidding?

3) The goals must be well-defined and have a reasonable chance of being realized. In other words, there must be a reasonable chance for success in the pursuit of narrowly defined goals. Goals are to be defined narrowly so as to limit the harm caused by a needlessly protracted war, yes, even when a nation is prosecuting a just cause.

If President Bush believes that one of the goals of a war against Iraq is to make the United States "more secure," then anyone with a modicum of common sense would have to come to the conclusion that George W. Bush is badly misled. However, even if the United States can remove Saddam Hussein from power after destroying, once again, the infrastructure of Iraq and killing thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis, this will do nothing to make the United States more secure. Indeed, scores of suicide bombers will be motivated to avenge our military action. American military action against Iraq at this time makes this country far less secure-and gives the Federal government the excuse it desires to put further restrictions on speech and movement within our own borders.

It is not clear what specific levels of military force will be necessary to remove Hussein from power. He has bunkers throughout the country. He has more doubles than the late Francisco Franco. Yes, the United States has the brute force to bomb Iraq into the stone age, as the late Air Force General Curtis LeMay said what we should do to North Vietnam when he was introduced as George Wallace's Vice Presidential running-mate on the American Independent Party ticket in 1968. (Lest Howard Phillips pick me apart on that one, I do know that Wallace had at least one other running-mate listed in some states. The rules for ballot access required him to list a candidate in some states before LeMay agreed to run with him. Howard will know the name.) If the use of said force does force the removal of Hussein, either by death or exile, then Iraq will be dependent upon the largesse of American taxpayers for decades so that it can be rebuilt. And there is no guarantee that someone worse than Hussein might rise to the surface in a few years to topple an American puppet regime, mobilizing a virtual guerilla jihad against American forces stationed there for years on end. What kind of success is that?

4) The good end being sought must not be outweighed by the foreseen evil to be done. This is known as the Catholic principle of proportionality, which states that a good end can be rendered unjust to pursue if a judgment is made that the amount of the foreseen evil to be done in the prosecution of a just war will cause greater evils than the one the war is being waged to eradicate. This is different than the heresy of proportionalism (heretics use Catholic sounding phrases so as to connect themselves in the minds of Catholics as understanding Catholic principles), which asserts that a preponderance of "good intentions" and of the "relative exigencies of the moment" can make a moral act that is naturally evil capable of being pursued justly on the part of one who believes the weight of the evidence in his case justifies a subjective violation of an objective moral law to do good. Thus, proportionalism, which has been propounded by Father Richard McCormick, S.J. (not to be confused with the priest from the Archdiocese of Hartford, Connecticut, who foments dissent at the University of Notre Dame and in his nationally syndicated columns, Father Richard McBrien), can be used by a woman to justify the killing of her preborn child. After all, more good will be done in her life by killing the child than if she permitted him to interfere unduly with her life's goals.

The principle of proportionality contained in the Just War Theory requires a very careful and prayerful prudential judgment to be made by a policy-maker prior to the advent of war. This is not a matter of infallibly received truth. This is a judgment that has got to be based on a clear-headed and most realistic assessment of the harm that will be caused by the onset of armed hostilities. The impending war with Iraq will cause far more harm than good, as I outlined in my previous section. Rather than making us more secure, we will be less secure. We will contribute to the furtherance of anti-American sentiment around the world, and will contribute to deteriorating, not improving, the situation within Iraq itself. How many truly innocent Iraqis must die to liberate their country of a man who is far less of a threat to them on a daily basis than American "freedom" is to unborn children every day in this country?

Mind you, I am an American. I love my country. However, as I have noted over and over again, love is an act of the will. To love another is to will his good. We must love others as God loves us. God's love for us is an act of His Divine Will to provide us with all of the supernatural helps we need to save our souls so that we will be with Him for all eternity in Heaven. Our love for others is premised upon doing or saying nothing that will in any way interfere with the salvation of their immortal souls. And our love of our nation must seek her good, the ultimate expression of which is her subordination to the Social Kingship of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as it is exercised by Holy Mother Church. Pope Pius XI noted this very clearly in Quas Primas in 1925. This is Catholic doctrine from which no one can dissent legitimately (including popes themselves, as this is the constant teaching of the Church which is beyond the ability of any pope to change).

There is enough, though, of nationalism left in my bones to say, "Ah, forget the Just War Theory. Saddam Hussein is a despot. The Iraqis are all infidels. Let's just blast 'em. They deserve it." However, that is not a sentiment in concert with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. Anyone, infidel or not, guilty of crimes against innocent human life must be brought to justice. A nation is not justified to engage in the use of massive military force to remove one person in a crusade for the imposition of "ideals" that themselves undermine the binding precepts of God's laws and His sovereignty over men and their nations. And it is worth noting that Iraq is a fairly secular nation in the Islamic world, and there are more than a handful of Catholics living in Iraq who trace their Catholic ancestry back to the Apostolic era. Hussein might be a despot. An application of the principle of proportionality to our imminent war with Iraq reveals once again that said war is not justified.

There is also the real possibility that war with Iraq could escalate rather quickly in the Middle East. This is not a possibility that it is out of the question.

5) As far as is possible, noncombatants must never be deliberately targeted in warfare. The United States has a mixed record when it comes to the realization of this part of the Just War Theory. Our military forces have tried to use remarkable restraint in many instances. Other times, however, they have not. William Tecumseh Sherman used raw terrorism against civilian population centers as he cut a swath of fiery destruction from the Atlantic Ocean to Atlanta during the War between the States. As noted earlier, we aided bloodthirsty revolutionaries in Mexico. Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki (the latter two of which were known to contain the highest concentrations of Catholics in Japan) were bombed during World War II. Something less than laser precision caused thousands of civilian casualties during the Gulf War and during our continued bombing in Afghanistan, which commenced on October 7, 2001. It is unclear what steps would be taken to protect noncombatants in a war with Iraq, especially in light of the fact that Hussein is not above placing forcibly his own citizens in military areas to use them as a shield against bombing. Presuming that best efforts would be made by the United States military, the injustice of the cause itself, though, renders the inadvertent bombing of civilians in a war with Iraq beyond the pale.

6) A just cessation to hostilities must be realized as soon as possible. Once again, the record of the United States in this regard is very mixed. The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was done so as to force an unconditional surrender from Japan, something that the Soviets insisted on in the Potsdam Conference as their condition for entering the war against Japan (so that they could recover claims lost in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.) Japan was willing to surrender conditionally. Those who are convinced of their absolute moral and racial superiority over others, though, cannot consider ending hostilities even if it is possible to conclude a peace that is just without having humiliated one's enemies. Not even considering in this reflection that war with Iraq could escalate regionally and globally quite quickly, the United States would likely continue hostilities until Saddam Hussein's body is found (and proved to be his by means of DNA testing) or he surrenders and is brought to a show trial in the United States. Once again, the United States might prolong a war by seeking an unconditional surrender.

President George W. Bush lives, as so many people have noted, in a Manichean world. The United States is "good." Her enemies are "bad." We are the embodiment of virtue and truth and goodness and freedom and democracy. Others are the embodiment of all that is evil. The President has the temerity to say that we value "precious life" while castigating those foreign leaders who do not. What he doesn't realize is if we lived in a Catholic world, an alliance of Catholic leaders would be asking themselves if the conditions existed to invade the United States and to overthrow a regime that permits the killing of innocent human beings under cover of law, permits the manufacture, sale, and exportation of contraceptives both domestically and internationally, exports all manner of pornographic entertainment around the world to make corporate executives (who donate mightily to both Democrat and Republican campaign war chests), and which undermines the stability of families by funding sterilization abroad and promoting special rights for sodomites at home. This nation has put to death over 40 million innocent unborn children under cover of law by surgical abortion alone in the past thirty years. The government of this nation poses a far more imminent threat to its own citizens than Saddam Hussein does to his, and we do so sanctimoniously under the guise our being a peaceful and just and freedom-loving nation.

No, I am not calling for any nation to invade the United States. Even if an alliance of Catholic nations did exist in the world today, which it does not, the just cause of seeking to end violence sanctioned by the American government upon innocent life would not be accomplished by military action from those nations or from a revolt of American citizens. The sheer force of the American regime would make a successful prosecution of such an enterprise next to impossible in human terms, thereby failing to fulfill condition three The goal must be well-defined and have a reasonable chance of being realized listed in Part One in this Just War Theory essay.

What I am pointing out, however, is that we are the embodiments of virtue no more than Iraq under its present leadership is the embodiment of Bush's "axis of evil." No causus belli exists for the United States to commence hostilities with Iraq at this time. Oh, the war might make Americans feel good for a time. But it will not make us more secure. Others will disagree with this assessment. However, history is not on their side.

As citizens, we have the obligation at all times for the safety and well-being of our troops. If war does break out, then we will pray for their mission to be successful and for the war to be short-lived. It is a fundamental requirement of the natural law to pray for the safety of those charged with the protection of a country's borders. We want every single one of our service personnel to come back home safely to their families, and we want innocent civilians kept from harm's way in Iraq. I will shed no tears if Saddam Hussein is deposed. The deposing of Saddam Hussein, however, will not make this country or the world one bit more secure than it was before. And it will not produce regional peace and security in the Middle East.

What is my alternative to making the United States more secure apart from ending baby-killing under cover of law? Well, that "apart" is a big part of making us more secure. Additionally, however, we can follow the advice of Patrick Buchanan, who has been telling us for some time how we have made ourselves less secure by our lax, politically motivated immigration laws - and by the failure of presidential administrations, both Republican and Democrat, to enforce the deportation of those persons who are here illegally and who pose a real and serious threat to the security of the citizens of this nation within our very boundaries. President Bush lacks the political will to do this as it is not popular, especially with Islamic pressure groups. The plain fact of the matter is, however, that most of the September 11 terrorists would not have been able to execute their schemes of mass murder as easily as they did if they had been denied student visas and/or deported for coming from countries hostile to the interests of the United States of America. Islam of its nature is not, as President Bush as simplistically and positivistically asserted, a "religion of peace." Its adherents should not be permitted to enter this country as anything other than temporary visitors whose deportation is immediate if they should overstay their visas. It is as though we have learned nothing from the Battle of Lepanto in 1571 and from the Battle at the Gates of Vienna in 1683. There are slews of Mohammedan sleeper agents in this country precisely because one presidential administration after another has played politics with the security of our nation by not seeking to buck the forces of political correctness. A firmly enforced immigration policy will make us far more secure than all of the bombs dropped on either Afghanistan or Iraq.

War is sometimes justified. Sometimes it is not. However, even a just war can never be truly successful unless we realize the root of all wars is found in a wounded human nature caused by Original Sin and our own Actual Sins. As long as people and their nations make war upon God and His Holy Church by means of their unrepentant sins, then all use of armed hostilities, no matter the justice of the cause at issue, will fail to provide any true security for any nation or for the world.

The United States of America can never be made secure as long as she permits the American holocaust to continue. Her claims to be an instrument of justice in the world are eroded entirely when she will not take even basic steps to stop the shedding of innocent blood in her midst.

As nasty a man as Saddam Hussein might be, as important as it is to bring those who are directly tied to al Qaeda to justice, we have to understand that the real enemies of American security are within our own borders. They are the people, both citizens and office holders, who support the destruction of innocent human life and who make war upon the rights of Christ's true Church to direct matters of fundamental justice for the realization of the common good here and the fullest measure of happiness imaginable in eternity.

There are many, if not most, Americans who will disagree with this analysis. There are some who might even put my patriotism into question, thinking that I am giving aid and comfort to the likes of former Vice President Albert Arnold Gore and Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and the scores of professional leftists who want to do nothing domestically or internationally to secure the safety of American citizens. I am not. As a Catholic, I am simply making a non-infallible prudential application of the standards of the Just War Theory, especially in light of how we are one of the most terroristic nations on earth. (From the printed pages of Christ or Chaos. Also found online at the Daily Catholic website: The Real Enemies Are Within, part one and The Enemies Are Within, part two.)

 

There is no moral justification for the government of the United States of America to involve itself in Syria, no less to use what is being called "shock and awe light" (see How Would a Military Strike Against Syria Unfold?), I kid you not, to dissuade Bashar al-Assad from employing "more" chemical weapons against the insurgents, which presumed that he authorized their use a few days ago now. How many more Americans need to be put in harm's way needlessly in matters that do not pertain to American national security and that are dictated by the exigencies of the State of Israel and by Caesar Obama's desire to make the world safe for Mohammedanism (I know that those are mutually exclusive goals; consistency and logic are not the strong suit of statists or, of course, of conciliarists).

Consider the despair of a wounded Iraq War veteran, who wrote a note explaining why he was taking his life and thus ending the physical and emotional suffering he was enduring as a result of his first deployment in Iraq:

 

I really have been trying to hang on, for more than a decade now. Each day has been a testament to the extent to which I cared, suffering unspeakable horror as quietly as possible so that you could feel as though I was still here for you. In truth, I was nothing more than a prop, filling space so that my absence would not be noted. In truth, I have already been absent for a long, long time.

My body has become nothing but a cage, a source of pain and constant problems. The illness I have has caused me pain that not even the strongest medicines could dull, and there is no cure. All day, every day a screaming agony in every nerve ending in my body. It is nothing short of torture. My mind is a wasteland, filled with visions of incredible horror, unceasing depression, and crippling anxiety, even with all of the medications the doctors dare give. Simple things that everyone else takes for granted are nearly impossible for me. I can not laugh or cry. I can barely leave the house. I derive no pleasure from any activity. Everything simply comes down to passing time until I can sleep again. Now, to sleep forever seems to be the most merciful thing.

You must not blame yourself. The simple truth is this: During my first deployment, I was made to participate in things, the enormity of which is hard to describe. War crimes, crimes against humanity. Though I did not participate willingly, and made what I thought was my best effort to stop these events, there are some things that a person simply can not come back from. I take some pride in that, actually, as to move on in life after being part of such a thing would be the mark of a sociopath in my mind. These things go far beyond what most are even aware of.

To force me to do these things and then participate in the ensuing coverup is more than any government has the right to demand. Then, the same government has turned around and abandoned me. They offer no help, and actively block the pursuit of gaining outside help via their corrupt agents at the DEA. Any blame rests with them.

Beyond that, there are the host of physical illnesses that have struck me down again and again, for which they also offer no help. There might be some progress by now if they had not spent nearly twenty years denying the illness that I and so many others were exposed to. Further complicating matters is the repeated and severe brain injuries to which I was subjected, which they also seem to be expending no effort into understanding. What is known is that each of these should have been cause enough for immediate medical attention, which was not rendered.

Lastly, the DEA enters the picture again as they have now managed to create such a culture of fear in the medical community that doctors are too scared to even take the necessary steps to control the symptoms. All under the guise of a completely manufactured “overprescribing epidemic,” which stands in stark relief to all of the legitimate research, which shows the opposite to be true. Perhaps, with the right medication at the right doses, I could have bought a couple of decent years, but even that is too much to ask from a regime built upon the idea that suffering is noble and relief is just for the weak.

However, when the challenges facing a person are already so great that all but the weakest would give up, these extra factors are enough to push a person over the edge.

Is it any wonder then that the latest figures show 22 veterans killing themselves each day? That is more veterans than children killed at Sandy Hook, every single day. Where are the huge policy initiatives? Why isn’t the president standing with those families at the state of the union? Perhaps because we were not killed by a single lunatic, but rather by his own system of dehumanization, neglect, and indifference.

It leaves us to where all we have to look forward to is constant pain, misery, poverty, and dishonor. I assure you that, when the numbers do finally drop, it will merely be because those who were pushed the farthest are all already dead.

And for what? Bush’s religious lunacy? Cheney’s ever growing fortune and that of his corporate friends? Is this what we destroy lives for

Since then, I have tried everything to fill the void. I tried to move into a position of greater power and influence to try and right some of the wrongs. I deployed again, where I put a huge emphasis on saving lives. The fact of the matter, though, is that any new lives saved do not replace those who were murdered. It is an exercise in futility.

Then, I pursued replacing destruction with creation. For a time this provided a distraction, but it could not last. The fact is that any kind of ordinary life is an insult to those who died at my hand. How can I possibly go around like everyone else while the widows and orphans I created continue to struggle? If they could see me sitting here in suburbia, in my comfortable home working on some music project they would be outraged, and rightfully so. (“I Am Sorry That It Has Come to This”: A Soldier’s Last Words.)

 

This poor young man had never been taught to love the Holy Cross of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and to offer up to the Throne of the Most Blessed Trinity all of the sorrow and pain he experienced as Our Lord's consecrated slave through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. He had never been taught the example of Saint Mary Magdalene or Saint Augustine or Saint Mary of Egypt or Saint Camillus de Lellis, that those who sinned much can become great saints.

Which clergyman in the counterfeit church of conciliarism sought to convert this young man to the Catholic Faith? Ah, that sort of thing did not sit well with Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II or Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, and does not sit well with Francis the Delusional in Rome at this time. Thus it is that those sent to serve in combat in needless wars, men and women (who should not be in the first place, of course--see Dressed To Kill) who are already victims of the Protestant Revolution, the naturalism of Judeo-Masonry and of conciliarism's "reconciliation" with these falsehoods, must face death or disabling injuries without supernatural helps and without the Supernatural Virtue of Hope. 

How any Catholic could have justified the Iraq War on the delusional grounds that it was going to deal a death-knell to Mohammedan attacks against the United States of America when it is the Mohammedans who have profited from this needless war is mind-boggling as the events that actually occurred following the American invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 were easy to predict with certainty.

If the forces of the United States of America launch an immoral, needless and unconstitutional "shock and awe light" attack upon Syria, then any possible escalation resulting from it would be simply an escalation of the chastisement that we are experiencing at this time, a sort of chastisement that might bring men to their knees and beg for forgiveness as they quit sins. Might.

Our Lady will see us safely through this chastisement. All we have to do is to keep close to her as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit and offer unto her Divine Son, Christ the King, the sufferings of this present moment as we pray for the fulfillment of Heaven's Peace Plan, her own Fatima Message, by a true pope with all of the world's true bishops.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

 

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Augustine of Hippo, pray for us.

Saint Hermes, pray for us.