THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The whole notion seems kind of far fetched to me, but not beyond the realm of possibility. The fact that some are even considering it simply demonstrates how far the United States has fallen down the road to global empire. It's not an empire in a traditional sense but in a geopolitical sense. We are are the World's policeman you see, and it's not because the president of the United States wants to be. It's because he has to be. You see, the dirty little secret is this. The president of the United States does exactly what he is TOLD to do. He is not beholden to the people of America who elected him. No. He has a boss, and it's not us. The only problem is we don't exactly know who that boss is. We can speculate, but we don't know for sure. Yes, G.W. Bush answered to somebody else when he was president, and likewise Barack Obama does the same. Remember that.
(WND) - Could President Obama's decision to sidestep Congress and strike Libya as part of an international coalition put the U.S. on a military collision course with Israel?
While the prospect of American or Western forces confronting Israeli troops may seem remote, one Middle East policy expert is warning the precedent set by Obama in agreeing to target Libya opens the door to other possible United Nations-backed confrontations, including perhaps one day with Israel.
"Particularly concerning is the prospect that what we might call the Gaddafi Precedent will be used in the not-to-distant future to justify and threaten the use of U.S. military forces against an American ally: Israel," writes Frank Gaffney Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy.
read full story here
If the United States ever finds itself in a confrontation with Israel, it's going to cause an interesting situation here at home. First, the Evangelicals will be in an uproar. I'm not talking about just being angry here. I'm talking about absolute hostility of the worst kind. Opposition to the Whitehouse will take on a religious fervor, and this will put the United States government at odds with a large portion of the American public. The potential for government violence against Evangelicals will be high, especially after some crackpots (not necessarily associated with the Evangelicals) try some terrorist stunts in the name of Zionism.
All that aside, where should Catholics stand on this. Having learned my lesson from the Iraq War in 2003, I have come to agree with the pope. All military intervention is generally a bad idea except in clear cases of self defense. So that being said, the Iraq War was a bad idea. The Libyan NATO bombing currently going on is a bad idea. Likewise, any confrontation with Israel is a bad idea as well.
It's bad enough European and American intelligence agencies are intimately involved with the popular uprisings in the Arab world, but to back these uprisings with military force from the West only proves that the West was behind these uprisings in the first place.
As a Catholic and an American I can only advise my nation to pull out of the Arab world completely. Send humanitarian aid to Christians in the region, and otherwise stay out of that hornet's nest. In my opinion, that is the Catholic position. Don't take sides, and help the persecuted Christian minority. Sadly, I seriously doubt anyone in Washington D.C. is going to listen to a practicing Catholic when it comes to foreign policy.
4 comments; post here:
If I may be so bold, in my own view of warfare, one should not place one's soldiers in another's country for any other objective reason then these two.
1: Reinforcing the armed forces of your ally, by their request.
2: Invasion with the intent of open conquest.
Any other approach other then these two will have no stabilizing effects in said country, intervention forces trying to set up a new regime, (one most likely not going be the reinstating of the Monarchy that a majority of the rebels seem to actually want but rather an imposed puppet republic) are technically aiming to achieve something opposed to both these goals.
The whole set up of modern geo-politics is, forgive my language, is retardant to functionality. Why should the US president answer to anyone other then his people realistically? Does such a notion seem reasonable in a rational world?
If enough American voters and politicans are p.o.'ed by Zionist Israel's self centered behaviour and their AICAP and Evangelical supporters fanatical misguilded zeal in this country, I can see Americans turning on the dispensationalist Evangelicals and the Zionist Jews. It might lead to forcing many dispo preachers and their churches to register as foreign agents, since many of them raise money for Israel and accept gifts from the Israeli government. This could happen to manny rabbi's and their synagoges as well, since many of them are defacto foreign agents for Israel too. Yeah. lets adopt the wisdom of Popeye's buddy Wimpy, and let the nutcases in the Middle East fight among themselves until they pound themseles silly. as you said, aid to the Christians yes, militart intervention , no,
Stephen, when you say "turning on" I hope you mean a rejection of the idea of Zionism rather than turning on the Evangelicals and Jews in a physical way. After all Evangelicals and Jews are people and they are entitled to the charity that Christ commands us to show them. We must pray that the idea of Zionism is rejected while those who misguidedly promote it are protected.
That being said I do believe that the return of the Jewish people to the Holy Land does have prophetic significance as it is implied in Biblical prophecy and specifically mentioned in Catholic prophecy. Furthermore, I beleive they will remain in the Holy Land now until the end of time. In fact, Catholic prophecy seems to imply that their number will spread far and wide in the centuries to come, with large Jewish population centers as far east as Iraq and as far west as Egypt. However, Catholic prophecy seems to suggest this happens during the reign of the great Christian monarch after the Chastisement and not under some kind of Zionist regime. So a Jewish presence in that part of the world does seem to be part of God's plan for the end times. It is only the political ideology of Jewish supremecy in that region that disturbs me. Jews and Muslims used to live together in the Holy Land in relative peace until the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. It is that notion of "rebuilding Zion" at the expense of their non-Jewish neighbors that is problematic and anti-Christian -- dare I say Antichrist?
There is no reason why Jews can't live in the Holy Land. There is also no reason why they can't live in Jordan, Syria, Iraq an Egypt. Muslim supremacy (shariah) is also a huge problem, not only for Jews but also for Christians. So don't think I'm taking the Muslims' side in this because I'm not. Both sides are equally wrong in my view, which is why conflict is inevitable and mutual destruction of both sides is assured. Christ is the only solution to this problem, but sadly, neither side (Jewish nor Muslim) will open their minds to that at this time.
Sir Knight, I don't wish evil upon either the Jews or the Dispo's. But history shows whenever the Jews openly show their anti-christian attitudes in a Christian society, they create bitterness and hatred against themselves and their non-Jewish supporters. It's no secret that our anti-christian mass media is controled by Jews. Our financial sector is likewise controled by them. When the Christians who are not blinded by philo-semeticism realize the damage that has been done by these folks, the reaction will be mass outrage. As I already said, I wish no evil on anybody. But the Jewish people need to realize that their arrogent attitudes toward the rest of the world will bring disaster upon themselves as in the past. As long as they hang on to the anti-christ Talmud, the chances of real change in low.
Post a Comment