Bush Didn't Listen to the Pope.

illuminati · Post by **illuminati** » Sun Aug 15, 2004 9:13 am

environment 100 wrote: Before invading Iraq, the leader of the Catholic world sent a strong

message to Bush.

"Go into Iraq and You Go Without God". Here is the link from

a British newspaper: http://web.sbu.edu/fcsc/pope_to_bush.htm

What do you think about this?

Excellent question! This brings up a boatload of questions. Let's look at a couple of things:

1. Bush is a Methodist. Technically he does not acknowledge the Pope in Rome as his spiritual leader.

2. The Pope views President Bush as the political leader of American Catholics. Therefore, the Pope believes that Bush needs to listen to him.

"God is a neutral observer in the affairs of man," the Pope said.

What? This quote shocked me. Not my impression from the works in the Bible. How then, does the GOOD stand up against EVIL?

It also goes against what most people are tought on an individual basis.

Question: Where did ROME stand on the U.S. entering World War I? World War II?

If I remember correctly, The Vatican seemed fairly absent during the World Conflicts in the first half of the 20th century.

Last question: Is this article from a reliable source? Doesn't quite jive.

Pearl Harbor · Post by **Pearl Harbor** » Sun Aug 15, 2004 10:47 am

illuminati wrote: Excellent question! This brings up a boatload of questions.

If I remember correctly, The Vatican seemed fairly absent during the World Conflicts in the first half of the 20th century.

Last question: Is this article from a reliable source? Doesn't quite jive.

Your memory serves you well. Unfortunate but true. Churchill considered the Pope: "Hitler's Pope."

I know that as of 1940, the British were very frustrated with the Pope's refusal to speak out against the fascist powers. For those of you who are unfamiliar with who this was. It included: Germany, Italy, and Japan.

Some argue that the Pope was in an impossible situation. I am sure there is more to the story and maybe some reasons why the Papacy did not speak out. This issue added to a disappointing period of our lives.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Sun Aug 15, 2004 10:49 pm

Pearl Harbor wrote: Your memory serves you well. Unfortunate but true. Churchill considered the Pope: "Hitler's Pope."

I know that as of 1940, the British were very frustrated with the Pope's refusal to speak out against the fascist powers. For those of you who are unfamiliar with who this was. It included: Germany, Italy, and Japan.

Some argue that the Pope was in an impossible situation. I am sure there is more to the story and maybe some reasons why the Papacy did not speak out. This issue added to a disappointing period of our lives.

Talk of several items:

1. Keeping the Vatican intact much better for the Allies than having it destroyed. Lots of diplomatic intrigue went on because of this - The Vatican was a main conduit for pro-Allied intelligence.

2. The Allies would send "damning" type correspondence to the Vatican as a reverse-psychology type of ploy. (All of the correspondence was monitored and read by the Axis Evil Doers.) They wanted the Axis Powers to think that the Allies were pissed at the Vatican. Kept the heat off Vatican City.

-----------------------

That being said: No excuse for the deafening quiet when the Jews were being harassed and "relocated" starting in the 30's.

My bet is this: If the papacy had thrown a fit early on it could have thrown a cog into the wheels of Mussolini's and Hitler's socialist parties at a very critical juncture.

But we'll never know.

Serenity · Post by **Serenity** » Sat Aug 21, 2004 1:33 am

It's one thing for the Pope to advise bush not to go to war, but that's like your roomate telling you not to go to work, when the rent's due.

without bush goin to war to secure the oil interests, what'd happen to the economy? I guess that's where Ideologies collide,eh?

Personally, (i'm no advocate of Bush) but if i was Dubya, i'd of paid little attention to the pope myself.

I've nothing against religion or catholics, in this case......but IMO the pope is little more then the head of the worlds' oldest & best franchise system.

He's just another guy in business and his interests did not benefit the boys in the oil biz.

It's all very well to bring god into the issue, but Oil is the world's merri-go-round and without it, those same followers of the faith they love so much, would suffer immense change of their lifestyles. What would they have to say to that?

how many people are that devoted , they'd walk to church?

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Sat Aug 21, 2004 8:30 am

Agreed. I find it amazing the amount of people who belittle our need for oil. "Oh, we'll find another source. We really don't need all that much oil today. We'll get by!"

Holy Smokes! Everything would come to a grinding halt. Worse yet, no food! Most people would lose their running water. (Pump plants.) No gas! (Can't pump gas without electricity.) No products being produced.

Our "Just In Time" inventories would be depleted within a day or days. Ever shopped at a grocery store that had a missed delivery by its truck? Sobering.

Serenity wrote: It's one thing for the Pope to advise bush not to go to war, but that's like your roomate telling you not to go to work, when the rent's due.

without bush goin to war to secure the oil interests, what'd happen to the economy? I guess that's where Ideologies collide,eh?

Personally, (i'm no advocate of Bush) but if i was Dubya, i'd of paid little attention to the pope myself.

I've nothing against religion or catholics, in this case......but IMO the pope is little more then the head of the worlds' oldest & best franchise system.

He's just another guy in business and his interests did not benefit the boys in the oil biz.

It's all very well to bring god into the issue, but Oil is the world's merri-go-round and without it, those same followers of the faith they love so much, would suffer immense change of their lifestyles. What would they have to say to that?

how many people are that devoted , they'd walk to church?

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Sat Aug 21, 2004 8:33 am

I need to correct this. The whole World War II fiasco should have been prevented. It's crazy to point the blame at the Papacy. Most of Europe had its eyes closed while Hitler was building an arsenal.

The U.S. was firmly in isolationist mode and wanted the Continent to take care of themselves.

Tombstone wrote:

That being said: No excuse for the deafening quiet when the Jews were being harassed and "relocated" starting in the 30's.

My bet is this: If the papacy had thrown a fit early on it could have thrown a cog into the wheels of Mussolini's and Hitler's socialist parties at a very critical juncture.

But we'll never know.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:39 am

environment 100 wrote: Before invading Iraq, the leader of the Catholic world sent a strong

message to Bush.

"Go into Iraq and You Go Without God". Here is the link from

a British newspaper: http://web.sbu.edu/fcsc/pope_to_bush.htm

What do you think about this?

Which British newspaper?

The URL points to a page which seems to be on a "St. Bonaventure University",

some establishment in New York, U.S.A.

Interesting to see the name on: http://web.sbu.edu/fcsc/ - Looney! ROFLMAO!!

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:42 am

Pearl Harbor wrote: I know that as of 1940, the British were very frustrated with the Pope's refusal to speak out against the fascist powers. For those of you who are unfamiliar with who this was. It included: Germany, Italy, and Japan.

FWIW the only "Fascist power" was Italy. In 1940 the war had been going

for some time, and for the Pope to "speak out" would have made no difference.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:45 am

Tombstone wrote: I find it amazing the amount of people who belittle our need for oil.

.

It would be nice, from the point of view of the whole of the rest of the world,

if the U.S.A. would cease to be the most energy-wasteful culture on the planet.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:49 am

environment 100 wrote: Tombstone,

It is true that we need oil. But if we will not find other resources we will

be in trouble very soon. First the environment is polluted.

The green house effect, the temperature is rising. Snow and ice are melting,

The sea level is rising. Fish and other animals cannot adapt to higher temperature.

Also we have Acid Rain that is bad for trees and the PH of water become more

Acid.

Second, the oil will not be here forever, you can see already those prices

are much higher, could you imagine two years ago that a barrel of oil will be

$50?

We must understand that the sooner we find alternatives are better for us all.

A lot of the above (the "greenhouse effect") is highly debatable. However, the

cost of energy, and especially the cost of oil products to the consumer, is dirt

cheap compared to many other places worldwide. Gradually moving toward

more economical transport and also increasing the price of oil products would

reduce consumption greatly. Also, as prices rise, uneconomic (to extract) oil

deposits suddenly become a going concern, so extractable reserves rise.

Serenity · Post by **Serenity** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 2:14 am

Tombstone- as hinted above.....but to make it clearer, the prices of oil aren't necessarily high due to limited supply.......it's due to several things....one is being inflation to keep the cost of living at a standard not to be exceeded. It really irks me when i hear people go on about how , say, petrol's 4 dollars a litre in the UK. there's a huge f'in difference between having to drive five mile to get anything you want, and having to drive a hundred miles to get what you need. If you commuted the same bloody distances we do here in north america every day, you'd drive off the end of the island of uk.

Jean cretien - our past PM before this new twat Paul martin , tried to give us that argument...that we should be grateful that petrol's cheaper.....he was given the same rebuttal i just give you and told to "shut his frog face". ahhaha quite right too.

actually, i'm running on myself, so i'm goin to shut up too......point is, don't let this "limited supply" crap fool you. we've got enough oil to go bonkers with for the next 80 years at least. feel free to use as much oil product as you wish.....and don't worry about it, cuz there's goin to be a major change before we even come close to expending the oil supplies.

You should be more concerned about what you're goin to do when the economic crash hits. g'luck

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 3:29 am

Serenity wrote: Tombstone- as hinted above.....but to make it clearer, the prices of oil aren't necessarily high due to limited supply.......it's due to several things....one is being inflation to keep the cost of living at a standard not to be exceeded.

Come again?

Serenity wrote: It really irks me when i hear people go on about how , say, petrol's 4 dollars a litre in the UK. there's a huge f'in difference between having to drive five mile to get anything you want, and having to drive a hundred miles to get what you need. If you commuted the same bloody distances we do here in north america every day, you'd drive off the end of the island of uk.

What is your point?

Serenity wrote: Jean cretien - our past PM before this new twat Paul martin , tried to give us that argument...that we should be grateful that petrol's cheaper.....he was given the same rebuttal i just give you and told to "shut his frog face". ahhaha quite right too.

actually, i'm running on myself, so i'm goin to shut up too......point is, don't let this "limited supply" crap fool you. we've got enough oil to go bonkers with for the next 80 years at least. feel free to use as much oil product as you wish.....and don't worry about it, cuz there's goin to be a major change before we even come close to expending the oil supplies.

You should be more concerned about what you're goin to do when the economic crash hits. g'luck

A more rational and explanatory post will be helpful.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 3:44 am

Its good he did not listen. The Pope during WW11 spoke to Britian & the USA,but then Blessed Hitler and sent him a holy medal.

Serenity · Post by **Serenity** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 11:34 am

Bill Sikes wrote: Come again?

What is your point?

A more rational and explanatory post will be helpful.

sorry bout that! hehe....was pretty tire when i got of work this morning...i knew what it was i wanted to say.

anyways..... i was making reference to how, being as oil is our number one provider of everything basically....power, transportation, entertainment,etc.....the cost goes up to balance our consumption......i know how i've just scripted it there would have somebody turn around and say "of course, dumbass! it's called "supply and demand".....sure, but what i'm talking about is the fact that oil is what i'm goin to call " temporarily tangible"....so, what i'm trying to say, is it's a way for the money grabbin bastids to take your paycheque and leave you with nothing after the products been used. it's a shift of wealth. a residual income that's pretty much been worked out to a fine science. the more they want to keep you to the bread line, the higher they charge with prices.

Probably sounds like i'm fabricating a conspiracy theory.....hehe lots of those flying around. :rolleyes:

NOW! i forgot to mention this earlier this morning- You wanna talk about fascism? everybody thinks of hitler.....but who thinks of the Pope? that ****er immediately comes to mind when someone talks about fascist/ dictatorships.

"Either follow the hand of god/contribute to my vatican kitty/ or die"....hmm.....sounds like fascist exision to me.

Serenity · Post by **Serenity** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 11:39 am

just to try and solidify what i've said, let me leave you with this to chew on.

For example= General motors, keeps records of all the vehicles they've sold/leased, etc to the consumer....those records are inturn handed over to statistics America/Canada/whoever. The statists, using a "basic transportation" formula would be able to average the amount of fuel/oil consumption needed to sustain the operation of the car to provide daily living of the consumer.........it's a safe bet that you work 9-5 ,5 days a week, if you're financing a car off of them.

this would apply to any engines manufacturers.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 11:50 am

The Vatican Secret Service just purchased offices in New York for $45 million.

OPUS DEI. God's indeed.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 1:47 am

"The proposition that the United States will be better off if it uses its position to impose its values and interests everywhere is the misconception. It is exactly by not abusing its power that America attained its current position."

From the article by George Soros, good point I think although you could make a case that the US has been interfering in other countries for years. as have european nations.

Soros, incidentally, is not the most popular individual in europe, as an ardent capitalist you would thgink he would be a natural ally of the republicans

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:25 pm

illuminati wrote: Excellent question! This brings up a boatload of questions. Let's look at a couple of things:

1. Bush is a Methodist. Technically he does not acknowledge the Pope in Rome as his spiritual leader.

2. The Pope views President Bush as the political leader of American Catholics. Therefore, the Pope believes that Bush needs to listen to him.

"God is a neutral observer in the affairs of man," the Pope said.

What? This quote shocked me. Not my impression from the works in the Bible. How then, does the GOOD stand up against EVIL?

It also goes against what most people are tought on an individual basis.

Question: Where did ROME stand on the U.S. entering World War I? World War II?

If I remember correctly, The Vatican seemed fairly absent during the World Conflicts in the first half of the 20th century.

Last question: Is this article from a reliable source? Doesn't quite jive.
Question: The Vatican seemed fairly absent during World conflicts in the first half of the 20th Century. Rubbish. Rome has alway's been involved. They caused most of the wars in the first place.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:28 pm

Pope John Paul 11 gives thanks to God, for the election of President Bush. :guitarist

illuminati · Post by **illuminati** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:50 pm

Rubbish? "They caused most of the wars in the first place"?

The comment is on World War 2. Instead of just blurting out one worded responses, please respond to the topic thread.

Why is this rubbish in relation to World War 2? Can you cite examples? Can you cite examples on how the Vatican caused WWII? How were they involved? Who did they support?

capt_buzzard wrote: Rubbish. Rome has alway's been involved. They caused most of the wars in the first place.