Forgive me, I was wrong on Iraq

[0007]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/17/1087245036392.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true

"As the only Anglican bishop to have publicly endorsed the Australian Government's case for war, I now concede that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction. It did not pose a threat to either its nearer neighbours or the United States and its allies. It did not host or give material support to al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups.

But did the Australian Government and the Australian Defence Force really believe that Iraq possessed WMD and would employ them in support of its national interests? Definitely. Were intelligence assessments of Iraq's WMD arsenal and its ability to mount military operations exaggerated and inaccurate? Certainly. But in the absence of any clear mitigation, there is no alternative to concluding that the March 2003 invasion was neither just nor necessary.

Is this of concern? Yes. The relationship of trust that needs to exist between the Government and the people for a healthy democracy to exist may have been damaged by what must be regarded as an unnecessary pre-emptive military strike.

If there is a pervasive cause, it would appear to be poverty. The UN has rightly engaged in a "war on poverty" where the protagonists are the poor who attempt to steal from the poorer.

The weapons of war are not bullets and bombs but humanitarian aid, and direct economic relief and assistance.

The calculated humiliation of Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad over the past six months has damaged the Bush Administration's attempts to portray the US Army as a liberating force. What is worse, men and women from a nation claiming to be civilised have shown they are just as capable of the barbarism that characterised Saddam's Baathist regime.

Looking back on the events of the past 18 months I continue to seek God's forgiveness for my complicity in creating a world in which this sort of action was ever considered by anyone to be necessary. Even so, come Lord Jesus."

More...great article even if one isn't church bound by doctrine

[wtmusic]

1. WADR an Anglican bishop should know better

Aren't they supposed to have some grounding in ethics?

[0007]

2. I indeed know very little about what this said bishop should know

or not know!

I do admire this man of the cloth coming forward.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. He probably tends to accept the armed forces view

"Dr Tom Frame is the Anglican Bishop to the Australian Defence Force"

most Anglican bishops were against the war, eg:

"The temperature was further raised by the Bishop of Salisbury, the Rt Rev David Stancliffe, who compared an attack by the West on Iraq to the actions of a torturer.

The bishop, whose diocese includes important Army bases, said that judging Iraq guilty of concealment because weapons of mass destruction had yet to be found "cannot be a justifiable cause for military action".

"Were an attack to be launched now, the attackers would be employing 'the morality of the torturer'," he said.

In an earlier statement, Dr Williams and Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor expressed doubts about the "moral legitimacy" of the war and called for a continuation of inspections."

Daily Telegraph, 21st Feb 2003
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/21/nirq21.xml

[Moderator]

3. 0007

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source.

thank you.

DU Moderator