Infanticide

JillStanek.com is the site to go to expose Barack Hussein Obama's record of support for the ministry of death, infanticide and abortion. Ever since Obama's days in the Illinois senate, which was only like 5 years ago, he has been lying and trying to cover up his extremely stupid votes in the Illinois Senate. Any normal person would have seen the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as a softball and an easy YES vote, yes infants who survive abortions should be recognized as HUMAN BEINGS, the argument that they are part of the woman's body is absolutely unusable at this point(not that it ever was a valid argument). Obama's website since has come up with the weakest argument ever to show why he voted AGAINST infant protection. They claim since Obama is prochoice, Obama felt the legislation would restrict abortion rights, which Obama really did believe. The problem is it did NO such thing, even Hillary Clinton supporters saw Obama's vote as nothing but infanticide. Obama threw infants under the bus in favor to protect what in his distorted mind was an attack on women's rights (i.e. the right to kill their children). On the Obama website the Obama campaign asserts the following is "language CLEARLY threatening Roe":

(c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be
fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under
the law.

It's so CLEAR it cannot be seen at all, how does that language in ANYWAY "threaten Roe." It is referring to a LIVE BORN CHILD, one outside of the womb. Not to mention EVEN if this legislation were to be anti abortion, Jane Roe would not be offended, she would be VERY happy since she is now a PROLIFE activist and hates people using her lawsuit to uphold the right to the homicide of child in the womb.

After reading Obama's speech in the Illinois Senate, in which he was the only one audacious enough to speak about this act that would protect the right of children born alive after failed abortion. Obama in his warped logic felt that by saying the fetus born alive were 'children" would result in the end of abortion (can't have that) so we cannot at all justify calling a fetus, even out of the womb a 'child' since he said the 14th amendment does not permit people to kill a child. Furthermore, Obama felt that if there was a second doctor called to take care of the child should it be BORN ALIVE, it would burden the mothers choice to have an abortion, obviously he has no concern at all, and he is implicitly implicating himself as being a proponent of infanticide. Since this time he has been trying to wash the record as to what happened with his infanticidal votes, including the claim that this vote was unneccesary since there were already existing laws against the infanticide practiced at the hospital in which the incident started, Christ's Hospital, which incidentally had Obama's pastor "Dr" Jeremiah Wright on the board as it was jointly controlled by Obama's denomination and a Lutheran group. So clearly Obama had some self interest in opposing this legislation. Also, Obama's denomination "United Church of Christ" was part of the few 'Christian' 'churches' that support abortion rights. But I digress, Obama's supports and infant-hating liberals claim the 1975 law 720 ILCS 510/6 already condemned the infanticide of said case, however what they will admit is that PROLIFE attorney General of Illinois in concern to the infanticidal practices said the hospital in their practices violated no law.

Wikipedia

In case I should be accused of plaguarizing Wikipedia, let me just say I write a lot on there, if it looks like I quoted something from it, search the history and check for my nick name 'theruteger.'

Rebuttal to the the alleged Arian verses

There are several verses in scripture used since the time of the archheretical-Apostate Coptic priest Arius that have been used to push for the belief that Jesus was a man, and not God. Such groups to embrace this included later Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, and several smaller cult groups. Even the offspring of the reformation, ignorant in part of the sacred traditions of the Apostolic Church which ceaseless upholds Christ's divinity fully, partially took away Christ's deity by believing Christ "emptied Himself" of His deity to become man, misunderstanding the words of St Paul in Philippians 2, subsequently this doctrine tried to creep up in Catholic schools, even after condemnation by venerable Pope Pius XII in AD 1951, by people such as von Balthasar.
But I go back to the "Arian" verses:

"for the Father is greater than I."--St John 14:28
This verse is true in the human nature of Christ, God the Father is not a man, He has no human nature, human nature is true only of Christ, Christ in His humanity is inferior to the Father, where as Christ in His deity is equal to the Father, this is actually Catholic dogma and is taught in Ecumenical councils.

"But of that day or hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."--St Mark 13:32/St Matthew 24:36
The misinterpretation of this verse is responsible for greater heresies, many draw from this Christ did not have the power to know the time of the End. The simple answer is this is a statement of Christ in His human nature which was not by its own nature omniscient and prescient of the future, only by union with the Word is this knowledge available. The surround context for this verse is Christ as the "Son of Man" not the "Son of God." Those who read carefully will see that Christ knew the events leading up to End, He was not ignorant of the hour in His Divinity. Christ did not want men to know the time of the End, but wanted them to be vigilant, He did not come to tell man the end of time (Acts 1:7).

"So He was not able to perform any mighty deed there"-St Mark 6:5
Many stop quoting there verse here, but the whole verse says He did do some mighty deeds: "So he was not able to perform any mighty deed there, apart from curing a few sick people by laying his hands on them." Some comment that sometimes in Scripture that able/could means would (cf Genesis 37:4, St John 7:7). But the reason He was not able to do mighty deeds was because of a lack of faith. St Matthew's parallel verse states: "And he did not work many mighty deeds there because of their lack of faith." (St. Matthew 13:58) Perhaps St John Cassian expounded on this the best in the following:

"But among others the unfathomable depth of Christ's beneficence was so stopped up, that it was said: And Jesus could do there no mighty works because of their unbelief. [Mark 6:5-6] And so the bounty of God is actually shaped according to the capacity of man's faith, so that to one it is said: According to your faith be it unto you: [Matthew 9:29] and to another: Go your way, and as you have believed so be it unto you; [Matthew 8:13] to another Be it unto you according as you will, [Matthew 15:28] and again to another: Your faith has made you whole. [Luke 18:42]"

"And Jesus advanced (in) wisdom and age and favor before God and man."-St Luke 2:52
The argument used is in sort 'If Jesus is God, then why does the bible say he 'grew' or 'advanced' in wisdom?"
The direct answer to that is that the Wisdom of God was being made manifest in Jesus in proportion to His growth in the physical body. Rather than go on on my own poorly stated response here are the Church Fathers on this particular verse:

"Do not think to yourself, "How can God grow?" "How can he who gives grace to angels and to men receive fresh wisdom?" Rather reflect upon the great skill with which we are initiated into his mystery. For the wise Evangelist did not introduce the Word in his abstract and incorporeal nature. He says of him that "he increased in stature and wisdom and grace," [Luke 2:52] but after having shown that he was born in the flesh of a woman and took our likeness, he then assigns to him these human attributes. Only then does he call a child and say that he grew in stature, as his body grew little by little, in obedience to corporeal laws. So he is said to have increased in wisdom, not as receiving fresh supplies of wisdom. God is perceived by the understanding to be entirely perfect in all things and altogether incapable of being destitute of any attribute suitable to the Godhead. So God the Word gradually manifested his wisdom proportionally to the age which the body had attained.

The body then advances in stature, and the soul, in wisdom. The divine nature is incapable of increase in neither one nor the other, seeing that the Word of God is all perfect. With good reason he connected the increase of wisdom with the growth of the bodily stature, because the divine nature revealed its own wisdom in proportion to the measure of the bodily growth."--St Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Luke, Homily 5, (CGSL 36-64**)

St Jerome says likewise:

"How does he who is Wisdom receive understanding? "Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace before God and men."[Luke 2:52] This means not so much that the Son was instructed by the Father but that his human nature was instructed by his own divinity. There is the seer's prophecy of him who blossomed from the root of Jesse," The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, a spirit of wisdom and of understanding."--St Jerome, Homily on Psalm 15(16) (FC 57:26**)

Here are some verses I found that were used in the Early Church to show Jesus is God Almighty, and is omniscient:

"His [Jesus’] disciples said, "Now you are talking plainly, and not in any figure of speech. Now we realize that you know everything and that you do not need to have anyone question you. Because of this we believe that you came from God."—John 16:29-30 (St Augustine says this means Christ is omniscient in Tractate 103)

…Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You..."—John 21:17

“…Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”—1 Corinthians 1:24

"..Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."—Colossians 2:3

In short Christ is God and because He is of the same Nature as the Father, He has all the powers of the Father and is equal to the Father, and is omniscient, Christ as the Son of God, in His deity, was NEVER ignorant of ANYTHING, to assert otherwise to espouse a heretical, if not a position of apostasy from the Christian Faith.
To be continued...

Hindu Extremism

The news constantly reports on Islamic extremism, that they are hell bent on destroying the West, and America in particular, though in reality they are focused more on expelling American influence in the Middle East, though by doing so they are only making it greater (idiots). What is not reported is the rise of Hindu extremism in India. The following paragraph was published in Zenit, a Catholic news outlet, reports:

The Indian state of Orissa has been the scene of a spate of anti-Christian violence that intensified at the end of August after a Hindu leader, Swami Laxmananada Saraswati, was killed. Extremists placed the blame for his death on Christians. In fact, the eastern Indian state has long been plagued by Christian-Hindu violence, as Christian missionaries work with poor tribal peoples of the region and Hindus accuse them of forcing or bribing conversions.

Over a period of three days in August 2008 there were 11 death caused by Hindu extremists, particularly against Christian clerics. One of which was Father Thomas Pandippally, who was found murdered "with his hands and legs broken, 18 stab wounds inflicted on his body and his eyes gouged out."

Other reports claim the Hindu mobs sought the continuation of the Hindu caste system.

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India also reports and condemns a bombing in New Delhi which killed 22 and injured dozens.

Hindu persecution of Christians is as old Christianity itself. Contrary to the belief it was introduced in India by the Portuguese, it was already long established there. The first report of Hindu extremism against Christians was against the excellent Apostle St Thomas, peace unto him, who is also called Jude in Syrian tradition and some other patriastic writings. St Hippolytus of Rome, peace unto him, an early 3rd century priest, Church Father and martyr, wrote in his discourse "On the End of the World":

And Thomas preached to the Parthians, Medes, Persians, Hyrcanians, Bactrians, and Margians, and was thrust through in the four members of his body with a pine spears at Calamene, the city of India, and was buried there.

St Ephraim the Syrian, 4th century poetic Church Father and Doctor of the Church has the Devil, in Ephraim's 42nd Nisibene hymn, as saying: "The Apostle whom I slew in India," in reference to St Thomas.

So obviously India is a country traditionally resistant to Christianity, if not hostile to evangelization. This is not completely the fault of the Indian people, as it was also political, as India was hostile to Westerners, wanting to keep the Roman empire at bay. Not to mention the myriad of Indian languages certainly did not facilitate evangelization, perhaps the only effect means was sending saints to perform miracles and do works of charity. Though its a wonder, why would the mobs attack people that want to help them, why attack people that work at orphanages? Isn't the Venerable Mother Teresa a national hero there? Yet they now many are seeking to harm Christians?

To be continued....

Why not to be pro 'choice'

Foreword:

An essay on abortion that I wrote in my freshmen year of college for English Critical Thinking in 2008. In the California election there will be 12 Propositions in 2008, among which is Prop 8, which any good willed person should support as a yes vote is for parental notifications for minors seeking to procure an abortion. And Prop 4 should like be voted with a yes to define marriage solely between male and female not unnatural, unfruitful pseudo unions, of which I will later address.

It is interesting to note that the Democratic party has fallen from its defense of life positions of the early 70s and prior. A modern proponent of abortion today is the nominal Catholic Edward 'Ted' Kennedy (who is a candidate for a direct, formal excommunication, rather than his latae sentae excommunication), who asserts abortion is a woman's right, contrary to his position in the early 70s where he believed his generation would be known for its defense of life from the beginning of conception. See here.

In this current election Democratic Presidental candidate Barack H. Obama has an extremely proabortion voting record, even to the point of tolerating infantcide, allowing the death of a born child by allowing the child to die in a hospital table that is already born and survived a failed abortion. His justification at the time as an Illinois legislature was that by recognizing a baby that survived an abortion as a "person" would lead to anti abortion legislation, since the 14th Amendment does not permit killing people. To see a page that links to government pages that reveal Obama's attitude and voting record on abortion and infanticide see here. Barack Obama would be a disasterous pick for President, in an address to Planned Parenthood, a major abortion and contraceptive provider, that funds candidates for their antifetus legislative votes, which is hostile to human life, stated that his FIRST act as President would be signing PROABORTION legislation: "The first thing I would do as President is, is, sign the Freedom of Choice Act." To see the video montage of Barack Obama on abortion go here

God hates abortion and infanticide, Exodus 1 says the midwives in Eygpt did not do the infanticide since "they feared God." Not to mention many times in scripture the shedding of innocent blood is condemned.

It is also interesting to note that the early feminists were opposed to abortion, and believed that women who had them procured would have to answer to God, bearing the guilt of it.

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

Whose Choice?

Every year 45 million of 175 million pregnancies result in abortion worldwide (Brown 13). Abortion is a divisive issue that has split the United States in half since the infamous decision of Roe v. Wade, which made first trimester abortion a right for women. The Supreme Court in this case was presented with the case of a Texas woman, Norma McCorvey, who used the pseudonym Jane Roe, who had sued her state to allow her to have an abortion because she felt a need for one as an unwed mother and a rape victim (McCorvey v Hill 1). The Supreme Court ruled in her favor and consequentially all 50 states legalized abortion in the first trimester of the pregnancy with the second trimester being regulated by each state. Since the passing of Roe v. Wade, abortion has been made a method of birth control in the United States. There have been several million abortions, with an abortion rate of about one in three pregnancies (Abortion in the United States- Statistics 1). Twenty years after she won her case in Roe v. Wade, Norma McCorvey had a change in conscience and deeply regretted what she had done and join the prolife cause. She admitted that she had not been raped even went as far as to say rape is not a valid reason for abortion, in addition she stated she did not anticipate “abortions as a form of birth control” (The Norman Transcript 1) would occur from the suit. She then attempted to overturn Roe v. Wade by reopening the case before 5th District court and the Supreme Court by arguing that abortion was harmful to a woman’s health, but it was too late and the Supreme Court refused to hear her case in 2005 (McCorvey v. Hill 1). The policy of legal abortions on demand as a woman’s right is flawed and should be discontinued. The reasoning for allowing abortion is faulty and the evidence is against the prochoice agenda on grounds of logic, statistics, and metaphysics.

Many feminists since the passage of Roe v. Wade such as the National Organization for Women (NOW) have pushed abortion as a woman’s right by stating the fetus is part of a woman’s body among other arguments. However, many feminist groups ignore or downplay that the original feminist movement in America and Britain were vehemently opposed to abortions and frequently referred to it as murder. When asked whether or those who have abortions are guilty, and if there is any valid reason for an abortion Susan B. Anthony responded, “'Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death,” she then continues men must help prevent abortions or they themselves will be guilty (Anthony 4). Today there is one feminist group who seeks to uphold the views of the original feminists such as Anthony, they call themselves Feminists For Life, whose motto is “Refuse to Choose, Women Deserve Better than Abortion” (feministsforlife.org 1). Many who are “pro-choice” insist that the fetus is simply part of a woman’s body and the abortion of the fetus is comparable to surgery to remove a tumor, after all how can you kill that which is not a person? According to this logic the brain, heart, and body parts of the fetus in the womb are part of the woman’s body, in other words surplus organs. In other words, they justify abortion by redefining the person of the fetus as more of an object. This reasoning was rejected by prochoice advocate Julia Brown who said the fetus has different DNA, ergo is a different being (Brown 14). Brown’s justification for abortion fails because she utilizes the fallacy of appealing to tradition, where she states “Anglo-Saxon legal law has not traditionally seen the fetus as a legal person” (Brown 14). By declaring abortion to be the personal choice of a woman is making a choice for another person and denying the fetus any rights, including those enumerated in the Constitution, and those spoken of in the Declaration of Independence such as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” It is ironic that women were previously seen in the past as being property of men and now it has been legally declared that fetuses are to be treated as the property of women! This was point on abortion was made in the time of Elizabeth Cady Stanton when she stated, “when we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit” (Foster 1). This is the hypocrisy of the modern feminist movement— ignoring the wisdom of its founders. Others attempt make abortion acceptable since the fetus is uncapable of mental processes, and that in order to be able to claim a right such as life, an individual must be mentally capable of such a thought, consequentially they claim since a fetus does not have this metal capacity they have no right to life and there is no moral dilemma with aborting something with no rights (Lee 11). This may seem to be reasonable logic to some, but this logic falls apart when looking at those stages of life. Newborns have little mental capacity, not greatly different than days before in the womb. Similarly are some of the mentally handicapped. Does this mean newborns and the mentally handicapped do not deserve life and that anyone of low intelligence does not have a claim to life because of their capacities? Recent Congressional legislation voted that partial birth abortion, which is aborting a baby in process of the actual birth, to be “a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited,” and that has “risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives” (Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 1). Yet why is this only said of partial birth abortion and not abortion in the second or even first trimester? Similarly a recent Supreme Court has ruled and upheld the ban on partial birth abortion and the majority opinion state it was infanticide and declared the baby to be “innocent” and undeserving of this “gruesome act” (Syllabus of Gonzalez vs. Carhart 2).

Based on empirical evidence and statistics abortion is shown to be a negative for society and should be criminalized. Research concerning abortion and breast cancer has revealed a strong correlation that abortion may be a good indicator as to whether the cancer will develop. Carroll in presenting his statistical findings states “when a woman is nulliparous, an induced abortion has a greater carcinogenic effect because it leaves breast cells in a state of interrupted hormonal development in which they are more susceptible” (Carroll 2). Then he states that actions following abortions may lead to more cancer causing actions “Abortion can lead to prescription of hormonal contraceptives, and the mental health sequelae of abortion may lead to use of hormone replacement therapy” (Carroll 3). Hormonal contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy Carroll states are also “conducive to breast cancer” (Carroll 2). These show that abortion is harmful to a woman’s health, and not just on the commonly cited emotional and psychological level. Furthermore, statistical surveys have revealed that the reasons for abortion including rape, incest, or a health concern with either the baby or mother accounted for at most 7% of all abortions in the United States in 2004 (Abortion in the United States 1). This is shocking since many prochoice organizations use cases of rape, incest, and pregnancy complications to justify keeping abortion legalized.

From a metaphysical point abortion is an indefensible action, unless severe misconstruing is used, for this reason those in favor of the current pro-abortion policy rebel against the use of metaphysical reasoning in debating often citing the establishment clause and the separation between Church and State. From the Judeo-Christian view abortion is rejected. Orthodox Jews to this day, though they believe the fetus does not receive a soul until 40 days after conception, are opposed to abortion (Freeman 1), citing God’s blessing and commandment in the book of Genesis to be “fruitful and multiple” (Genesis 1:28). In addition birth giving in Judaism is seen as the right of a mother and a cause for celebration. Christian has historically been strictly opposed to abortion particularly in Orthodox, Catholic, and conservative Protestant churches. Only within the last century have more liberal groups permitted abortions, yet the majority of them are opposed to it. Early Christian canon laws forbade abortion such as the first century text the Didache, “You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 1). Several early Christian scholars stated damnation as the penalty for those involved in the abortions. Among common citations to justify why abortion is immoral “the LORD hates…hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:16-7), “thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13). Ultimately the reasoning against abortion is that the baby is a creation of God and since the baby is wrong to kill it since it is guilty of nothing worthy of death

Abortion has almost no difference from infanticide, only the age of the baby in question, and it is a terrible policy and should be ceased and outlawed particularly in this developed county. The reasoning used for permitting abortion is flawed in that it portrays the fetus as a threat to woman even in cases where the fetus poses no physical harm, it denies the right to live in those not mental capable of such, it makes the fetus an object and denies the humanity of the fetus and that the fetus has any rights and gives the decision for life and death in the hands of another person, it declares the fetus to be a piece of property reminiscent of how women were viewed as property, it ignores the feminist mothers who explicitly condemned the practice of abortion, it suggests that opposition to abortion constitutes as sexism, and it finally rejects the divine prerogative of God by refusing the fetus to grow and live until a natural death.

Works Cited
“Abortion in the United States- Statistics”. National Right to Life. Online: Google. 1. May 25, 2008.

Brown, Diana. “A Wiser View of Abortion.” Free Inquiry. Winter 1999. Rpt. in Should Abortion

Rights Be Restricted?. Ed. Auriana Ojeda. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven. 2003. 13-16.

Carroll, Patrick. “The Breast Cancer Epidemic: Modeling and Forecasts Based on Abortion

and Other Risk Factors.” Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons. Fall 2007. 1-3. Online: Google Scholar. May 26, 2008.

Didache. Early Christian Writings. Online: Google. 1. May 27, 2008.



Fahling, Brian. “Why It’s Okay to Kill a Baby Outside the Womb.” May 10, 2000. Rpt. in Should Abortion Rights Be Restricted?. Ed. Auriana Ojeda. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven. 2003. 26-30.

Feminists For Life. Online: Yahoo!. May 26, 2008. 1.
Foster, Serrin. Pro-lifers Go Back to the Roots of Feminism. Zenit. Online: Yahoo!. May 27,
2008.
Freeman, Tzvi. “Does life begin at birth or conception?” May 27, 2008.


"Jane Roe" Tells True Story Behind Roe v. Wade Norma McCorvey Says "Pure and simple. I

lied." The Free Library. February 11, 1998. Online: Yahoo!. May 27, 2008. < http://www.thefreelibrary.com/"Jane Roe" Tells True Story Behind Roe v. Wade Norma McCorvey Says...-a055342471 > .

Kreeft, Peter. “The Apples Argument Against Abortion.” Crisis. December 2000. Rpt. in Should Abortion Rights Be Restricted?. Ed. Auriana Ojeda. Farmington Hills, MI:

Greenhaven. 2003. 35-43.

McCorvey v Hill. United States Court of Appeals For the Fifth Circuit. September 14, 2004.

Online: Google Scholar. 1-10. May 27, 2008.

Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. United States of America Congress. Online: Google Scholar.

Syllabus of Gonzalez vs. Carhart. United States Supreme Court. Online: Google Scholar. May 21, 2008.

WMD's & Iraq

As many know, the War in Iraq, or as I sometimes call the Second Gulf War, was initiated on the assertion that Saddam Husseine, President/Dictator of Iraq was in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Evidence produced to prove this was proved to be false and a cheap fabrication, such as the Roman documents, which claimed Iraq purchased 'yellow cake uranium' from Niger. In addition there was speculation and claims the Iraqis were involved with Al-Qaeda and the September 11, 2001 plane high jackings which resulted in the deaths of thousands, although none of the hijacks were Iraqi, if anything the biggest portion of them were Saudis. Subsequently, the United Nation had inspectors sent to Iraq to investigate as to whether or not he was in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction. However, Husseine kicked out the inspectors and October 16, 2002 the United States Congress voted to "authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq" (H.J.RES.114).
The authorization for action had the approval (aye) of 215 Republican member of the House of Representatives, and 81 Democrats. The 'nay' votes were 6 Republicans, 126 Democrats and 1 Independant. Whereas 2 Republicans, and 1 Democrat did not vote at all in the House. Yielding a sum of 296 ayes, 133 nays, and 3 'pff uh dunnoes'. In the Senate it was approved by 77 ayes, 48 of which were Republicans: including current Presidential candidate Arizona Senator John S. McCain III). And 29 Democrats: including former Presidential Candidate, and Masschusetts Senator John F. Kerry (an excommunicated Catholic); New York Senator & former Presidential Hillary Rodham Clinton (aka Hellary Dennis Rodman Clinton); and California Senator Diane Feinstein. Of course, all this action for war was pushed by Republican President George W. Bush.
This occured nearly 6 years ago, and the United States is still at war with Iraq, though the violence has declined. As of July 2008, 4,119 Americans died in Iraq, and War related deaths for Iraqis has ranged from 50,000-1,000,000+. The wars popularity grealty diminished when much of the intelligence reports proved to be false, forgeries, and when WMDs were not found. Religious persecution of Christians, and small religious minorities has increased, not to mention ethnic minorities like the Kurds. One of the most infamous murders was that of the martyr, the late Chaldean Rite Archbishop, His Excellency Monsignor ܦܘܠܘܣ ܦ̮ܪܔ ܪܚܘ (Paulos Faraj Rahho), Archbishop of the Eparchy of Mosul (peace unto him) (3). He was murdered by Islamic extremists, who killed along with him, his body guard and drive. Under the rule of Saddam Husseine Christians had more protection, and the the people were united in their fear of Saddam Husseine.
Despite all these evils occuring, there were a few positives. Iraqi President Saddam Husseine was finally captured and executed for his crimes against the Iraqi people. Well I guess that's all I can come up with now...
Now in regards to Weapons of Mass Destruction. Some assert that WMDs have been found such as the 500 chemical weapons found since the start of the war, however they were said to be only for provisional use, and for road side bombs, as it was in an imperfect state, this being reported by FOX News (4). It also should be noted it was at first asserted that Saddam Husseine was in possesion of nuclear weapons, not chemical. MSNBC reports that 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" were transported out of Iraq, which were the remnant of Saddam Husseine's nuclear program (5).
CBS news interviewed the FBI interrogator of Saddam Husseine, George Piro, who said: " [Saddam] told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq." And states that Saddam Husseine feared Iran and wanted to keep hidden that he had no WMDs so as to avoid an Iranian invasion saying "It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq,"(6).
To be continued....

(3)-Catholic News: Pope calls death of Iraqi archbishop 'act of inhuman violence' http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801421.htm
(4)-FOX News: Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
(5)-MSNBC News: Last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts arrives in Canada http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/
(6)-CBS News: Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494_page4.shtml