Do you support the war on Iraq?

[Gavin]

I do, although I also think that the Bush administration is not exactly losing sleep over the fact that it will take attention of the economy. Still, Saddam needs to be taken out.

Your thoughts?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

I voted "other." Truth is, it's insufficient to simply say, "No, I don't support the war."

Support the war = not at this time, but that may change if chemical weapons are discovered, and it is shown that he plans to use them for aggression (as opposed to defense).

Support getting Saddam out = absolutely, but I believe war isn't the only way this can be accomplished.

[spl_cadet]

Uh, what other way is there? :huh:

[Hitch]

I think asking really really nice didnt work E

As for me. Im tired of hearing about 'innocent Iraqi's. Every young man wearing the uniform of the United States armed services is 'innocent'. And Im near the the point making Baghdad a hole in the desert woudlnt bother me

Hitch


That said, a short quote;

"And they remember with the love that only those who have shared the fears and triumphs of combat can know.
Notwithstanding the special grace that seems common to battle veterans that allows them welcome to former enemies. If there is a glory to war, this is part of it. For when called, these men answered not so much to kill and shoot as to serve and sacrifice, buying back with blood that which was sold into slavery in a land not their own"

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 10:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44260#post44260)
spl_cadet:

Uh, what other way is there? :huh:
The fact that you even asked that question just serves to show how deeply the pro-war brainwashing has become ingendered in some people to the point they can't even imagine that there might be a way to solve problems without war.

[flipper]

Well, as the US and England are now immersed in said war, I reluctantly support it. Prosecuting it effectively to its end, even if it is a bitter one, is now incumbent upon us.

I should like to see it limited to Iraq though, and not extended elsewhere unless there is a clear threat posed, i.e. with clear evidence that is largely acceptable to the international community - ideally a majority of the UN or NATO and most of the security council at least. Some might argue that North Korea has posed that threat, but I would argue that pursuing war with NK would turn the possibility of nuclear war into a certainty, unless their strike capacity was utterly destroyed.

I would also like to see serious bridge building efforts made to repair damaged alliances, unruffle feathers, and depolarize the US and the world's opinion of us, especially in the muslim world as much as possible. The effective rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan would likely be an important part of this.

If we don't do it, it seems that we will be storing up worse problems for ourselves in the future. I am concerned that the global sympathy that the US received after 9/11 will be far more muted the next time such an instance occurs because "they brought it on themselves". I know that global sympathy won't in itself rebuild cities or lives, but it is an indicator of a larger antipathy that is highly concerning. I don't believe you can be globally isolated and still project your power across the world effectively. This go-around in Iraq has shown the limitations that can be imposed by reluctant allies.

[Ryokan]

I support the war, and more or less support Flipper's position afterwards, although I think the UN needs serious restructuring before it could ever become a legitimate collective security apparatus or defend the ideals set forth in its charter.

[spl_cadet]

Yesterday @ 08:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44305#post44305)
Eireann:


The fact that you even asked that question just serves to show how deeply the pro-war brainwashing has become ingendered in some people to the point they can't even imagine that there might be a way to solve problems without war.

Ok Mr. Smartypants, why don't you tell me how we could have gotten rid of Saddam without war?

Oh, and I do believe that you can solve problems without war. This however is not one of them.

[Socrates]

Quite so, SPL. I can't think of anyone who supports this current war who actually LIKES war. Rather, we think that this war will SAVE more lives in the long run. Just as if the Allied countries had stopped Hitler earlier rather than fall for the well-meaning but misguided Chamberlainite appeasement policies.

[Vorkosigan]

Today @ 03:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44532#post44532)
Socrates:

Quite so, SPL. I can't think of anyone who supports this current war who actually LIKES war. Rather, we think that this war will SAVE more lives in the long run. Just as if the Allied countries had stopped Hitler earlier rather than fall for the well-meaning but misguided Chamberlainite appeasement policies.

That's probably not even true if you confine your calculus of lives only to Iraq, Socrates. But this will represent a considerable blow to US power in the world even if we are successful, since Bush has neglected his relationships in East Asia, where there are several places (the Himal, taiwan, the koreas, Sino-Russian border, etc) where conflicts threaten to blow up. Consequently, these nations are now reforming their own security policies. The threat of war has risen everywhere, while the US capacity for concerted action has fallen.

Additionally, everyone has seen the obvious lesson: that if Hussein had been able to develop nukes, he would have been invulnerable like Pyongyang is. That will only encourage the fence-sitters to build nukes. It is not a stretch to argue that in 20 years E Asia could be filled with nuke-armed powers all facing each other, along with other nations that the US dislikes elsewhere similarly pursuing nuke programs (see Pakistan and IRan, for example). By trashing the multilateral organizations necessary to maintain security, Bush has made all this possible.

Of course, the long occupation, the drain on our treasury, and the debasement of the army are all a severe possibility. Bush might end up causing a lot more deaths merely by reducing the US capacity to intervene and prevent conflicts elsewhere. Do you really think the US can support war and occupation in Afghanistan, Iraq and China/Korea all the same time? Vietnam alone was enough to nuke the US economy for a decade afterward. And what if in the next India/Pakistan tiff the US isn't there to pressure the defenders with credible international prestige and power?

Brrr...Chilling times ahead.

Vorkosigan

[Ryokan]

Vorkisigan: If you factor in the number of lives saves within the US, and the end of sanctions in Iraq, plus the end of their secret police, assuming the country doesn't plunge into chaos after the war, then it is almost certainly saving lives.
I fail to see how international organizations, who thus far have completely ignored Korea, could prevent proliferation. The only way to prevent proliferation is to tie serious consequences to it.
If we were to fight a war with China, it would become a total war pretty quick, and as far as that goes, the US can and has fought on mutiple fronts in those kinds of wars. And after we Occupy Iraq, we could probably take out N.Korea, although its not something I think would be to smart.
And Europe doesn't want a India Pakistani war. The world would back our leadership to bring peace there.

Cadet: Eirean believes that assasination, blockade, or pressure would be a better answer. I think he is wrong, but he does offer options.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 08:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44522#post44522)
spl_cadet:



Ok Mr. Smartypants, why don't you tell me how we could have gotten rid of Saddam without war?

Oh, and I do believe that you can solve problems without war. This however is not one of them.
Well, the idea is to get Saddam out of power, not to destroy his country, right? Covert assassination wasn't tried, as far as I know. At least, it wasn't tried enough. Until only very recently the targeting of an enemy head of state was illegal, according to what I had earlier called the Kennedy Law (although someone suggested it was not Kennedy, but someone else who actually enacted the law). Although legality has never been much of a deterrent in keeping our government from engaging in assassination, it has been a deterrent in the case of heads of state (it's much harder to hide an assassin of a president or other head of state than for someone lower on the ladder). Believe me, if you can get Dan Rather close enough to interview him in person, you can get an assassin close enough to take him out or take him down. We could have taken a page from Saddam's own playbook and hired a suicide bomber. Don't think for one minute that the US would be above doing something like that. And those are just two possibilities that come immediately to mind. And before you give the predictable response, "We already tried that," be aware that I will expect you to prove that we tried it enough. In what little support the Bush administration has provided to Iraqi opposition, they chose the most inept group of all to fund - the INC, who are about as ineffective as a water pistol.

[$cirisme]

Saddam is just one man of a giant regime.

If just so happen to get him and not one of his doubles, someone from below will step up and take his place. We will just be replacing one bad dictator with another. :shrug:

[spl_cadet]

:rofl:
We've tried assassinating him a bunch of times and it didn't work. Plus he has a bunch of doubles. And killing him alone wouldn't work. You also have to deal with his family.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 04:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44858#post44858)
spl_cadet:

:rofl:
We've tried assassinating him a bunch of times and it didn't work. Plus he has a bunch of doubles. And killing him alone wouldn't work. You also have to deal with his family.
I told you that I would expect you to prove this predictable statement. I expect that you can comply? And I'm not talking about the US funding a rag-tag bunch of half-witted, untrained INC wannabes to become would-be assassins, I'm talking about sending our well-trained covert ops people in to do what they are trained so well to do. We did the former numerous times, with understandably disastrous results. How many times have we done the latter?

[Alukard]

I was always of the opinion that if war is necessary than I will support it. Now that we have troops overseas, and I have several friends and accquaintances in the Gulf region I support the war wholeheartedly for their sakes. Simple truth is that Saddam needs to go, and this is the only way that it will be accomplished with 100% effectiveness.

[Kenny]

We should have done it this (http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.plan_update) way.

I oppose the war for the following reasons among others.

According to just war theory, a just war must have a reasonable chance of success. While I have no doubt that our forces will be victorious, I doubt that the war will achieve many of its stated aims. Presumably, one of the purposes of the war is to increase stability in the Middle East, but stability will likely only decrease as a result. Presumably, the war is meant to decrease the threat of terrorist attacks in the U.S. and the rest of the world, but the war will likely only increase Arab resentment of the U.S. and increase both the number of terrorist recruits and the viligence on the part of the terrorists.

According to just war theory, a just war must be conducted only in the face of an immediate threat. However, Saddam did not pose any such threat. That’s not to say that Saddam posed no threat whatsoever, but there was no indication that he planned on attacking the U.S. or his neighbors anytime soon. Action did have to be taken to prevent Saddam from becoming an immediate threat, but such action was being taken, which leads me to my next point.

According to just war theory, a just war must be last resort. The above link I gave shows that there were ways that Saddam could have been handled and perhaps even removed from power without resort to war. Furthermore, the actions that were being taken – namely the inspections -- were having a positive effect (though further steps could and should have been taken).

This war fails the criteria of just war theory. As Christians, we should not support it. I pray for God’s mercy on our nation for engaging in it and I pray for God’s protection towards the suffering people of Iraq. It is my sincere hope and prayer that good things come of all this for them because I know that God is always at work in the world turning evil around for good – still that does not negate the fact that evil is evil. I also pray for God’s mercy on the evangelical church in America for its compliance with the war rather than its being the moral voice that God calls it to be.

God Bless,
Kenny

[Pilgrim]

I support the war because I feel Sadaam must be taken out. 12 yeras of other types of efforts have shown me that he will only respond to force.

I think to argue it from the stand point of "alleged WMD" is a bit disingenous. Let's just call it what it is...he's a monster who needs to be taken care of for the sake of the people of Iraq, regardless of WMD.

[Kenny]

Today @ 01:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44971#post44971)
Pilgrim:

I support the war because I feel Sadaam must be taken out. 12 yeras of other types of efforts have shown me that he will only respond to force.

I think to argue it from the stand point of "alleged WMD" is a bit disingenous. Let's just call it what it is...he's a monster who needs to be taken care of for the sake of the people of Iraq, regardless of WMD.

There is no provision in just war theory for making war just to remove a dictator. Furthermore, I am aware of no serious Christian ethicist that thinks removing a dictator is a sufficient reason for war. Also, if there were to be a just reason to remove Saddam from power by means of warfare, it would be that the cost in lives and human rights on an ongoing sustained basis would far outweigh the cost in lives and human suffering that would result from warfare. In addition, war would have to be the only means of preventing such human rights violations and loss of human lives. While there is no question that Saddam is a ruthless dictator who has engaged in murder and extensive human rights violations, I am not convinced that either of the two criteria listed above are met. See the link I posted above.

This war is evil and God is calling Christians to raise their voices in opposition to it. If anyone feels the same way, please go here (http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.speak_out) and pledge your support. Even if you don’t feel that way, I encourage you to go to the link and read the article. Our loyalty must be to Jesus Christ above all, not a nation, an administration, or a political platform.

God Bless,
Kenny

[Epoetker]

Kenny:

Just-war theory was formulated in days that lacked a large number of people willing to hide among civilian populations and commit suicide to kill as many people as possible.

Hence, it requires a bit of updating in the face of this type of terrorism, for otherwise it just serves the purposes of the enemy.

[Kenny]

Today @ 01:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44998#post44998)
Epoetker:

Kenny:

Just-war theory was formulated in days that lacked a large number of people willing to hide among civilian populations and commit suicide to kill as many people as possible.

Hence, it requires a bit of updating in the face of this type of terrorism, for otherwise it just serves the purposes of the enemy.

Where exactly is just war theory lacking in this regard? Which of the criteria need revision? Which of the above points I have made ignore such facts? The whole purpose of just war theory is to give us strict criteria by which to measure whether we should engage in or support war because its too easy to do so for the wrong reasons and then make up post hoc rationalizations. What criteria would you propose?

[flipper]

Eireann:


I'm talking about sending our well-trained covert ops people in to do what they are trained so well to do. We did the former numerous times, with understandably disastrous results. How many times have we done the latter?

Statesmen have an understandable anipathy towards using directed assassination policies towards other heads of state. Remember, many heads of state face enough assassination risk internally to want to stomach a potentially continuous risk from outside their borders too. Who wants to spend their time worrying about being potentially stalked by well-trained foreign special forces and assassination teams?

Once you legitimize that as a tool of projected statescraft, you had better be well-liked in the international community.

[Epoetker]

Kenny:

Suicide terrorism pretty much knocks out the categories of

Immediate threat: The entire point of suicide terrorism is surprise, with agents "sleeping" for months or years at a time. Not every country is America, with vast intelligence services with which to track down and begin hostilities with the country the terrorists have originated from. If the trail is kept successfully cold an entire string of terror attacks can weaken frighten, and demoralize a country into acceding to demands made by other actors.

And
Last resort: The heads of terrorist states are masters of playing political games on the international stage, and will lie, cheat and harangue their way to getting friendly support. Would you have a country like Iran with the diplomatic leverage(among non-American nations, at least) of France? The representativres of these countries are masters of denial, obfuscation, and delay. During these times the terror-users have the advantage.

In other words, preemting growing threats before they become immediate threats is good morality and good policy. Especially if you do it as much with an eye to civilian casualties as the United States.

[Socrates]

:eek: :bonk: :hrm: :rofl:

[wienerdog]

Most medieval ethicists, when discussing just war theory, also discussed regicide; that is, the justified killing of an evil tyrant. I'm not aware if any of them tied it to just war, though. As I understand it, it was always in the context of internal rebellion.

[Kenny]

Today @ 02:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45032#post45032)
Epoetker: Immediate threat: The entire point of suicide terrorism is surprise, with agents "sleeping" for months or years at a time. Not every country is America, with vast intelligence services with which to track down and begin hostilities with the country the terrorists have originated from. If the trail is kept successfully cold an entire string of terror attacks can weaken frighten, and demoralize a country into acceding to demands made by other actors.

So are you suggesting that we simply make war with nations based on vague suspicions that they may be harboring terrorists or might possibly hand over chemical weapons or biological weapons to those terrorists in the future? That could only lead to moral chaos in which any vague possible threat becomes an excuse for war. In fact, I think that’s what we’ve seen happen in the case of Iraq. Despite no proven connections whatsoever between Iraq and terrorist activity (except for one meager terrorist camp in the north which was not under Saddam’s control), preventing terrorism has become a major excuse for engaging in an unnecessary war to resolve a problem that could have been solved much better through diplomatic means (see the link I gave in my first post).

As far as tracking down terrorists is concerned, we simply need to strengthen our intelligence and improve international cooperation in tracking them down (which is another reason why the U.S. should not be acting unilaterally in such matters and isolating itself from the international community). If we’re going to go to war (and thus, kill people) with a nation for harboring or supporting terrorists, then it needs to be on the basis of very strong evidence not vague or imagined threats. A preemptive strike to eliminate a rapidly growing threat can pass the criterion of immediate threat under certain conditions if the threat is clear enough and there are no other means of dealing with it, but I think the case of Iraq fails on both counts.

Immediate threat is a criterion that we must hold on to lest any vague threat whether real, imagined, or even constructed (by government propaganda) becomes an excuse to murder people for other national or economic interests.


Last resort: The heads of terrorist states are masters of playing political games on the international stage, and will lie, cheat and harangue their way to getting friendly support. Would you have a country like Iran with the diplomatic leverage(among non-American nations, at least) of France? The representativres of these countries are masters of denial, obfuscation, and delay. During these times the terror-users have the advantage.

I can’t see how anyone could even think of advocating the elimination of the criterion of last resort for just war theory. The criterion of last resort simply recognizes that war is a horrible thing and should only be engaged in when all other possibilities have been exhausted. Are you saying that we should go ahead and go to war (and thus, kill people) when there are still other means available? Are you saying that we should go to war simply to secure our leverage in the international community? I do agree with you that individuals like Saddam are “masters of denial, obfuscation, and delay,” but there are still diplomatic means and ways of putting external and internal pressures on such individuals which do not require warfare. They ought to be exhausted before blood is shed. Again, see the link I gave in my first post.

There are also other criteria of just war theory to be considered here.

I already mentioned the reasonable chance of success criterion. If the goal of this war with Iraq is to curb the threat of terrorism, it is likely to backfire. As I already mentioned, this war will likely only increase Arab resentment of the U.S. and feed right into the hands of the terrorist propaganda machine for gaining new recruits and motivating those already within the fold.

Another criterion is that the benefits must outweigh the costs. Given that in just a week the current war with Iraq has already claimed well over a thousand lives (on all sides – it really makes no difference whether the losses are ours or theirs from a humanitarian perspective) for the purpose of quelling some vague possible threat, despite the fact that there were still several available options to deal with it, I would say that this war clearly flunks that criterion. And that’s not to mention economic and political costs in terms of all the money being spent on the war, the weakening of both the international community and the U.S.’s place in it, the destabilization that is likely to result in the Middle East, and the increased resentment toward the U.S. stirred up among the international community in general and among potential recruits for terrorism in particular.

Another criterion is legitimate authority. The U.S. is enforcing a U.N. resolution without U.N. backing. We have no legitimate authority to wage this war in the first place. We are acting unilaterally to enforce international policy decisions. We are far outside our jurisdiction here.

Given all of the above, I think it is clear that this war flunks the test of just war theory. Consequently, this war is unjust and therefore it is evil. Christians who support it will answer to God for doing so. God’s judgment may well fall on our nation for engaging in it. Now is the time for Christians to be the moral voice that God has called us to be. If enough people in America raise their voices in opposition to the war, perhaps God will be merciful as a result.

Finally, if you suggest amending just war theory, it’s not enough just to eliminate certain criteria without proposing more nuanced criteria in its place. Otherwise, we are just left with moral chaos in which any of the criteria of just war theory can be discarded when it is convenient to do so for any excuse that we might dream up. So, in light of the current terrorist threat you mentioned, what criteria would you propose?

In Christ,
Kenny

P.S. Please do not be offended by my strong feelings about the war. I am speaking what I see to be the truth in love. I still acknowledge all my brothers and sisters in Christ who feel different as my brothers and sisters in Christ.

[$cirisme]

Eireann,

Did you miss my post?(#13)

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 01:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45485#post45485)
cirisme:

Eireann,

Did you miss my post?(#13)
Yes, I did miss it. Sorry. It is a good point you bring up, though. I hadn't thought of that. Nevertheless, I still don't accept that all-out war is the only option that would work. I'm not a military or diplomatic strategist, so I don't know what all the options would be, but I do not that typically, for any given action there are about a thousand ways of accomplishing that action. People have fallen into the fallacy of limiting this action to only about three or four options, and I for one am not given to seeing things as quite that black-and-white.

[$cirisme]

I agree that it should not be our first, or only reaction. And it hasn't been.

It's been 12 years and squat has been accomplished.

[yxboom]

I was in a recent discussion where I had to point out that unless we literally purge Iraq we will be band-aiding a more serious threat that will emerge in another 10 years and than another than another progressively getting worst.

[Epoetker]

So are you suggesting that we simply make war with nations based on vague suspicions that they may be harboring terrorists or might possibly hand over chemical weapons or biological weapons to those terrorists in the future? That could only lead to moral chaos in which any vague possible threat becomes an excuse for war. In fact, I think that’s what we’ve seen happen in the case of Iraq.

With all due respect, it has not. Our suspicions are generally not vague, but based on a solid history of the manufacture and stashing of WMD, sometimes only found with great luck. The history of Iraqi action in this area ovwer the past 12 years, added to Saddam's generally aggressive stance in previous years, and adding to the fact that this war was never technically over since 1991, and the prohibitive cost of maintaining de facto war in the no-fly zone to protect innocents from possible gas attacks all form influencing factors to make the case for war that much stronger.


Despite no proven connections whatsoever between Iraq and terrorist activity (except for one meager terrorist camp in the north which was not under Saddam’s control), preventing terrorism has become a major excuse for engaging in an unnecessary war to resolve a problem that could have been solved much better through diplomatic means (see the link I gave in my first post).

There is always the fact that he's certainly not shy about bankrolling terrorism against ISRAEL. That's a whole lotta terrorism prevented and regional stability promoted right there. Especially since no one in the Greek UN chorus against Israel would seriously think about condemning Saddam for offering to turn a Palestinian's kid into a human bomb for 25,000 a head. There goes the diplomatic means.


As far as tracking down terrorists is concerned, we simply need to strengthen our intelligence and improve international cooperation in tracking them down (which is another reason why the U.S. should not be acting unilaterally in such matters and isolating itself from the international community).

The problem is, there exist quite a few countries out there who will hide them somewhere in their vast desert recesses, and either deny their existence, or say something to the effect of "we've lost him, can't tell where he is, but we certainly aren't going to allow YOU to intrude on our soverignty now, are we?" And like I said, not all countries are the US. Australia's John Howard has been very clear about the fact that he will go into Phillipine terrirory in order to take out terrorist training camps that foment big booms in Bali and other Austrailian hangouts. This might not play well on the diplomatic scene, but if the security of your nation depends on it, the niceties will get your people killed.


If we’re going to go to war (and thus, kill people) with a nation for harboring or supporting terrorists, then it needs to be on the basis of very strong evidence not vague or imagined threats. A preemptive strike to eliminate a rapidly growing threat can pass the criterion of immediate threat under certain conditions if the threat is clear enough and there are no other means of dealing with it, but I think the case of Iraq fails on both counts.

The other means of dealing with Iraq have been tried and found to result in more Iraqi deaths and less cooperation from Saddam. Maybe he did give biochem weapons away to terrorists, maybe he didn't. Is it smarter to reckon he didn't, or make absolutely sure he can't?


Immediate threat is a criterion that we must hold on to lest any vague threat whether real, imagined, or even constructed (by government propaganda) becomes an excuse to murder people for other national or economic interests.

True. But due to the fact that "foregone threat in 1-5 years" can look like "vague" to some, "immediate" to others, especially when the other immediate threat has nukes and a crazy guy at their head, prudence sometimes dictates going when you can do the job as expertly as possible.


I can’t see how anyone could even think of advocating the elimination of the criterion of last resort for just war theory. The criterion of last resort simply recognizes that war is a horrible thing and should only be engaged in when all other possibilities have been exhausted. Are you saying that we should go ahead and go to war (and thus, kill people) when there are still other means available?

When the other means available have been shown to kill more people than a war would, yes indeedy. A continually festering infection can be remedied by a quick surgical excision, despite the immediate trauma. You just need a skilled surgeon.


Are you saying that we should go to war simply to secure our leverage in the international community?

No, I'd rather do it for national and international security.


I do agree with you that individuals like Saddam are “masters of denial, obfuscation, and delay,” but there are still diplomatic means and ways of putting external and internal pressures on such individuals which do not require warfare. They ought to be exhausted before blood is shed.

The problem is that these methods are not FOOLPROOF. As long as the dictator stays in power, stuff will slip through the inspections net. And plenty of blood will be shed-the blood of Iraqi dissidents, for starters.


I already mentioned the reasonable chance of success criterion. If the goal of this war with Iraq is to curb the threat of terrorism, it is likely to backfire. As I already mentioned, this war will likely only increase Arab resentment of the U.S. and feed right into the hands of the terrorist propaganda machine for gaining new recruits and motivating those already within the fold.

Here's an idea. What if the dictatorships who control and subsidize that terrorist propaganda machine were destroyed or intimidated with force or the threat of force? What if we showed the world what an open Arab society really looked like? What if we encouraged the dissenters under the iron heel of corrupt Wahhabism through the show of American power to eliminate dictators? What if this war was part of a wider strategy to reshape the Arab world so it doesn't produce terrorists anymore? What if we took the "WAR ON TERRORISM" moniker as a true war with a definable outcome?


Another criterion is that the benefits must outweigh the costs. Given that in just a week the current war with Iraq has already claimed well over a thousand lives (on all sides – it really makes no difference whether the losses are ours or theirs from a humanitarian perspective)

From a quite practical perspective, it does. If the ones killed are evil Saddam-lovers, that's actually quite a big benefit to the people already alive. Although it might not be right to "take pleasure in the death of the wicked," it's certainly right to be satisfied that those who would encourage anti-Americanism and pro-Islamism no longer exist.


for the purpose of quelling some vague possible threat,

The threat is as real as 9/11.


despite the fact that there were still several available options to deal with it, I would say that this war clearly flunks that criterion. And that’s not to mention economic and political costs in terms of all the money being spent on the war, the weakening of both the international community

The international community is a prison yard, with almost EVERYONE looking out for their own interests. Always was. Always will be. Some play the game better than others.


the destabilization that is likely to result in the Middle East,

"Stability" in the Middle East means hereditary autocracy. Stability is bad in that case. Those evil regimes must ideally be destabilized and toppled from within by liberty-loving forces.


and the increased resentment toward the U.S. stirred up among the international community in general and among potential recruits for terrorism in particular.

They have hated us long before 9/11, simply for being democratic and powerful. Trying to win the favor of such people is a fool's errand and man-pleasing of the worst sort.


Another criterion is legitimate authority. The U.S. is enforcing a U.N. resolution without U.N. backing.

We got UN backing when the resolution was passed. We will not stop our enforcement just because France doesn't know the meaning of the words "material breach."


We have no legitimate authority to wage this war in the first place.

Sure we do. We started the first one. We should finish it.


We are acting unilaterally to enforce international policy decisions. We are far outside our jurisdiction here.

Well within it, given the numerous conflicts of interest concerning the main opposition parties.


Given all of the above, I think it is clear that this war flunks the test of just war theory. Consequently, this war is unjust and therefore it is evil. Christians who support it will answer to God for doing so. God’s judgment may well fall on our nation for engaging in it. Now is the time for Christians to be the moral voice that God has called us to be. If enough people in America raise their voices in opposition to the war, perhaps God will be merciful as a result.

With all due respect, God was not the author of just-war theory. Man was, in an attempt to synthesize God's will in this area of life. But where God does not speak, reasonable people can disagree without calling down condemnation on their heads.


Finally, if you suggest amending just war theory, it’s not enough just to eliminate certain criteria without proposing more nuanced criteria in its place.

Sorry. I gave you some extra nuance to chew on.


Otherwise, we are just left with moral chaos in which any of the criteria of just war theory can be discarded when it is convenient to do so for any excuse that we might dream up. So, in light of the current terrorist threat you mentioned, what criteria would you propose?

Just War theory, nuanced:

1. "All other means have been exhausted" shall be altered to read: 'All other means that would result in fewer deaths than a war would bring.'"

2. "Immediate threat" shall be defined based on the relative destructive power of the threat and how open the parties are about the nature of the threat.

3. A side which partially or completely fails to reveal any quantity of banned WMD materials subsequently discovered places itself into a state of war with all parties concerned. (Note: Bilateral inspections work much, much, better.)

P.S. Please do not be offended by my strong feelings about the war. I am speaking what I see to be the truth in love. I still acknowledge all my brothers and sisters in Christ who feel different as my brothers and sisters in Christ.

I am not. I go Seto Kaiba on people dedicated to the muddling of information under the pretext of knowledge. Unlike SOME I could name, your opposition is consistently based on the soundest Christian principles pertinent to the situation. It just needs some air and information.

[GrayPilgrim]

I'm not an expert on just war theory but it seems to me that the wars in the Old Testament, esp. in Exodus, Numbers Joshua, were preimptive. God commanded the Israelites to go in and to wipe the -ites from the face of the earth and to destroy their houses, cattle and sheep. Now it seems to me that a Just War theory that doesn't take that into account might be lacking in Biblical authority. One could make the case that the Ammalekites was a defensive war, but hte attacks of say Jericho and Ai were nothing if not preimptive.

I am speaking only of the theory and am not making any linkage to present day events and whether or not it is ordained of God. I just think that the OT makes a Biblical case for a view of preimptive war.

[Alukard]

I'm sick of people griping about their just war theories and why they believe we shouldn't be in Iraq. By their standards then, the United States should not have been involved in the Spanish-American war, WW I, Korea and Vietnam, and the Gulf. Hmmm...that's half the wars the United States has ever been involved in and none of those wars was initiated on the probable cause of a direct threat to US domestic interests or national sovereignty.

[India]

GrayPilgrim:

I'm not an expert on just war theory but it seems to me that the wars in the Old Testament, esp. in Exodus, Numbers Joshua, were preimptive. ...

I am speaking only of the theory and am not making any linkage to present day events and whether or not it is ordained of God. I just think that the OT makes a Biblical case for a view of preimptive war.

Those wars may have been pre-emptive (though in a sense they weren't since the populations came under attack due to their history of sin) but they were directly commanded by God. God has the right to start a pre-emptive war. Whether or not humans do is an entirely separate question.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 06:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46457#post46457)
Alukard:

I'm sick of people griping about their just war theories and why they believe we shouldn't be in Iraq.
Then don't read them.


By their standards then, the United States should not have been involved in the Spanish-American war, WW I, Korea and Vietnam, and the Gulf.
Maybe we shouldn't have. I don't know a lot about the histories and events leading up to all those wars, but I know it is still popular opinion that we never should have been in Vietnam. As for the Gulf, maybe we shouldn't have been there in Gulf War I, especially in light of the fact that Hussein sought and received the blessing of the US Ambassador (who was presumed to speak for the President) for an invasion of Kuwait just one week before the invasion took place. In short, we went to war against Iraq, expressing outrage for them doing what we had given them permission to do!


Hmmm...that's half the wars the United States has ever been involved in and none of those wars was initiated on the probable cause of a direct threat to US domestic interests or national sovereignty.
That's no surprise. Most of us on the anti-war side have not been suffering under the delusion that the US limits her involvement to domestic risk or that we have always had the best interests of other nations at heart. We have a great country here, with a wonderful cultural mix and great lifestyles and freedoms, but we're run by a government that is as self-serving as any other.

[Gavin]

GP,


I'm not an expert on just war theory but it seems to me that the wars in the Old Testament, esp. in Exodus, Numbers Joshua, were preimptive. God commanded the Israelites to go in and to wipe the -ites from the face of the earth and to destroy their houses, cattle and sheep. Now it seems to me that a Just War theory that doesn't take that into account might be lacking in Biblical authority. One could make the case that the Ammalekites was a defensive war, but hte attacks of say Jericho and Ai were nothing if not preimptive.

I am speaking only of the theory and am not making any linkage to present day events and whether or not it is ordained of God. I just think that the OT makes a Biblical case for a view of preimptive war.


That is very interesting, GP. Its also remarkable that God actually commanded the Israelites to wipe them all out - men, women, and children. Saul even lost God's favor when he didn't destroy everything!

Eirrean,


That's no surprise. Most of us on the anti-war side have not been suffering under the delusion that the US limits her involvement to domestic risk or that we have always had the best interests of other nations at heart. We have a great country here, with a wonderful cultural mix and great lifestyles and freedoms, but we're run by a government that is as self-serving as any other.

Its true that the US government is not as altruistic as some of us were taught in grade school.

But after 9/11, I am much more hesitant to doubt that there is a domestic risk caused by terrorists. If 9/11 had not happened, I would not be in favor of this war as I am now.

Blessings,
Gavin

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Yesterday @ 10:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46669#post46669)
Gavin:

Its true that the US government is not as altruistic as some of us were taught in grade school.

But after 9/11, I am much more hesitant to doubt that there is a domestic risk caused by terrorists. If 9/11 had not happened, I would not be in favor of this war as I am now.

Blessings,
Gavin
Granted, but it is also a somewhat dangerous line of thinking to assume that any nation that has connections to terrorism will automically have its sights set on the US. Iraq's only terrorist ties, to date, have been to groups targeting Israel and Iran, both of whom can hold their own quite well. Assuming a threat to the US simply because this particular nation is Islamic is the sort of thinking that leads to threads and polls with funny titles like "Is it time to accept that Islam is a terrorist organization?" thereby making the sometimes illogical jumps: Some Muslim nations sponsor terrorism > All Muslim nations sponsor terrorism > All Muslim nations sponsor terrorism that targets the USA > All Muslims are terrorists, when in fact only the first is true. I'm not suggesting that you have made those leaps, but if you read the thread I referenced a few lines above (Vote: Islam) (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=43066#post43066), you'll see that some on this board clearly have already made those leaps.

[Vorkosigan]

We have a great country here, with a wonderful cultural mix and great lifestyles and freedoms, but we're run by a government that is as self-serving as any other.

Bingo. Cheney's Haliburton makes $$ Selling Oil Machinery in violation of sanctions to Iraq in mid-90s (http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold03202003.html)

Vorkosigan

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 02:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46773#post46773)
Vorkosigan:

We have a great country here, with a wonderful cultural mix and great lifestyles and freedoms, but we're run by a government that is as self-serving as any other.

Bingo. Cheney's Haliburton makes $$ Selling Oil Machinery in violation of sanctions to Iraq in mid-90s (http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold03202003.html)

Vorkosigan
That's a very telling article. Thanks for that. Hmmm, I wonder if we can impeach VP's?

[Alden]

Hussein sought and received the blessing of the US Ambassador

Almost, but not quite. Ambassador Glapie said to Hussein (July 25, 1990), "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts like your boarder disagreement with Kuwait" (Avi Shlaim, War and Peace in the Middle East). Hussein can be forgiven for taking this to mean that America would remain neutral if he attacked Kuwait. But, on it's face, the statement is a neutral one, implying neither positive or negative sentiment. Your statement is a distortion of what actually happened, unless of course you are talking about a different ambassador to Iraq, or a different conversation that they had.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 02:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46785#post46785)
Alden:

Almost, but not quite. Ambassador Glapie said to Hussein (July 25, 1990), "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts like your boarder disagreement with Kuwait" (Avi Shlaim, War and Peace in the Middle East). Hussein can be forgiven for taking this to mean that America would remain neutral if he attacked Kuwait. But, on it's face, the statement is a neutral one, implying neither positive or negative sentiment. Your statement is a distortion of what actually happened, unless of course you are talking about a different ambassador to Iraq, or a different conversation that they had.
Actually, I was referring to these comments, quoted from the Washington Post:

"The U.S. policy of cultivating Hussein as a moderate and reasonable Arab leader continued right up until he invaded Kuwait in August 1990, documents show. When the then-U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, met with Hussein on July 25, 1990, a week before the Iraqi attack on Kuwait, she assured him that Bush "wanted better and deeper relations," according to an Iraqi transcript of the conversation. "President Bush is an intelligent man," the ambassador told Hussein, referring to the father of the current president. "He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq."

Those comments were cited in the Iraqi reports in reference to the conversation about the Kuwait dispute. Those, combined with the quote you provided, significantly implied to Hussein that the US would not interfere. He supposed that Glaspie was speaking for the President and with his knowledge and so had no reason to doubt her sincerity.

[Alden]

I still don't see how that amounts to a "we will not interfere militarily if you invade Kuwait."

[Vorkosigan]

Today @ 09:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46800#post46800)
Alden:

I still don't see how that amounts to a "we will not interfere militarily if you invade Kuwait."

I never have either. Was there some other comment we made?

[Vorkosigan]

Today @ 08:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46781#post46781)
Eireann:


That's a very telling article. Thanks for that. Hmmm, I wonder if we can impeach VP's?

Perle resigned froma couple of positions due to conflics of interest (http://www.boston.com/dailynews/086/wash/Former_Pentagon_official_Richa%3A.shtml). Apparently this was ahead of a Senate probe into the Global Crossing deal.

Of course, that was nothing, really, compared the $34 million package Cheney got when he left Halliburton. Looking at how well the company is doing in the "reconstruction" of Iraq, one can only say that it was money well-invested.

Vorkosigan

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 03:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46800#post46800)
Alden:

I still don't see how that amounts to a "we will not interfere militarily if you invade Kuwait."
It doesn't, but a case could be made for someone easily being able to read that into it. It did suggest that the US would not do anything that would hamper the "deeper and better relations" with Iraq that she said we were seeking, and a military intervention would certainly harm those pursuits, especially after saying that we didn't have any care about their border dispute.

[GrayPilgrim]

I just saw Bill Kristol (sp?), Quale's Chief of Staff when VP, comment on this very thing on C-SPAN and he categorically denied that this promise was ever explicitly or implicitly given to Iraq that we would stay out of any invasion of Kuwait.

[Epoetker]

It doesn't, but a case could be made for someone easily being able to read that into it.

Heads of nations, especially canny, experienced, and cruel heads of nations like Saddam Hussein, know (or should know by now, at least) that diplomat-speak is a very, very, thin basis upon which to base decisions of such import as an invasion. Diplomacy is the art of softening up the other side for concessions, or, if you're an interested third party, like the United States, showing yourself as an honest broker interested only in the mutual benefit it brings all three. OF COURSE a diplomat is going to have "no opinion" on a border dispute between two nations that haven't been particularly paid attention to! They were probably thinking of a few concessions here, a few concessions there, and everything would have gone over quite equitably. They most certainly were NOT thinking of the invasion and annexation of a soverign nation, at which point opinion definitely DID shift against Saddam.


It did suggest that the US would not do anything that would hamper the "deeper and better relations" with Iraq that she said we were seeking, and a military intervention would certainly harm those pursuits, especially after saying that we didn't have any care about their border dispute.

That's cause we thought it could have all been settled over milk and cookies in an air-conditioned presidential palace, without all that nasty war business. We always want "deeper and better" relations with resource-rich countries, right up to the point when their threat exceeds their benefit.

[Vorkosigan]

Vorkisigan: If you factor in the number of lives saves within the US, and the end of sanctions in Iraq, plus the end of their secret police, assuming the country doesn't plunge into chaos after the war, then it is almost certainly saving lives.

Ryo, I just don't believe the next Iraqi government is going to be all that great an improvement over this one. Certainly it will start out that way.....

I fail to see how international organizations, who thus far have completely ignored Korea, could prevent proliferation.

You're unaware of the war fought there by the UN 1950-3? The more recent involvement of numerous international organizations with N Korea, such as the IAEA?

The only way to prevent proliferation is to tie serious consequences to it.

Agreed. But the US, by ignoring Pakistan and North Korea because they are nuke-armed, has provided powerful incentives for the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

If we were to fight a war with China, it would become a total war pretty quick, and as far as that goes, the US can and has fought on mutiple fronts in those kinds of wars.

LOL. Ryo, you don't really think we can occupy Iraq and Afghanistan and take on China all at the same time. What if the Chinese decide the time is now to take Taiwan? Jiang has been yearning to annex the island in his lifetime.

And after we Occupy Iraq, we could probably take out N.Korea, although its not something I think would be to smart.

Agreed.

And Europe doesn't want a India Pakistani war. The world would back our leadership to bring peace there.

Agreed.

Vorkosigan

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 12:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47117#post47117)
GrayPilgrim:

I just saw Bill Kristol (sp?), Quale's Chief of Staff when VP, comment on this very thing on C-SPAN and he categorically denied that this promise was ever explicitly or implicitly given to Iraq that we would stay out of any invasion of Kuwait.
And if the promise was made implicitly or explicitly, would you really expect him to be forthcoming about it? I know you're not that naive.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 04:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47307#post47307)
Epoetker:

They were probably thinking of a few concessions here, a few concessions there, and everything would have gone over quite equitably. They most certainly were NOT thinking of the invasion and annexation of a soverign nation, at which point opinion definitely DID shift against Saddam.
According to the Iraqis, the whole conversation was specifically and explicitly with regard to a possible mass military incursion (invasion, if you will) of Kuwait. So it really comes down to who you believe -- an Iraqi regime with a history of lying, or an American government with a history of lying.

[Ric]

YES!

[wienerdog]

Today @ 12:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47384#post47384)
Eireann:


And if the promise was made implicitly or explicitly, would you really expect him to be forthcoming about it? I know you're not that naive.

Just a quick comment: your assertion makes it unfalsifiable. Whether he made the promise or not, he'll say that he didn't. It's kind of like asking a guy if he beats his wife, and when he says no, you say "that's exactly what someone who beats his wife would say!"

[Ryokan]

Eireann, aids are often stupid, as that conversation is a case of.

[TheFiveSolas]

Spl wrote:


Plus he (Saddam) has a bunch of doubles.


Perhaps they are clones, provided to him by the Raelians? :rofl:

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Yesterday @ 11:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47568#post47568)
wienerdog:



Just a quick comment: your assertion makes it unfalsifiable. Whether he made the promise or not, he'll say that he didn't. It's kind of like asking a guy if he beats his wife, and when he says no, you say "that's exactly what someone who beats his wife would say!"
That's true, it is unfalsifiable, but "plausible deniability" is something our government has been known to willfully engage in, sometimes not being found out until years after the deed. For those who don't know, "plausibile deniability" is a policy which basically says, "Before committing any illicit act, be sure you can blame it on someone else or deny it entirely." It's a favored policy in most governments, including our own.

[Epoetker]

LOL. Ryo, you don't really think we can occupy Iraq and Afghanistan and take on China all at the same time.

Totally doable. We might have to reinstate the draft, cut some fat out of the farm bill, de-mothball a few battleships, get to something resembling WW2-mobilization, and raise a few taxes here and there, but given what we're working with right now, it would not unduly ruin the USA. China might not be so lucky. De-Communization would be a long and arduous process, but nothing like impossible.

[Captain Ochre]

Yesterday @ 11:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47330#post47330)
Vorkosigan:
Ryo, I just don't believe the next Iraqi government is going to be all that great an improvement over this one. Certainly it will start out that way.....


Not much by way of argument in the above . . .
How's about I just disagree? :smile:



You're unaware of the war fought there by the UN 1950-3?


He probably meant over the past forty years or so!



The more recent involvement of numerous international organizations with N Korea, such as the IAEA?


If the US has been ignoring N. Korea (see your comment below), then so have international organizations with respect to nuclearity.



The only way to prevent proliferation is to tie serious consequences to it.

Agreed. But the US, by ignoring Pakistan and North Korea because they are nuke-armed, has provided powerful incentives for the acquisition of nuclear weapons.


You can't not-ignore Pakistan and simultaneously not-ignore India, afaics. In principle, you're correct about the incentive for development of nuclear arms, and the N. Korean situation will stand as an interesting test-case. A pity that Carter copied the "atoms for peace" pattern with respect to N. Korea despite the failure of that pattern in the past. Again we see how the UNSC has no teeth except for the US.
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/unsc0606.htm



If we were to fight a war with China, it would become a total war pretty quick, and as far as that goes, the US can and has fought on mutiple fronts in those kinds of wars.

LOL. Ryo, you don't really think we can occupy Iraq and Afghanistan and take on China all at the same time. What if the Chinese decide the time is now to take Taiwan? Jiang has been yearning to annex the island in his lifetime.


We've got some leverage on China since they're tied to us via trade. The only strong motivation China has for creating trouble, afaics, is the one you mention above, Vorko. All the more reason for the UN to make itself ascend above joke status.

[Vorkosigan]

Not much by way of argument in the above . . .
How's about I just disagree? :smile:

Well, I could point to the large number of client governments we've installed over the years in many countries...but you're right. We'll have to see what the future will bring.

If the US has been ignoring N. Korea (see your comment below), then so have international organizations with respect to nuclearity.

Ochre, N Korea has been the object of IAEA and other nuke organizations' attention for the better part of two decades. Only by ignoring history could you make a comment like that. Numerous organizations have taken a shot at the N Korean nuclear issue.

In principle, you're correct about the incentive for development of nuclear arms, and the N. Korean situation will stand as an interesting test-case.

I agree. Bush has tried to navigate through those waters by claiming that the N Korean situation is different, but it is hard to see where any argument for war in Iraq is not even more urgent in N Korea.

A pity that Carter copied the "atoms for peace" pattern with respect to N. Korea despite the failure of that pattern in the past. Again we see how the UNSC has no teeth except for the US.

Carter had no choice; his negotiating room was limited by both the Clinton Administration and the Kim's intransigence.

We've got some leverage on China since they're tied to us via trade. The only strong motivation China has for creating trouble, afaics, is the one you mention above, Vorko. All the more reason for the UN to make itself ascend above joke status.

If only that were true. But in fact, China has designs on Mongolia and there is also Tibet and the Himalayan region in general, where there is much tension, not merely between India and China, but also over Chinese expansionism into that area elsewhere. A much unheralded and unknown flashpoint, but very dangerous. Additionally, there is Central Asia and the problem of Islam in Xinjiang. The US and the UN have turned a blind eye to that, due to the fact that political stability is necessary for the pipeline systems to run through there to China.

China is a mess, and everywhere along its borders, there are potential problems. I simply live in the most visible.

Vorkosigan

[Ryokan]

Vork, we fought the Thrid Reich and Japan in WWII. It wouldn't be pretty, it'd be long, the causualties on all sides would be horrendous, and it'd probably have a nuclear end, but we could take China, even with these littler wars going on.

And I hardly think that the IAEA pulling out and a fifty year old war sanction count as engaging the North.