The US, UN & Iraq III

Then you disagree that "necessary means" was the language used to authorize the Gulf War in resolution 687? Can you tell me what language did authorize it, then?

I said legitimizing our act, not foregoing it.

What about if the sacrifice you mention involved letting the inspections play out and waiting another year.

And perhaps putting a muzzle on Rumsfield. :-)

I honestly think the "let's just get it over with" attitude I saw in some quarters would have appeared elsewhere and the war would have had broader support.

To be clear. I'm talking about selling the war in a better way, not seeing the dissent and giving up.

Like I said, i do not share your beliefs that not going to war would be the wrong choice, but I'd accept the war if it could be sold as a necessary one and reduce the pre-emptive regime change precedent.

Craven,

If you accept the proposition of a just war, then you accept a certain distinct morality for nations.

A national strategy is good or effective if, considering all the relevant factors it will lead to the achievement of the intended goal. If the goal is morally defensible and the strategy is executed within the bounds of acceptable actions then it is moral. I don't think one can go much farther than that. I note that the Pope didn't approve of our invasion of Iraq, but it was OK by me. Spiritual values are different from temporal ones.

Certainly persuading as many people as possible of the rightness of our cause and methods is desirable. However it is not essential and, in some cases, not very important. History is full of examples of the success of unpopular causes which, once success was achieved, were happily accepted. There are also many examples of the triumph of popular causes which turned out to be disasters for many and were later rejected.

One could make a fairly good case that the U.S. erred in taking the matter to the Security Council at all. We could have merely claimed our rights as signatory on the agreement ending the Gulf War and demanded a regime change or, failing that, invaded. The answer would likely require more specific knowledge than any of us have. Our State Department certainly acts as though they were betrayed by the French and evidently believes that certain assurances or understandings they had were breeched. Hard for us to know who did or said what.

Come on, I said nothing of the sort.

I said that to you and toothers necessary means = war.

To myself and others necessary means = options other than war.

Can i tell you what language authorized it?

I never made such a contention.

I have frequently contended something similar to the opposite.

According to the transcript of the Vanity Fair interview, Wolfowitz was misquoted by the interviewer. Here's what the transcript has him actually saying:

It would be wonderful if the DOD would make the audio of the interview available on-line, since it would negate any reasonable questions as to the veracity of their transcription.

For the record: I don't know whether this version is accurate and Tanenhaus lied, or whether this transcript is bogus and Tanenhaus reports what Wolfowitz really said. I put this out there because it is another side of the question. Do with it what you want.

Hmm. I'm not sure what you mean. I think that in many cases it comes down to more than just one nation.



What if the goals are wrong? There can be more than one morally accptable goal.

My point about this war is that I do not consider unprovoked and pre-emptive attacks to be within the bounds of acceptable actions but would only have given up my qualm if the world could be convinced that it was non such a war.



LOL, I am an atheist. and was no fan of the pope as a theist.



I'm inclined to agree that this unpopularity will not be a large factor down the line. I don't take that belief and translate it into support = possibly unimportant because I believe the goal was wrong in the first place.



Hmm. My take (disclaimer about not being omicient and such) is that taking it to the security council was needed for domestic support.

Characterizing French actons as disappointing could have been the same. It makes it look like we had broad support but "the arrogant Frenchies" blocked us.

IMO, taking it to the security council, getting an ambiguous resolution that everyone knew was goinf to be interpreted differently and making theFrench look like ingrates was sound political strategy for a domestic audience.

Just my take. I personally think domestic support would have been weaker without at least appearing to try diplomacy.

Craven,

As an atheist on what basis do you believe an "unprovoked and pre-emptive attack" to be "unacceptable"?

I suggest you read some modern physics - relativistic quantum theory and complexity theory. Atheism is getting rather difficult to defend . Even Kant would recant now.

What makes you suggest our attack on Iraq was unprovoked ? I believe there is ample evidence of Iraq's failure to abide by the agreement ending the 1992 war.

We can only speculate about what might have happened had we handled various details of the lead-in to this war differently. I don't have any strong opinions about any of it.

Craven - It seems to me that those people who differ on the meaning of "necessary means" in 1441 are either willfully or blissfully ignorant of its usage in 687. I suppose one might not think 687 authorized the Gulf War, but barring that you merely have to connect the dots. What it meant in 687 it must also mean in 1441. No reasonable person could assume that the members of the UN used that exact phrase in both of those documents and intended them to be interpreted in completely different ways.

Of course, many would say it doesn't matter whether it means war or not, because it wasn't up to the US alone to call "time" on inspections and other avenues. That argument has far more merit than the "no military justification" one.

That it is necessary to afford the least amount of suffering to the most people. That criteria opposes the war for me but I suspect you, by that criteria, would still support it.



Foul ball, let's make our gods fight another day. This is a whole slew of threads into itself.



Earlier I mentioned that we'd probably differ on whether the war was provoked.

To put it simply (and to make this here beer taste good and my slumber arrive quickly) I will say that we do.

I simply do not agree that the circumstances you mention justify the war under the circumstances it was waged.

If you are really interested I can cite things that would have made my position different.



For real? No opinion about waiting a few months or a year?

I do not agree that it's a matter of connecting the dots and always seek to curb the "no reasonable person" argument. That last part is something Roger taught me and I have since taken up.

About the second aragraph that is my personal qualm. If we were going to call "time" against the inspectors wishes the only point of letting them in was for domestic play.

I agree that one needs to be careful about using the phrase "no reasonable person", but in this case I stand by it. The alternative would be to believe that the UN knowingly used the same phrase in these documents and meant something different each time. I think the UN is useless, but I do not think its members are stupid.

Scrat,

The term obviously implied war, if necessary. Many disagree in no uncertain terms about the necessity. I do not think they are "unreasonable".

After all, I am among that group. :-)

You seemed to be arguing that conclusion rather strenuously until now.


And I think you know that I never suggested that anyone was unreasonable simply for disagreeing about the necessity of the war.

I ahve argued that i do not think the resolution validated the war.

not because the wording did not include war as an option but because it's conditions, IMO, were not matched.

Ah... I'll give you no argument there, boss. :wink:

a
A Measure of Our Patriotism
By Wayne Carlson

There appear to be many, perhaps most, calling themselves Americans, even Christians, who are of the opinion that it is unpatriotic to give less than unconditional support to those wielding the power of government and its military arm, whenever military operations commence. I believe this stems from most Christians sincere desire to believe that the current President, George W. Bush, is a modern day Moses, Abraham, or Joshua, leading "God's people" in just and holy wars against Jehovah's enemies. Shouldn't the test of whether or not this is true extend beyond a mere claim to be a Christian, or is this all that the church requires these days?

Do the church's priests and pastors have any responsibility to insure that the "flock" is not misled down the proverbial primrose path? The fact that the Pope has condemned the U.S. invasion of Iraq as "unjust" and "unholy" ought to give some pause, should it not? It was God himself that said, "either you are with me or against me". When the sitting President borrows these words and applies them to the U.S. government, should Christians be concerned? It would seem to me that what Mr. Bush is demanding is that we render unquestioning obedience to whatever actions or policies his administration inaugurates. If we even dare to question his policies we are somehow in league with the perpetrators of 9-ll-01. Do we really buy that? Do we actually believe that Iraq and its former dictator were responsible for 9-11 as Bush openly suggested, without a shred of proof, on national TV? Shall we casually give him the unconstitutional power to wage preemptive wars against anyone he and his minions now deem to be a "potential" threat to U.S. interests? Exactly whose "interests" are we talking about anyway? Given the importance of Big Oil in the financial welfare of the Bush family, as well as the leading "hawks" within the Republican Party, it would seem vitally important to make sure that this isn't the real reason for invading oil rich Iraq. How did Saddam's regime threaten us enough to justify the cost in death, not to mention the incredible expense?

That so many people, especially Christians, so readily buy into whatever explanation is offered by this President, without reference to what God has said of what constitutes a "just" or "holy" war, is a shocking indictment of their commitment and consecration to our true sovereign, the Lord Jesus Christ. In addition, it is a measure of our historical ignorance, and the level of our people's idolatrous reliance, if not outright worship, of the all-powerful State. Their denials notwithstanding, the fact that our own history is replete with instances of government and media conspiring to mislead, lie, or deliberately cover up the truth to control public opinion does not augur well for our absolute faith in public pronouncements or our growing pattern of military adventurism. Perhaps the ubiquitous presence of the American flag within nearly every house of worship across the land is suggestive of the church's slow descent into idolatry. As we are repeatedly reminded today, the old American Republic avoided at its creation the establishment of any particular sect of Christianity. However, in pursuance of this broad toleration for Christianity's many different forms, it was nevertheless understood by virtually all of the founding fathers that it was Christianity, the acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of the world, that formed the very foundation upon which our law and government rested. Americans are not taught this all-important truth (no surprise), in our secular government schools. Instead, we are led to believe that government, as it boasts today, was created to be entirely secular (read non-Christian). Thus, when government passes laws, or behaves in a way that violates God's laws, the Christian church has come to believe that it should acquiesce. This would certainly explain the universal silence emanating from the pulpits within the American empire.

Very few seem to understand that the history of the Presidency, at least since the infidel Lincoln, reveals a growing propensity to expand the executive office's prerogatives at the expense of Constitutional limitations. This is especially true during times of war or national crisis. The present "War on Terrorism" offers a chilling testimony in the form of passage of the so-called "Patriot Act" to this phenomenon. The fact that the Bush administration appears to be waiting for just the right moment to usher in Patriot Act II, sweeping away perhaps the last vestiges of Constitutional protections in the name of homeland security, should be enough by itself to cause grave concern. Of course, among the deluded advocates of world hegemony under U.S., or U.N. control, such measures may be welcomed as necessary in order to usher in a "new order", essentially replacing the old U.S. Constitution, that has long been an obstacle to its full implementation.

Biblical patriotism, correctly understood, is not mindless nationalism and blind obedience to whoever rules over us. It does not demand that we follow government wherever it leads. If this were its true essence, then let us ponder the example of Germany under the Nazis, or Russia under Stalin. No, as Christians in a once avowedly Christian nation, we must remember who has first claim over us. Where the laws of the State violate the laws of God, it should be obvious which laws we must follow. After the creator, our loyalty must be to the welfare of our family and our kinsmen. From there, like expanding concentric circles, our loyalty lies with those who share our common culture and with those that represent no harm to the interests of our people, State, or nation. When we fail to heed this natural, God-ordained hierarchy of loyalties and fail to measure the edicts of government against God's commands and their impact upon us, now and in the future, we depart from Biblical patriotism. Instead we enter the realm of State defined patriotism, which is really nothing more than a demand to support whatever it chooses to do.

If we believe that the actions of the State violate God's definitions for a just or holy war, or we see that its actions violate the principles on which our government was established, or imperil the peace and safety of home, hearth, and country, we are duty bound to speak out and seek redress. If these freedoms are forfeit at home then the government can hardly claim that our troops are overseas fighting for their preservation. The nature of the claims made by government over those serving in the military precludes them from exercising these rights for themselves. They cannot speak out. I think we owe it to them to insure that their government is not risking their lives for the wrong reasons, don't you? I welcome comments at [email protected]

a



The scoop

That Measure of Patriotism was one of the most inane, bigoted pieces of writing I've ever read.

Perhaps the ubiquitous presence of the American flag within nearly every house of worship across the land is suggestive of the church's slow descent into idolatry. -- He's worried about the evil practice of displaying the American flag in churches...

That so many people, especially Christians, so readily buy into whatever explanation is offered by this President, without reference to what God has said of what constitutes a "just" or "holy" war, is a shocking indictment of their commitment and consecration to our true sovereign, the Lord Jesus Christ-- Christians are confusing Bush with Christ... ?

Biblical patriotism, correctly understood, is not mindless nationalism and blind obedience to whoever rules over us. It does not demand that we follow government wherever it leads. If this were its true essence, then let us ponder the example of Germany under the Nazis, or Russia under Stalin--- Only took him three paragraphs to imply Christians are Nazis.

Sounds like he is spreading the bigoted hate speech that is becoming more and more acceptable in this country. It is wrong, no matter who it is aimed at.

Hardly hate speech, sofia. I do not share this writer's Christianity or theism, but...

Church and state separation ain't a bad idea, and protestations that the US is in no danger of slipping in a direction the authors of your constitution worried about are naive and credulous.

Christians, some, are sure as hell confusing something with something else. If not the earlier point, then the rootin tootin happy for Armageddon in the middle east insanity might properly be considered confused.

The implication is not as you suggest, but rather it is that vesting a sovereign (or an office) with any status greater than 'Fred next door who is temporarily the organizer dude because we picked him' is dumb and dangerous.

Sofia, there is an American flag waving from my porch as we speak.I am justly proud of my countr and what it stood for prior to the 2000 election ...... using the term 'election loosley. The erosion of valules, loss of status, draining of the economy wth, so far, no return has sickened me.
I can only hope for a fair and leagal election in 2004.

Use you right to say what you will while you still can and while you can still find someone willing to defend that right.