I read the article and must say I found it lacking. I know your purpose wasn't necessarily to try and convince me but this article is so full of holes. The fatal flaw being that the author took the whole scenario out of context - that context being the last 15 years of history. If we had attacked Chile he may have a case but we didn't...anyway I would like to parse the article to examine some of the thought processes here:
Quote
Is War With Iraq A Just War? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Chuck Baldwin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Covenant News ~ February 11, 2003 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I predicted when George W. Bush was elected President of the United States, America is going to war against Iraq. That we are going to war with Iraq is not the question. The question is, "Is war with Iraq a just war?"
For the better part of 2000 years, Western Civilization has generally agreed that Saint Augustine's definition of a just war forms the clearest and most laudable benchmark for waging war. Notable personalities of history such as St. Thomas Aquinas and Daniel Webster have likewise assessed the just war theory in terms favorable to those of Augustine's.
In a nutshell, Augustine said that for a war to be just "it must be fought for the right reasons, and it must be waged under rightful authority." He also said that "war is waged in order to attain peace."
According to Augustine, immoral reasons for war include "the desire for harming, the cruelty of revenge, the restless and implacable mind, the savageness of revolting, the lust for dominating, and similar things."
As America prepares a preemptive attack against Iraq, it is critically important that the American people once again familiarize themselves with what constitutes a just war. After all, under our form of government, "we the people" must ultimately bear responsibility for those actions.
In contemplating the prospect of war against Iraq, we need to ask ourselves some hard questions. Has Iraq attacked us or taken peace from our land?
Earlier the author said that war was justified under the following conditions:
1) it must be fought for the right reasons 2) it must be waged under rightful authority
Now he seems to contradict that by intimating that a direct attack is the only valid justification??? Perhaps this could be ironed out by reading what Augustine actually said?
Quote
To be sure, Iraq is no friend to the United States, but neither are any of the Muslim countries. For that matter, neither is China a friend to the United States. Yet, not only do we not wage war against these countries, we lavish billions of dollars in trade and welfare upon them.
So what in the last 15 years makes Irag different than any of the other countries listed? Could it be that we had a war with one of them and not the others?!?!? Can the author not play the moral equivalency game?
Quote
The reason given by our government for attacking Iraq is that they have amassed weapons of mass destruction, but so have a host of other unfriendly nations. Why do we not attack them?
ok... it becomes pretty obvious what source the auther relies on for his news... could it be mainstream media???
First of all - WMD was not the only reason... there were numerous justifications including Saddams continual subversion of the oil-for-food program and the weapons inspection program.
Second of all - they weren't just an unfriendly nation! (historical context again!)
Quote
Another question that begs an answer is, "If Iraq does have WMD's, from where did they get them?" According to Michael Dobbs, Iraq obtained their chemical and biological weapons from the United States. He wrote in the Washington Post:
"A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80's under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare."
Therefore, the question of whether Iraq has WMD's seems moot. Of course they do; we supplied them with those weapons! Again, the greater question is, "Has Iraq attacked America? Have they taken peace from our land? Are we fighting a justified defensive war, or are we the aggressors?"
Did the author actually check the committee report or does he just take the word of the Washington Post reporter as gospel truth? I tried to find the report but couldn't.
He again asks if we "are fighting a justified densive war..." but hasn't given any reason why we aren't. He intimated that the only reason we went to war was because of WMD then says we gave them to Iraq - therefore we aren't justified in attacking them???
Doesn't Saddam's breaking of the cease fire mean that we are at war... so there is no need to "go to war" correct?
Quote
When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, they claimed they had to launch a preemptive strike against the United States for something they perceived America was going to do. Was Japan justified? When Hitler invaded Poland and other European nations, he claimed the same thing. Was he justified?
Now the author finally brings in some history and then misapplies it. Was the situation between Japan and the US in anyway congruent? No, it wasn't! The author equates our action in Iraq with the actions of Japan and Germany - that is absolutely perposterous - again moral equivalency problems.
Quote
The one issue that does seem clear is that America has no authority to wage war against any nation without a Declaration of War from Congress. Such a declaration has not been issued. The President has no authority to act unilaterally. We do not have an emperor living in the White House! Therefore, from a constitutional perspective, an undeclared war is illegal.
Did the author forget that we declared war in 1991 and that Saddam broke the ceasefire? Next, he says that without a declaration of war then it is illegal... has the author not heard of the war powers act?
Quote
Certainly, the peace of the United States was assaulted on September 11, 2001. However, the aggressor in that attack was not Saddam Hussein but Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists mostly from Saudi Arabia. Yet, the U.S. continues to coddle the leaders of Saudi Arabia in the most compliant ways possible. Why?
Further assaults against our peace are coming from Mexico as hundreds of thousands of illegal Mexican aliens stream across our Southern border plundering our land and attacking our people. Yet, the response from our government against these attacks is mild, almost nonexistent. Why?
These unanswered questions lead to other questions. What is the real motive for attacking Iraq? Is it to dominate Iraq's oil fields? One thing is certain: gas and oil prices have risen dramatically since Bush and Cheney, both oilmen, have taken office. Is Bush Junior seeking revenge on behalf of Daddy Bush? Is he trying to use a war with Iraq to shift the attention of the American public away from a deteriorating economy? Is this "war against terrorism" being used to convince Americans to surrender their liberties and freedoms to an all-powerful federal government? Certainly, none of these motivations justify war in any shape, manner or form.
The author can claim no objectivity on this matter... all he does is spew unsupported liberal conspiracy theories! He provides no evidence to back up his "questions" He selectively leaves out relevant infomation and throws up questions to cloud the issues.
Quote
In personally contemplating our attack upon Iraq, my hawkish side says, "Go get 'em." As a Christian and lover of truth, however, it seems imperative that we would never allow our country to wage an unjust war to satisfy the commercial or political appetites of politicians, for in doing so we would find ourselves fighting against God.
When America fought its war for independence (a just war), Frances Scott Key wrote the song that became our National Anthem. It includes these words: "Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just; And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust!'" Americans should never be satisfied with anything less!
The author says he is a "lover of the truth" yet he asks the question "Is Bush Junior seeking revenge on behalf of Daddy Bush?" Given that he has selectively left out information I have to question him on whether he is a "lover of the truth" Also, given the author's own criteria for a just war, I think he would be hard pressed to show that the war for independence was a just war!
It is exactly your scenario which makes many wonder why we just had to go into Iraq when other countries that are doing far greater evils, and torturing and killing far more people, are either ignored entirely or given the greatest respect, and treated as our wonderful allies.
When there is an apartment building burning, a house burning, and a wood shed burning, many people wonder why it is we ignore the apartment building burning and the house burning, but instead focus all our energy putting the wood shed fire out. Is it because we value the wood more?
As a sideline, polls show that more people feel the world, and the U.S., is less safe now than before we went into Iraq.
I just found out that Chuck Baldwin, who wrote 'Is War With Iraq A Just War?' in The Covenant News, is the vice-presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. I wasn't aware of this when I initially posted a link to his article.
I checked out the Ohio Constitutional party's platform and I really like it (less the isolationist tendencies). Unfortunately, Chuck Baldwin's Iraq policy as stated in this article was totally underwhelming. He's got to do more than echo Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings!
For my part, I need to study the issue of "Just warfare" - I will look into what Augustine directly had to say and try to get that book with the 4 different views. Thanks for your responses.
It is exactly your scenario which makes many wonder why we just had to go into Iraq when other countries that are doing far greater evils, and torturing and killing far more people, are either ignored entirely or given the greatest respect, and treated as our wonderful allies.
Moral equivalency? Where is it stated that government must deal with all countries in like manner on the same time scale?
Quote
When there is an apartment building burning, a house burning, and a wood shed burning, many people wonder why it is we ignore the apartment building burning and the house burning, but instead focus all our energy putting the wood shed fire out. Is it because we value the wood more?
No clue as to how this applies to real life. I assure you, sir, I would go to the building.
Quote
As a sideline, polls show that more people feel the world, and the U.S., is less safe now than before we went into Iraq.
Polls are not indicative of neither truth nor moral integrity.
Another question that begs an answer is, "If Iraq does have WMD's, from where did they get them?" According to Michael Dobbs, Iraq obtained their chemical and biological weapons from the United States. He wrote in the Washington Post:
"A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80's under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare."
Therefore, the question of whether Iraq has WMD's seems moot. Of course they do; we supplied them with those weapons! Again, the greater question is, "Has Iraq attacked America? Have they taken peace from our land? Are we fighting a justified defensive war, or are we the aggressors?"
This particular sections seems to be in keeping with all the information I have been able to find on the topic. Some of the information I found came from the liberal media, but some of it came from conservative sources.
Have you got any information that disproves this information?
Of course you don't "deal with all countries in like manner on the same time scale." The question is, why were we so determined to go put out the 'burning wood shed' while there were, and still are, 'burning apartment buildings' in other parts of the world? You say you would go to the burning building, but how come we do not do so on an international level?
Also, by the way, the persecution of Christians in Iraq has greatly increased since the U.S. has moved in. They are rushing the borders to get out as quickly as they can. They are certainly not better off now. This is not a poll.
And how am I defining 'burning apartment buildings'? These are the places where Christians are most persecuted.
This particular sections seems to be in keeping with all the information I have been able to find on the topic. Some of the information I found came from the liberal media, but some of it came from conservative sources.
(Fred) The bulk of Saddam's WMD arsenal came from either France or Russia, hence the reason they were not so keen on joining the coalition. Remember, it was France who was supplying the materials for Iraq to gain nuclear weapons in the late 70s early 80s until Israel bombed their nuke plant.
The US only supplied a minimal amount of weapons to Saddam, not the WMD kind, during their war with Iran. At the time, Iran was the most nasty threat to American/Western values and any way we could use to keep them in check was necessary, including helping Irag.
The fellow who wrote that article must be absolutely clueless if he thinks America was the primary source of Iraq's arms cache.
Fred
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
Of course you don't "deal with all countries in like manner on the same time scale." The question is, why were we so determined to go put out the 'burning wood shed' while there were, and still are, 'burning apartment buildings' in other parts of the world?
Your opinion as to what constitutes buildings and woodsheds is noted.
Quote
You say you would go to the burning building, but how come we do not do so on an international level?
Unfortunately, we are not capable of dealing with every tyrant equally at the same time. Could you show me a situation we are not dealing with in no way?
Quote
Also, by the way, the persecution of Christians in Iraq has greatly increased since the U.S. has moved in. They are rushing the borders to get out as quickly as they can. They are certainly not better off now. This is not a poll.
And how am I defining 'burning apartment buildings'? These are the places where Christians are most persecuted.
I was unaware that one of the great prerequisites to become president is ones ability to enforce their religious views on a world level. It is not, for me. The war in Iraq is justified whether or not it took place at the right time or in proper order.
You asked, "Could you show me a situation we are not dealing with in no way?"
The most obvious, and the biggest, is China. The more they persecute people like the Christians, the more we look the other way. And the more we look the other way, the more they persecute the Christians. Again, our policies towards China have only increased persecution against Christians there, which is now almost a daily news story.
You then stated:
"I was unaware that one of the great prerequisites to become president is ones ability to enforce their religious views on a world level."
Me neither, but then I never said that it was. However, any action on the part of our government leaders that increase the persecution of Christians in other countries should concern people - at least other Christians.
The most obvious, and the biggest, is China. The more they persecute people like the Christians, the more we look the other way. And the more we look the other way, the more they persecute the Christians. Again, our policies toward China have only increased persecution against Christians there, which is now almost a daily news story.
Relations with China are far less than shining. There are consistently tensions from this and other matters as well. I will agree that China is problematic.
Quote
Me neither, but then I never said that it was. However, any action on the part of our government leaders that increase the persecution of Christians in other countries should concern people - at least other Christians.
What program put forth by our government persecutes Christians? I am speaking directly, not indirectly. Are you personally willing, today, to join the movement to go to China and go to war?
"What program put forth by our government persecutes Christians? I am speaking directly, not indirectly."
There is none directly that I know of on an international level. But yet this is done indirectly. For example, China has now been granted permanent Most Favored Nation, or MFN, status. Before that time it used to be debated every year and every year the Chinese government was confronted about their mis-treatment of their citizens. Then came the movement to give China MFN. Human rights organizations, both Christian and others, said that to give China MFN would most certainly result in an increase in persecution of Christians and other human rights abuses. China was given MFN status anyway by the U.S. government. The result was then exactly what the human rights organizations predicted. Withholding MFN was a way of regularly dealing with China's mis-treatment of it's citizens. Then the U.S. government threw that opportunity away. Obviously we can't, and shouldn't, go to war with China, but here is something we could have done to help the people in China, but chose not to do.
You stated:
"Are you personally willing, today, to join the movement to go to China and go to war?"
I know of no such movement, and I certainly would not be in favor of such a movement. You're asking the wrong person.
With GREAT reluctance I am going to add my 2-cents here. What I find most disturbing is the idea that the lives of Christians are being elevated above that of non-Christians. What I cannot help but see is a Pharisaical attitude in all this. HOW? Wasn't it this type of mentality which the Lord Christ took offense to when the Jewish "upper crust" walked by an injured man just because he wasn't a Jew? Why is the life of a Christian more valuable than one who is not? The slaughter of hundreds of thousands of those "pagans" in Africa through genocide, moves my soul to the point of tears. Are these people not my neighbors? Am I to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein because the people that were slaughtered were Muslims? The end question to the parable of the Good Samaritan was not "who is my neighbor?". That was what the Pharisees asked of Jesus. But the real question was asked in return in this way, "Whose neighbor are you?"
As to a "just war".. methinks that Augustine, being far from infallible and all-wise, offered some very salient and truthful suggestions. However, I find his "just war" proposal to be less than adequate, if for no other reason than he was living in another era. Today, the world has become and is becoming increasingly smaller. Military threat is no longer something which is done on horseback. An imminent threat can be launched in a matter of minutes and by someone thousands of miles away. The devastation that can be inflicted is beyond my comprehension. I do think that the "domino theory" is no less relevant as any "just war" idea and poses a certain and imminent danger, especially when it is ignored.
The question that I would like to ask is if we were to consider the following analogy, how should one act? If the entire world was to be represented by a solitary street. And on that street are found 12 homes. In those homes are families; husbands, wives and children. So, let's say in the #12 house there is a family whose most intimate desire is to possess the entire street; all the 12 homes and to make the families living in those homes servants. And so, on one bright sunny day this one family attacks their immediate neighbor; house #11. They barge in and at gunpoint demand that the residents there submit to their wishes or be killed. The women and girls are raped and the men brutally beaten. They also demand that either they assist them in their desire for domination or die. The family, not wanting to die, submits and joins them in their next attack, which is on house #10.
Now, a rumour has come to the ears of the residents of the other 10 homes that a terrible thing has occurred on their street. Someone proposes that they all band together and put and end to these vicious individuals. But the majority of the people object and say that it is "none of our business". Besides, if the rumour is accurate, these things are happening "way down at the far end of the street and thus they pose no threat to us." And so the scenario goes .....!!
The question is this, "When should one concern himself/herself with such a threat and take action against it?" Would you say when the first house was attacked? How about when house #8 is overtaken? house #5?
Oh yeh.... one other item which must not be ignored. Sin is a reality. It is that element which controls and drives every single man, woman and child that is born into this world. There IS such a thing as "evil" and it is the fruit of "wicked people". Thus there is always going to be war, murder, famine, and all manner of atrocities committed by individuals and/or groups upon others. It will never be eradicated on this earth before Christ comes; that much we can be sure of. But how much is to be tolerated? If you profess to be a Christian and are privy to even a small degree to what is happening on this earth, does not your very soul cry out, "Maranatha!!! Lord..... come quickly!"??
Okay.. I'm done! Will the ushers now pass around the collection plate! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Why should we be most concerned about countries where the persecution of Christians is most common?
1. If we are Christians, they are our brothers and sisters in Christ.
2. Christians are often the first, or among the first, citizens to be persecuted in a country, thus providing a very good gauge from which to determine which countries most often abuse the human rights of their citizens.
3. Galatians 6:10 - "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith." - Yes, it does say, "especially unto them who are of the household of faith," and I am in full agreement. Call me a Pharisee if you will. I agree with God's Word wholeheartedly. The modern temptation within churches is to cut off the last part of the verse so that it simply reads, "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men."
(for those who are interested in learning more about the persecuted church around the world, check out: http://www.persecution.com/)
Also, I believe a large percentage of the people being killed in Africa are Christians, being killed by the Moslems.
In regards to your 'houses on a street' illustration, I don't see how that in way justifies going into Iraq, but I suppose some people could use it as justification for entering other countries which provide much greater risk to their own citizens and people throughout the world.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/Canada.gif)
2-cents here. What I find most disturbing is the idea that the lives of Christians are being elevated above that of non-Christians. What I cannot help but see is a Pharisaical attitude in all this. HOW? Wasn't it this type of mentality which the Lord Christ took offense to when the Jewish "upper crust" walked by an injured man just because he wasn't a Jew? Why is the life of a Christian more valuable than one who is not? The slaughter of hundreds of thousands of those "pagans" in Africa through genocide, moves my soul to the point of tears. Are these people not my neighbors? Am I to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein because the people that were slaughtered were Muslims? The end question to the parable of the Good Samaritan was not "who is my neighbor?". That was what the Pharisees asked of Jesus. But the real question was asked in return in this way, "Whose neighbor are you?"![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)