rbnd,
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:
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?
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?
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!)
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?
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.
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?
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.
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!
