quote:

---

For me, eternal life starts now, not in some distant place. The end of this life is nothing to fear? Hmmm, I don't know many, including Jesus himself who would fully agree with that statement. Unless you have perfect faith, without doubt, a part of you must fear losing life, or it wouldn't be worth much to you. Personally I don't want to die, at least not right now. There are many God-given things and people I would miss.

---

quote:

---

Brandon, thank you for the thoughtful analysis. Your challenge was fair and offers me an opportunity to clarify my position.

---

I don’t think you have though.

quote:

---

From what you say below, I understand why you would classify me in category C, in spite of the fact that I have explicitly denied that I am a pacifist several times.

---

For all intents and purposes in THIS DEBATE, thou art a pacifist.

quote:

---

I do believe that there is a time for war, but I believe that now is not the time for war.

---

Again, I restate my question and conclusion. Can you tell me of ANY TIME IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANKIND when non-combatants have not been involved in war? If you can’t and I don’t think you can, I would have to conclude that according to your understanding, there would ABSOLUTELY NEVER BE ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR AT ANY TIME EVER. Therefore, there is a contradiction in saying that you can be for some wars while at the same time saying that one of your reasons for being against war is because of collateral damage—civilian non-combatants.

quote:

---

quote:

It would seem to me, that one of the major reasons for not going to war is because innocent people will be killed, maimed, orphaned and incinerated..basically involved. If this is the case, how can you believe that there is a time for ANY war?

You’re right, every war has collateral damage. This is why even just war is at best, a lesser evil. In this case, I think the “collateral damage” caused by our bombs and bullets is a greater evil than addressing the humanitarian crisis in Iraq via nonviolent resistance, humanitarian aid, diplomacy, and disarmament.

---

So then, collateral damage is never really a reason to NOT go to war. Apparently, most of your posts were based on this as being a reason for NEVER going to war. So even in the case of the little Iraqi six year old boy that was killed yesterday with his father in a jeep heading toward American marines with an AK-47 and other weapons, there is the possibility of some justification for war based on the collateral damage that it could possibly be the lesser of two evils.

Personally Electra, I really don’t believe that you would see ANY good reason for ANY U.S. invasion ever. Though you say you are not a pacifist. I mean, I really have a hard time seeing that.

quote:

---

I have suggested that it would have been justified to go to war against Iraq when Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians in the 1980s. But I do not believe that using this incident as a pretext for invasion 20 years later is legitimate.

---

Read above and again, I say, “ANY PORT IN A STORM.” Context. Historical context. Iraq was a friend or at least more friendlier then to the U.S. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, their objective was to liberate Kuwait. Nothing more. Eight years later with Clinton in office, absolutely NOTHING or very little was ever gonna be done. Course that guy runs off of polls.

Also, I have never quite understood why the U.S. giving weapons to freewill agents holds the U.S. responsible for SADDAM’S USE of those weapons. That same line of thinking would be the same as holding the U.S. responsible for the atrocities of 9/11 instead of the terrorist themselves because of U.S. policies in the middle east.

quote:

---

I object to the rhetoric of “freedom” and “liberation” being applied to invasion and occupation (as illustrated in the picture of the soldier’s tattoo above)—acts which are antithetical to the self-determination of the Iraqi people.

---

While SADDAM and his henchmen are in power the Iraqi people will never be self-determining.

Also, I just noticed this. Mayflower said:

quote:

---

Shall we agree to disagree?


<><

---

Hey, instead of your smiley face, where’s your white flag?


Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com

Edited by - BBBCanada on 03/27/2003 10:50:56 AM

quote:

---

this war is being spun as if we are doing the Iraqi people a favor—as an expression of our love for them. When the United States did Vietnam the favor of “liberating” its people, 1.3 million of them (and tens of thousands of US soldiers) were killed. I object to the rhetoric of “freedom” and “liberation” being applied to invasion and occupation (as illustrated in the picture of the soldier’s tattoo above)—acts which are antithetical to the self-determination of the Iraqi people.

---

quote:

---

E: The disarmament process that was underway would have been a far more effective means of answering your question.

S: The disarmament process that has gone on for years and years?

---

quote:

---

but that's not how most people would interpret it. I'd call it clarification.

---

quote:

---

It is suspected that the main reason that the British Government has been forced to use this material is that the Secret Intelligence Service or MI6 simply does NOT agree with Government claims of a direct Iraq-Al Qa'ida link, has no information to support it and refuses, in this case, to manufacture evidence to suit the British Government. Taken with the sparseness and poor quality of the
evidence that Powell was able to present to the United Nations after 12 years of intelligence gathering by the CIA, NSA, DIA, NRO,
Israel's Mossad, Turkey's MIT, Britain's MI6 and GCHQ, defectors,
Kurds and the like, it would seem that Washington is also still
desperately short of convincing, let alone 'Smoking Gun', evidence.

Hardly a profoundly sound basis for war, unless this is only a smoke screen and the real reason is, as some critics have always claimed, to gain control of the strategic high ground and the regions oil reserves.

---

quote:

---

Rather than give up their most valuable intelligence assets to convince the economically implicated French, Germans and Russians--who did have an economic stake in supporting Hussein and in lower America in world opinion--the Americans and Brits gave as solid evidence of WMD and terrorism links as they could.

---

quote:

---

Electra: I grieve both being raped and being bombed as horrible invasions of personhood and denials of fundamental humanity.

Semeia: If bombing is universally a denial of fundamental humanity, then were we wrong to intervene in WWII (by bombing) to stop Hitler?

---

quote:

---

Semeia: How is stepping in to remove a despotic dictator to set up a democracy a “contradiction”? In Saddam’s world anyone who resists or in any way opposes his power gets raped, tortured and killed – usually after they have watched their loved ones experience the same demise. We don’t have ten, twenty or thirty years to watch people be tortured for TRYING to resist Saddam, or for TRYING to develop a democracy. To say that only the Iraqi people can create an Iraqi democracy is like saying that only an abused wife and children can create a happy family. The truth is, sometimes the police have to come in and through force capture and imprison the abusive husband, because the wife and children have been so successfully controlled they can no longer resist.

---

Again, though I am in total agreement with Semeia’s here, I would like to bring up what I think is one of Electra’s “war sentiments” in terms of a moral basis for the just war theory. This again, is something that should not be taken so lightly and should be taken with serious consideration. As far as Electra’s concerns? I personally think she is overstating the case.

We cannot doubt that Jesus heartily disapproved of resorting to violence Matt 5:38-39. But sometimes our duty to not to harm others can conflict with and can be overridden by our duty to protect the innocent. For example, if the only way that I can prevent a mugger from harming you is by clubbing him with a Louisville, then I should by all means club him. After all, you are a human being created by God and have a right to be free from the attacks of others and the mugger deserves punishment for the harm he would do to you. To not protect, to not intervene, to not do harm to protect the weak and need, the oppressed, the fatherless, the widow, is not to love the weak and needy neighbour, but is to neglect the demands of justice.

But even though this is the case, I think that our reluctance to use violence should be great and we should admit an all-too-ready willingness to resort to violence to resolve our conflicts. That is, we need to be on our guard for the “John Wayne Syndrome.” Shoot, Americans, and especially Americans are suspectible to this. This is one of the major problems I have with many of the movies coming from Hollywood i.e. Rambo. So, yes, even someone as patriotic and upright as mom and apple pie can reflect some ungodly, unchristian sentiments. Again, we should be very careful and watch our hearts to not mix our allegiance to Jesus Christ and his Kingdom with those of America.

Now, having said that, another point should be added to the mix. Say, for example that in your neighbourhood you have a neighbourhood bully. And say that neighbourhood bully picks a fight with your little Susie or Johnny. You, as an adult, as big and brawny as you might be, should not pummel that bully to a pulp. Neighbour-love and justice would seek to not only protect the weak and innocent, but also the guilty neighbourhood bully. Though I might have the right to respond violently to protect you, not just any response is morally permissible. That is, the presumption against against the use of violence is still relevant even when that presumption against violence is overridden by the duty to protect the innocent. That is to say, that it shows its relevance in the constraints it places upon the violence I do even in a morally permissible act.

Just war theories attempt to apply these insights about our moral responsibilities into a broader social and political context both domestically and between nations.

Sometimes, a weak and innocent nation is attacked by an aggressor. In the domestic context neighbour-love and justice require the use of force to protect the innocent against tyrannical regimes.

And this is what is being argued here. Electra’s two main points of contention about this war is that it is opportunistic and it kills, maims, destroys, etc, civilians i.e.

quote:

---

Iconoclast: Are you okay with Saddam killing his own people with WMD?
Electra: No. Something should have been done about it 1988. It seems opportunistic to all of a sudden champion the Kurdish cause (who do not consider themselves part of Saddam’s “own people”—they are an ethnic minority fighting for independence). Is this about helping them or helping ourselves?

and

If we were serious about defeating terrorists, maybe we should take a look at our own foreign policy. The current invasion seems to reinforce many of the factors that have contributed to the deep hatred for America in the Arab world—and now in the European world.

---

Now, Electra says that non-combatants will die (AS THEY DO IN EVERY WAR) and that some wars are sometimes the lesser of two evils. Therefore, the question to ask here is NOT questions concerning non-combatants (though this is one of her major contentions). The questions to ask is “Is this the lesser of two evils?” and “Is this opportunistic?” Therefore, why even bring up the question of non-combatants? It just serves as a smokescreen. Clearly this can be seen as the lesser of two evils as pertaining to what I said above.

Secondly, the U.S. government did not just gallop into Iraq on a white stallion. Bush and his administration had been working for sometime now to gather together a coalition. Just one day after announcing a 48-hour ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq, President Bush was once again has being criticized for "unilateralism." But on the contrary, a large, and growing, number of countries have decided to join a "coalition of the willing" to liberate Iraq. To date, there are 54 countries that have joined the Coalition of the Willing--not including Canada, Germany, and France, which have recently offered conditional support. This does not include all of the 15 nations that have offered quiet support. The number of nations to date already eclipses the 1991 Gulf War coalition, which had 38 countries.

Now the objection is that the U.S. should have had UN authorization.

Question: WHO CARES?!

A. Because the coalition now is even larger and has more support than it had in ’91 EVEN WITH UN authorization.
B. International law confirms the right to self-defense.
C. America does not need UN permission to use ITS armed forces. Actually to obtain permission from the UN is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
D. America has permission to act through existing UN Security Council Resolutions
E. America would be acting in the interests of international peace and security as ALL MEMBERS PLEDGE TO DO. Just a couple of days ago, I believe it was the Arab League asking the UN to “show your relevancy” and stand up to Bush. Hmmm…I wonder who has been saying the same thing for what, about half a year maybe more now?

Here is a new formula that may be used in political science classes to come worked out by yours truly from many hours of deliberation, probably as many hours as Boyd has worked out his theodicy :

UN Support + "Coalition of the willing"= a “go.”
UN Non-support + "Coalition of the willing"=UN=IRRELEVANT= a “go”

Lastly, what does what happened then, have to do with now? There is no doubt that the US was a friend to Saddam. There is no doubt that, the US helped with some bombs. But there is much and I say MUCH that has been accomplished that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the US.

Baghdad has refused since December 1998 to allow United Nations inspectors into Iraq as required by Security Council Resolution 687. In spite of ongoing UN efforts to establish a follow-on inspection regime comprising the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the IAEA’s Iraq Action Team, no UN inspections occurred during this reporting period. Moreover, the automated video monitoring systems installed by the UN at known and suspect WMD facilities in Iraq are still not operating. Having lost this on-the-ground access, it is more difficult for the UN or the US to accurately assess the current state of Iraq’s WMD programs.

Given Iraq’s past behavior, it is likely that Baghdad has used the intervening period to reconstitute prohibited programs. We assess that since the suspension of UN inspections in December of 1998, Baghdad has had the capability to reinitiate its CW programs within a few weeks to months. Iraq’s failure to submit an accurate Full, Final, and Complete Disclosure (FFCD) in either 1995 or 1997, coupled with its extensive concealment efforts, suggest that the BW program hascontinued. Without an inspection-monitoring program, however, it is more difficult to determine the current status of these programs.

Since the Gulf war, Iraq has rebuilt key portions of its chemical production infrastructure for industrial and commercial use, as well as its missile production facilities. Iraq has attempted to purchase numerous dual-use items for, or under the guise of, legitimate civilian use. This equipment—in principle subject to UN scrutiny—also could be diverted for WMD purposes. Since the suspension of UN inspections in December 1998, the risk of diversion has increased. After Desert Fox, Baghdad again instituted a reconstruction effort on those facilities destroyed by the US bombing, including several critical missile production complexes and former dual-use CW production facilities. In addition, Iraq appears to be installing or repairing dual-use equipment at CW-related facilities. Some of these facilities could be converted fairly quickly for production of CW agents.

UNSCOM reported to the Security Council in December 1998 that Iraq also continued to withhold information related to its CW program. For example, Baghdad seized from UNSCOM inspectors an Iraqi Air Force document discovered by UNSCOM that indicated that Iraq had not consumed as many CW munitions during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s as had been declared by Baghdad. This discrepancy indicates that Iraq may have hidden an additional 6,000 CW munitions.

In 1995, Iraq admitted to having an offensive BW program and submitted the first in a series of FFCDs that were supposed to have revealed the full scope of its BW program. According to UNSCOM, these disclosures are incomplete and filled with inaccuracies. Since the full scope and nature of Iraq’s BW program was not verified, UNSCOM has assessed that Iraq maintains a knowledge base and industrial infrastructure that could be used to produce quickly a large amount of BW agents at any time. Iraq also has continued dual-use research that could improve BW agent R&D capabilities. With the absence of a monitoring regime and Iraq’s growing industrial self-sufficiency, we remain concerned that Iraq may again be producing biological warfare agents.

Iraq has worked on its L-29 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) program, which involves converting L-29 jet trainer aircraft originally acquired from Eastern Europe. In the past, Iraq has conducted flights of the L-29, possibly to test system improvements or to train new pilots. These refurbished trainer aircraft are believed to have been modified for delivery of chemical or, more likely, biological warfare agents.

It is believe that Iraq has probably continued at least low-level theoretical R&D associated with its nuclear program. A sufficient source of fissile material remains Iraq’s most significant obstacle to being able to produce a nuclear weapon. Although the US was already concerned about a reconstituted nuclear weapons program, our concerns increased in September 2000 when Saddam publicly exhorted his "Nuclear Mujahidin" to "defeat the enemy." The Intelligence Community remains concerned that Baghdad may be attempting to acquire materials that could aid in reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

Iraq continues to pursue development of SRBM systems that are not prohibited by the United Nations and may be expanding to longer-range systems. Pursuit of UN-permitted missiles continues to allow Baghdad to develop technological improvements and infrastructure that could be applied to a longer-range missile program. The US believes that development of the liquid-propellant Al-Samoud SRBM probably is maturing and that a low-level operational capability could be achieved in the near term — which is further suggested by the appearance of four Al Samoud transporter-erector-launchers (TELs) with airframes at the 31 December 2000 Al Aqsa parade. The solid-propellant missile development program may now be receiving a higher priority, and development of the Ababil-100 SRBM – two such airframes and TELs were paraded on 31 December—and possibly longer range systems may be moving ahead rapidly. If economic sanctions against Iraq were lifted, Baghdad probably would increase its attempts to acquire missile-related items from foreign sources, regardless of any future UN monitoring and continuing restrictions on long-range ballistic missile programs. Iraq probably retains a small, covert force of Scud-type missiles.

Iraq’s ACW acquisitions remain low due to the generally successful enforcement of the UN arms embargo. Baghdad has acquired smaller arms and components for larger arms, such as spare parts for aircraft and air defense systems, primarily over porous land borders via a thriving gray arms market. Iraq also acquires some dual-use and production items through the Oil For Food program. Iraq continues to aggressively seek ACW equipment and technology.

Now I know that either some have had problems perceiving that Iraq is a threat to the US and the government probably hasn’t been all that good at relaying that information, but this is precisely how the situation is perceived by the Bush Administration. The President of the United States has no greater responsibility than protecting the American people from threats, both foreign and domestic. He is vested by the Constitution with the authority and responsibility to accomplish this essential task. In taking his oath of office, the President swears to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," the Preamble of which makes providing for the "common defense" a top priority.

For example, a recent video released by the U.S. Department of Defense showing Iraqi missiles firing on U.S. aircraft ENFORCING the United Nations no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq demonstrates Saddam's belligerence. The most direct threat that Saddam poses to the United States is his WMD activities, coupled with his involvement in international terrorism. Many warnings and obstacles have been put forward to coerce Saddam into behaving in a less aggressive way, yet none have deterred him.

Again, IN DEFIANCE of U.N. Security Council Resolution 687, Iraq continues to build and develop its biological, chemical, nuclear, and long-range ballistic missile programs. Recent evidence, supported by a wealth of Iraqi government contracts, concludes that Iraq has at least 20 covert facilities where chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are produced. Moreover, Saddam Hussein continues to seek dual-use infrastructure to conceal his plans to build a robust WMD arsenal. As President Bush noted, recent reports contend that Saddam Hussein has aggressively sought to import thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes that can be reconfigured to enrich uranium, a necessary component for a nuclear device.

This has absolutely nothing to do with US involvement. Iraq's ongoing development of weapons of mass destruction means that the United States or its interests could be the targets of an attack with little or no warning. The United Nations has already given its support for the use of whatever means are necessary to enforce its resolutions, but the Secretary General has done nothing to enforce them (showing its irrelevancy). The Security Council has passed nearly 60 resolutions on Iraq and Kuwait since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Resolution 678, passed on November 29, 1990, authorizes "member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait...to use all necessary means" to (1) implement Security Council Resolution 660 and other resolutions calling for the end of Iraq's occupation of Kuwait and the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwaiti territory and (2) "restore international peace and security in the area." Bush began this process with his address to the United Nations General Assembly on September 12. However, if the U.N. balks at taking action to address Saddam's violation of its resolutions, the President still has full legal authority, both from the United Nations and from the United States Congress, to take whatever actions may be necessary. Both bodies have already documented their support for the United States to take all necessary action to enforce existing U.N. Security Council resolutions. While a new resolution and a congressional vote might add political momentum to the effort to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, neither is legally necessary for the President to use military force.


Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com


Edited by - BBBCanada on 03/29/2003 3:46:15 PM