Interesting Article about Iraq/Foreign Affairs.

[Thordic]

An article someone gave to me about American intervention in world affairs and Europe's viewpoint that I found very interesting.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20020811

Not trying to start a political thread, no one even has to reply. If you read it, and you don't like it, email the author, don't complain to me :)

If a mod wants to lock this, thats cool. Just please keep the article link there :)

[beam]

Here is another article. This one is from www.breakpoint.org

I think Colson is right on.

Striking First

By Charles W. Colson
March 5, 2002

Just War & Iraq
Speaking on ABC's "This Week," General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said "the United States military is ready for anything our commander-in-chief asks us to do." He also added, however, that President Bush "has . . . not made that decision at this point . . . "
And part of that decision must be whether a pre- emptive strike against Iraq fits within the criteria of the Just War Theory first articulated by St. Augustine.

In his State of the Union address, President Bush identified Iraq, along with Iran and North Korea, as part of what he called the "Axis of Evil." The Bush administration has cited what it called Iraq's "determination" to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

These efforts not only threaten Iraq's neighbors; they raise the specter of these weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. That's why the president put Iraq and other nations "on notice."

If recent reports are correct, Iraq's time is running out. This has prompted questions about whether the U.S. is ready to wage war against Saddam Hussein. General Myer's comments are part of a campaign to reassure the American people of our readiness.

While military readiness is important, there is something else that the administration should be talking about: The rightness of a possible campaign against Saddam Hussein. And the way to determine whether such a campaign is justified is through the Just War Doctrine.

In Just War Theory, a nation not only has the right; it has the obligation to repel aggression. The question in the case of Iraq and the other members of the Axis of Evil is: Must we wait until aggression has occurred before we strike? Is it necessary to absorb unimaginable casualties before acting in self- defense? Or is a pre-emptive strike justifiable in the case of an imminent attack -- that is, by a clear and present danger?

This isn't the first time these questions have been asked with regard to Iraq. In 1981, Israeli F-16s bombed an Iraqi nuclear plant before it was operational. The plant, they suspected, was really for the production of nuclear weapons. The Israeli government justified the raid by stating that they "under no circumstances will allow an enemy to develop . . . weapons of mass destruction." And they shouldn't have to.

As theologian George Weigel says, "A pre-emptive military action is not only justifiable; it's morally imperative" in the face of such a threat. As he points out, the goal of the Just War Theory is to allow the original "legally constituted authority" to defend its citizens. Nothing in Just War Theory requires the authorities to wait until after they have been attacked.

So, the whole question of Iraq will turn on whether or not there is, in fact, an imminent threat. In the upcoming months, it is up to our leaders to make a case, not just in theory, but by citing specifics for pre-emptive action against Iraq. They must tell us what it is about this threat that makes not attacking Iraq irresponsible and immoral. If they can't make the case, they shouldn't attack.

But if they do make it, our military will then be armed with something much more powerful than smart bombs -- that is, the knowledge that their actions are truly just.

[dre1919]

Thordic's article link...


That was a very good article. I think that said everything I've ever thought about wanting to say to other countries that continually bad mouth our foreign policy. We have a responsibility we have taken on ourselves because we are brave, strong, and not the kind to stand by and let someone else dictate our fate. There's a part of that article that reminds me of the dialogue in the film "A Few Good Men" where Jack Nicholson's character says: "I have niether the time nor the patience for anyone who sleeps underneath the blanket of freedom I protect and then questions the manner in which I provide it."

From the article:

"If a person who refuses to lock his door at night starts complaining about the only cop on the beat, sane people should wonder what has happened to his grip on reality. Does he actually want to be robbed or murdered? Similarly, it is one thing for Europeans to say that they are ceding all military responsibility to maintain international order to the United States. It is quite another for Europeans to then object when the United States takes the Europeans at their word and acts to defend that world order."

[davidb]

I'd be very interested to here some opinions from Manike and Pandora and our other European members about this.

[joeyjoe367]

You know, I never understood why we didn't kick Sadam's *** in the first place.

Yeah, in the gulf war, we didn't have to get rid of him cuz we put weapon inspectors in there. But the second he kicks 'em out, we shoulda flexed some muscle there.


Some people I've talked to say that the reason we didn't get rid of sadaam is because he would just have been replaced by someone just as evil, but that's just like saying, "why take a shower? you're just going to get dirty again"

Yeah, so we kill Sadaam, someone replaces him, starts doin' horrendous Sadaam-Like things. We kill him. Don't you think the 3rd guy might get a clue?

I think just about anyone who thinks we Shouldn't take him down is nuts.

[Marek]

We live on a doubled edged sword.....

[Collegeboy]

I wish not to start a debate on this issue (as per forum rules), but must ask for what reason you think that he should be taken down.

[beam]

Taken from a news article from Bush's speech today to the UN:

"Mr. Bush backed his appeal with a 22-page document accusing Saddam of a decade of deception and defiance of 16 U.N. resolutions."


hmmmmmm 16 UN resolutions defied...and the UN is doing WHAT?

[cphilip]

Closing...