BS: Iraq and 'Just War' theory

Subject: BS: Iraq and 'Just War' theory
From: outfidel
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 12:36 AM

Well-reasoned treatise from AmericanValues.org, the moderately conservative think tank based in NYC.

Pre-emption, Iraq, and Just War: A Statement of Principles

"Would a renewed U.S.-led military assault against Iraq be just? In recent months, the Bush Administration has publicly floated numerous reasons for such a move. From the perspective of just war thinking, most of these rationales are not compelling."

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq and 'Just War' theory
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 11:01 AM

"But within the framework of just war theory, pre-emption can be morally justified only in rare circumstances - when the attack is likely to be imminent, the threat is grave, and preventive means other than war are unavailable.

Expanding this narrow and exceptional option into a broad doctrine at the center of U.S. foreign policy is inconsistent with the just war tradition. We are concerned that such a doctrine may well make the world a more dangerous place, especially if other nations appropriate it for their own purposes."

Hear hear! Excellent article, outfidel. Thanks for posting it.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq and 'Just War' theory
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 11:17 AM

The proposed war is a confession of failures in imagination, policy, public relations, marketing, math and diplomacy -- a 600 SAT score writ large on the universe.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq and 'Just War' theory
From: outfidel
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 12:05 PM

More on "just war" theory, its history, and the current conflict:

"Just War, or just a war?"

"Augustine wanted to know if Christians could resist barbarians. If the United States adopts and acts on a First Strike Option, then it is Americans who have become the barbarians. We have learned nothing from more than 1500 years of moral reasoning."

Subject: BS: Jimmy Carter - Iraq War is Unjust
From: outfidel
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 09:26 AM

Just War — or a Just War?
By JIMMY CARTER
The New Yorm Times
March 9, 2003


ATLANTA — Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.

As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.

For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.

The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options — previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations — were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.

The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in "collateral damage." Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.

Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.

The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority. Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.

The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.

What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all United Nations resolutions — with war as a final option — will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.

(Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta and winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize)

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq and 'Just War' theory
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 04:54 PM

I'm afraid that whether or not the current plan for war with Iraq meets the stipulations of what constitutes a just war is not a matter that concerns the Bush Administration.

You may have already seen this, but if not, you can check it out HERE. It takes a while to load, but it's well worth listening to if you are really interested in knowing where the Bush Doctrine and our current international situation comes from. [Technical Note: My computer is a Pentium II 350MHz w/128 MB RAM. I have a dial-up modem (56K), so attempts to see the video of the show were most frustrating. I found that if I chose "Windows Media Low," I was able to listen to the audio without problems and irritating interruptions, and I found that sufficient to get what the program really had to offer.

This is nobody's half-assed "conspiracy theory." It was covered by this Frontline program and by Now, with Bill Moyers a couple of weeks ago.

Paul Wolfowitz and others went to Texas in the mid-Nineties to tutor George W. Bush in politics, and in particular, his view of what the United States' role should be now that the Soviet Union was gone (when Bush Senior was President, he had been interested, but unreceptive). Wolfowitz' groomed Bush Junior to become President, coaching him to carry out the foreign policy as he envisioned it:— that with the demise of the Soviet Union, the United States should take an uncontested dominant role in world politics and economics in the twenty-first century. The first step is to taking control the Middle East and the oil reserves. Wolfowitz was disappointed with the way Bush Senior had handled the Gulf War. The ultimate goal is the "Democratization of the World" (definition of "a democracy" — any country, no matter what it's internal politics, that is friendly to U. S. economic and political interests). This policy includes the idea that, instead of the previous strategy of containment, the United States should apply a strategy of preemptive attack against potential opposition, chiefly Iraq, Iran, and North Korea (the "Axis of Evil"). Bigger nations may come later, if necessary.

George W. Bush may be the President, but the real dagger behind the throne is Paul Wolfowitz, with Donald Rumsfeld as back-up. Colin Powell, who opposes this doctrine, has been reduced to the role of court jester.

The so-called Bush Doctrine is actually the Wolfowitz doctrine. There is Good and there is Evil. We are Good. They are Evil. It is our God-given duty to eliminate Evil in the world. Wolfowitz's draft of his view of what the U. S. foreign policy should be was leaked to the press in 1992, much to Wolfowitz's irritation. The current document outlining U. S. National Security Strategy is essentially the same as Wolfowitz' 1992 draft.

This, plus the unquestioning support of Israel, no matter what it does, seems to me to be all very Book of Revelations. Considering the theological background of most of the members of the Bush Administration, this may be relevant. Perhaps feeling that they are "ordained," they may not find the prohibitions inherent in the concept of "just war" very persuasive.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq and 'Just War' theory
From: GUEST,Kiwi Guest
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 12:10 AM

I've said this before and been rubbished, But I believe that the CIA had an organising role in Sept 11th. The reason was for the States to gain the high moral ground in order to carry out it's domination plan. Oil control is primarily about aircraft ie military use.
And I believe that ultimately the whole deal is to do with the emergence of China as the world's next major ecconomic and military power. Bush and his mates have already done some pretty underhanded things ( He wasn't even elected democratically)and will continue to do so. Anybody who is right wing is only concerned with self interest. People don't makes lots of money by working hard. They make it by using other people. Basically they are what we call barstards. Why has Bush sought to put himself out side the control of the world war crimes courts?   
Remember that an animal is most dangerous when it is wounded or it's position is threatened. That's the position that I see the States being in today, hence the reaction.
The more I see this developing, the more sure I am that this whole business is a very complex conspiracy.
Right wing Christian doctrine is completely opposed to the teachings of Christ. (And I don't claim to be a Christian) Basically you are either one or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq and 'Just War' theory
From: Troll
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 02:19 AM

If this was about oil, we'd simply take over Canada and Mexico. We buy a great deal of our oil from them.
As far as the World War Crimes Court goes, it's a farce and I for one see no reason why the US or any other nation should give up its right tp protect its citizens and place them in a position where anyone could accuse anyone else of war crimes and have them dragged before a foreign tribunal.
We have our own courts and laws, as do all countries. It's worked for a long, long time. It ain't broke so it don't need fixin'

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq and 'Just War' theory
From: Metchosin
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 03:47 AM

Troll, I'm sure Slobodan Milosevic and Hermann Goering would agree with your viewpoint on World Courts......good company....

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq and 'Just War' theory
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 07:47 AM

The Catholic bishops of the US are on record as having grave doubts about a war with Iraq being "just": see this press release.

I know the Mennonites, Quakers, and Brethren do, but these are traditionally pacifist religions.

I wonder what would happen if the US bishops made a statement to the effect that since a war with Iraq was unjust, participating in or supporting it in any way would be gravely sinful?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq and 'Just War' theory
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 12:57 PM

Troll, this is not just about oil. It's about "Democratic Imperialism." The neo-conservatives' brand of democracy (see my definition above) imposed on the rest of the world by imperialistic means, if necessarily. This is good old-fashioned colonialism, even if you don't call it that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq and 'Just War' theory
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 01:40 PM

Troll-the problem with letting nations take care of their own war criminals is A) the crimes are often commited against other nations' populaces, and B) the criminals are often the ones in power. You can't honestly expect a dictator, or even a president, to indict, prosecute, and convict himself for crimes against other countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq and 'Just War' theory
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 02:19 PM

If this was about oil, we'd simply take over Canada and Mexico. We buy a great deal of our oil from them.

troll, we are taking over Canada and Mexico. The difference is that it's possible for us to do that without bombing the shit out of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq and 'Just War' theory
From: GUEST,President Bush
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 02:32 PM

"My fellow Americans, I have a number of important announcements to make today.
Effective immediately, I have ordered all American armed forces out of South Korea and will cease all aid to South Korea. The South Koreans have made it clear that they know better about their own security and will therefore be given the opportunity to take on that responsibility themselves.

At the same time, I would like the North Koreans to know that we have targeted all major North Korean cities and military installations with submarine based nuclear missiles and any attempt by them to cross the demilitarized zone, or any attack of any kind on any nation, and I will order a full and complete launch of our missiles. In addition, if North Korea ships any nuclear materials or weapons to any country, we will launch missiles against all their government and military installations. I leave it up to the good judgment of the American people whether they want to continue buying unsafe cars made by people who hate us.

I am also closing all US bases in Germany and returning our troops home. I will leave it up to the good judgment of Americans whether they want to continue to buy overpriced cars made by former Nazis.

I would also like to announce that, effective immediately, the United States is suspending membership in the United Nations and will cease all payments to that organization. They have proven to be silly and ineffective and a waste of your taxpayer dollars.

The United States has invited the United Kingdom, Australia, Turkey, Italy, Spain, other willing European countries, and former members of the eastern block who are now free and fully appreciate the price of freedom, to join a new alliance - NNATO (NOT NATO).
The United States will continue it's membership in NATO to the extent that it suits our national interests, but will no longer promise to unconditionally defend France and Germany - and that includes from each other. With regard to Belgium - who cares.

With regard to the war on terrorism and the recent elevation of risk alert - I am notifying all nations who have supported, funded, and protected Al Qaida, that any mass casualty attack on the United States or US citizens abroad will result in a nuclear retaliatory attack on the capitals of those nations and any known Al Qaida camps in those nations.
After September 11th, 2001 I said that you are either with us or with the terrorists. Now is when all nations will get to chose for real. Fully, completely, and honestly cooperate in shutting down Al Qaida right now, or suffer the same consequences that we will inflict on them. All American citizens are advised to leave these countries immediately. You know who they are.

In closing, I would like to say to Hillary and Tom (Daschle)....... shut up.

God bless the United States of America"

George W. Bush

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq and 'Just War' theory
From: *daylia*
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 02:50 PM

"troll, we are taking over Canada and Mexico. The difference is that it's possible for us to do that without bombing the shit out of them."

A nice legit UN-endorsed bombing might be a faster, more honest, humane and militarily gratifying approach for you.

Kinda like euthanasia.

When you're finished with Iraq, maybe you'll get around to putting us out of our arrogantly patriotic misery as well?

(Not you personally of course, Carol).

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq and 'Just War' theory
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 02:54 PM

Well, I wouldn't endorse that one, daylia, because in about two and a half years, I'll be eligible for dual US/Canadian citizenship. And I'm really looking forward to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq and 'Just War' theory
From: *daylia*
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 03:08 PM

Carol that's wonderful! Does that mean you'll be moving here too?

My grandmother was American, my mom and my brother (born when my dad was posted to Washington DC) are both 'dual citizens'. I'd have no problem claiming dual citizenship myself, based on my family background. That used to make it hard for me to hold onto anti-American feelings very long ...

Sorry bout the rant. I'd just prefer to know that when I sing "the true North strong and free" it's not just a delusion.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq and 'Just War' theory
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 03:25 PM

I know what you mean daylia. I wish the US would just let Canada be Canada and not be such a bully about it.

We have one (opposite) thing in common: my grandfather was Canadian (NB). I don't know whether or not I'll find myself moving to Canada. My hubby is Canadian (NF), but he's been living in the US for several years. I guess it just depends on his work situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq and 'Just War' theory
From: DougR
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 05:46 PM

The U. S. is "taking over Mexico and Canada." Carol C: do they know that?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq and 'Just War' theory
From: GUEST, herc
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 06:07 PM

Doug: there's no explaining anything to Canucks. They're too wrapped up in their own issues:

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_759319.html?menu=news.latestheadlines

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq and 'Just War' theory
From: *daylia*
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 06:35 PM

So what's your explanation herc
for the fact your link don't werc?

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq and 'Just War' theory
From: GUEST, herc
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 07:25 PM

It do work day:

"Man trapped in bathroom by cat

A Canadian man had to be rescued by police after his cat went berserk and trapped him in a bathroom. . . . "

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq and 'Just War' theory
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 07:25 PM

herc's link:

Man trapped in bathroom by cat

The U. S. is "taking over Mexico and Canada." Carol C: do they know that?

Well, I first heard about it from a Canadian, so I guess the answer is, yeah. Some of them do.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq and 'Just War' theory
From: *daylia*
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 07:43 PM

Herc, this is very strange! I tried the link again, dragging the mouse from right to left this time to copy it, and lo and behold THIS is where I ended up! (Warning: clicking that link may result in a close encounter with a Shemale!?!)

Maybe I'm being held hostage by hostile URLs instead of by my cat! ;)

Thanks for the link, Carol!

daylia