[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Miguel,
I agree with some of what you said. However, I disagree with the following:

"For those who are against the Iraq war, I would expect that circumstances meeting the above criteria would be: (1) weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq, and/or (2) a successful military campaign in Iraq concludes with a stable, self-run government in Iraq. Neither of these has happened, though it is at least plausbile that each might (though, clearly, each has grown less and less plausible over the past four years)."

The first criteria of any "just war" theory is that it is a war of self-defense and one does not act as the initial agressor taking the first action. It also must be a last resort. Neither of these are the case when we took the first strike and acted as aggressors. Pre-emptive strike is unjust by any reputable Judaeo-Christian theological standard. That George Bush can call himself a Christian and argue for pre-emptive strikes is mind-boggling.

Sadaam Hussein was absolutely contained and of no threat to the United States whatsoever. Even if he had WMDs (which Bush knew he did not), he had no way to get them to US soil, or even Israeli soil. There was no Iraqi military build-up. There was no weapons build up. There was no reason to think he had any immanent plan for attacking the US. They were hardly surviving since the first Gulf War. Bush I probably left him in power because he knew the destablization that would ensue if Sadaam were removed. The consequence has been much worse for most Iraqis. What if we just left him there and relatively powerless until he died a natural death? I guess we will never know. But I am pretty sure there would not have been an Iraqi attack on American soil. And Iraq would not be anything like the breeding ground for terrorists that it is today.
JimB


Edited for spelling.