VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 16:32:29 10/10/02 Thu
Author: Weird_Enigma
Author Host/IP: 209.252.119.116
Subject: Congress should not authorize a pre-emptive strike against Iraq
In reply to: Weird_Enigma 's message, "Bush lies about Iraq to further his silly warmongering" on 14:48:48 10/08/02 Tue

Open letter to Sen. Edwards
Congress should not authorize pre-emptive strike yet against Iraq
JEFF SMITH SPECIAL TO THE OBSERVER

Dear Sen. (John) Edwards,

In all my life I have never heard of such a thing as a pre-emptive strike by one nation against another. It might be done, of course, if a foreign enemy's forces are lined up on one's borders or were targeting a foreign land with delivery systems, nuclear or otherwise. But this is not the case today. Our own CIA cannot verify that Iraq has nuclear weapons at all, or could launch them over a few hundred miles if they did.

But we do know what an attack on Iraq now could cost us in terms of lives, money, and international support. To suggest that we go ahead and strike anyway is not prudent but foolish. Were we to do this, dozens of countries would be free to do the same thing. What would become of the very idea of international law if we violate one of its basic premises -- which we helped create in forming the charter for the U.N?

For a nation to declare war or to "authorize the use of force" against another nation should only be done to defend one's borders, lands, people, and property. The United States has not yet been provoked to anything near that point. Nor have any of our allies. To speak of 9-11 in this context is to assume that Iraq has been active in aiding and abetting terrorists. This, also, has not been established. The latest satellite photos show a terrorist camp in Iran, not in Iraq.

In any "just war' civilian causalities are to be kept to a minimum. It is not clear what kind of battle plan the Pentagon has, but it is clear that Iraq civilians would be victims beyond imaging.

Please note, Senator, that the above arguments have nothing to do with the pacifist positions that you sometimes hear from Mennonites or Quakers. Ever since St. Augustine in the fifth century the just war theory has been the honored position of first Catholics, and then mainstream Protestants, and Jews. This is the classical line in Western thought regarding the prosecution of war. You and our other elected leaders can do no less than to honor this thinking. We must not rubber stamp the Bush administration which is literally hell bent on going on as it pleases, with no regard for precedents, allies, or international associations.

In closing, one word about deterrence. It has worked for nearly 50 years. Saddam may be a knave, but he is not a fool. Why would he launch a nuclear attack (assuming he could), knowing that he would be met with instant nuclear catastrophe?

Of course, deterrence seems pointless against terrorist cells filled with suicide bombers. But this is not the case with Iraq. After all, we keep talking about "weapons of mass destruction." Airplanes as missiles are assumed to be in another category.

As for those who argue that containment no longer works, one needs only recall the last war against Iraq in 1991. With Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait, you can say that containment did work.

So, the Congress should pass no resolution "authorizing the use of force" against Iraq unless the following conditions apply:

• 1. The U.N. has completed inspections after a reasonable time period. (This must be unconditional and include all palaces in Iraq.)

• 2. The U.N. itself authorizes the use of force only if the above fails.

• 3. The administration reports back to the Congress every 60 days.

• 4. A military policy designed to minimize civilian losses.

• 5. A well articulated policy set regarding a post Saddam regime.

I grieve as an American that we are set on a perilous policy that could do untold damage to the balance of power, understanding that has guided us for close to half a century. As a Democrat I am greatly disappointed that my party has not taken President Bush on in a meaningful debate. We are the greatest power, perhaps the only real power, on earth. But if we proceed like an empire we may end up like one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Smith is a retired Presbyterian minister who has served three Charlotte area churches.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.