War with Iraq does not seem just at all

[Wolseley]

I'm amused by all the talk in the media about how removing Saddam Hussein would "destabilize the region". Considering what Iraq has been involved in and has instigated over the last 30-odd years (gassing its minorities, an 8-year war with Iran, invasion of Kuwait, among other goodies) I'm just wondering where this "stability" is that removing Saddam is supposed to "destabilize". You can't destabilize something that isn't stable to begin with.

 

[Morat]

  Do you remember why we supported Iraq in the first place? Because Iran was (and is) a huge threat to the region. It's a militarily powerful nation run by (and composed of) the most hard core fundamentlist Islamics. Of course, let's ignore that we put them there. We helped stage a coup to get rid of the original government (mainly because they'd nationalized their oil fields). The new ruler was something of a nasty dictator (but did fix the oil field problem) whose populace hated him and his secret police. Which meant there was another coup, this time by Khomeni. And the Shi'ites.

   We were worried that Iran would take over everything. So we funded and trained Iraq to stop them. After Iraq and Iran got into it, Oliver North got the bright idea to sell weapons to Iran (backstabbing Hussein in the process, eh?) in exchange for terrorists (and we all know what happened to that money). Then Iran started winning, due in no small part to the weapons we started selling them. So we gave Hussein chemical weapons and delivery systems, which he started using. Once again, stalemate.

   Then Saddam, tired of basically paying to defend the entire Middle East against Iran (of course, he didn't mention his own desire for power), asked Kuwait to forgive his debt, and he'd drop the whole slant-drilling topic as well (assuming Kuwait didn't start doing it again). Kuwait said no. Hussein spoke to the US Ambassador, and believed the US would stay out of it. (No transcript of this session, save the Iraqi one, is available. However, the US Ambassador did say something to the effect of "No one thought he'd take all of Kuwait" somewhat later, and the State Department has refused to clarify which portions of the transcript are inaccurate).

  He invaded, thus Desert Storm. We left him in power for two reasons. First, it'd be somewhat costly to dig him out of Baghdad. But mainly because we still needed a foil against Iran.

  So, what happens if we take out Saddam? Well, we can't institute a real democracy. The majority of Iraq is Shi'ite. Just like Iran. And it's not like we've stopped worrying about Iran....And then, of course, invading Iraq would tick off most of the terrorist groups (many of whom formed because the West got involved in what they considered a private matter, to be dealt with by Muslims), and alienate the general populace of the Middle East. After all, nasty as Saddam is, they're going to consider us wandering in, starting a war, and taking over a country (especially as they will believe we did it solely for cheap oil) as something to be very angry about.

   So, in one fell swoop, ridding ourselves of Saddam will lose us any public support we have in the Middle East, swell the ranks of terrorists, make Iran an even bigger problem than it was.

  As for gassing his own people: So have we. Or weren't you watching the news?

 

 

[Oliver]

I agree with most of your post, Morat, but I'm not sure of one thing though: is Iran still a concern for the US government? We didn't hear much about Iran since... well, 1991 I guess.

 

[Morat]

  Iraq keeps them contained. Even after we were done with Desert Storm, Iraq was still a powerful force in the Middle East. Iraq's army is one of the world's largest (4th, I think, prior to desert storm. And still in the top now).

  And, of course, we have a much more visible presence there than before the war. However, should Iraq be taken over by Shi'ites (quite possibly by simple democracy), then Iran and Iraq would probably no longer be foes....

   Which is destabilizing, especially to the heads of the other Islamic governments, who don't live lives in accordance with Shi'ite theology.

  

 

[strathyboy]

In addition to Morat's post, I'd like to add the fact that Iran has been the biggest supporter of terrorism throughout the 1990's, and up to the present day. Is America still at war with terrorism, or has that taken a back seat to the war with Iraq?

 

[strathyboy]

Originally posted by Wolseley
These actions were still reactive, not offensive; undertaken in what was seen at the time as a Communist threat to the Free World.

I see your point, but I am concerned as to just how much that statement can justify. For instance, several democratic governments were overturned by the CIA, in order to put in a dictatorship. Is this also justified by your logic?

Originally posted by Wolseley
Faced with these kinds of predictions, it isn't hard to see why Truman would choose to use the bomb to induce the Japanese to surrender; the opportunity to demonstrate our new toy for the Soviets probably faded well into the background, if it was considered at all.

Very debatable. I hesitate to believe that Truman was THAT naive that he didn't see the political advantages of dropping the bombs. The fact that the USSR had the largest army the world had ever seen sitting in Berlin is something he could not have ignored. Eisenhower had proposed immediate war with that army, but Truman, it seems, had a better solution.

 

[MARANATHA2002]

Originally posted by Wolseley
Actually, the Russians never developed their own bomb; they took ours. We were cursed with people on the inside of our nuclear weapons program (people like Morris Cohen, Klaus Fuchs, Harry Gold, David and Ruth Greenglass, and of course, the infamous Julius and Ethel Rosenberg) who were passing information to the Soviets nearly as fast as we developed it. The first Soviet atomic bomb in 1949 was a carbon-copy of the American uranium-core bomb, built from our plans and using our specifications. Their first hydrogen bomb in 1955 was likewise a copy of ours from 1952.

 

I agree that the initial development came from stolen technology, my point was that Truman knew the Russians would have a future capacity to build a bomb, and any use as a display of power, would only have been empressive for so long. Once the Russians had deliverable devices, it was clearly a matter of numbers after that. I also see, this as the globalist plan of having two oppossing forces, both nuclear powered, to use as the tool to frighten the masses in order to establish a world government.

I think the initial use of the weapons were to end the war without the massive number of deaths (which were being advised to Truman at the time), which would have been required to do so. If the use of the weapons had any impact towards any action the Russians may or may not have taken towards Europe, I believe it was of little significates.

Even today, if Iraq would use chemical, or worse weapons on our forces or neighbouring cities. We would not nuke a population center which would kill hundreds of thousands of cilivians. If we used our nukes as a responce to such a attack, it would only be on troop concentrations and with low yeild devices. World opinion would not tolerate a population center such as a major city, to be targeted by a nuclear weapon. The Israelis on the other hand would melt the place. Just my thoughts. Peace, but not yet.

 

[Warrior4Jah]

Ya know whats really not just? That thousands of people live under Saddam Hussein iron grip, in poverty where the first bad thing you say can get you killed. You know whats really not just? That thousands of his own people and gassed and killed, and he goes on ruling. Ya know whats really not just? That Saddam harbors terrorsts and funds for attacks, and goes on without a word.

 

[Caffeine Socialism]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I thought that Iran was becoming very rapidly more liberal. The President is a member of the reform party, a cleric recently resigned, noting widespread governmental corruption, and a recent poll (coordinated from within Iran) showed an overwhelming majority supported renewing ties with the US. Morat, I don't think Iran is the big enemy you make it out to be.

 

[strathyboy]

Originally posted by Warrior4Jah
Ya know whats really not just? That thousands of people live under Saddam Hussein iron grip, in poverty where the first bad thing you say can get you killed. You know whats really not just? That thousands of his own people and gassed and killed, and he goes on ruling. Ya know whats really not just? That Saddam harbors terrorsts and funds for attacks, and goes on without a word.

Y'know what? You could sub in the leaders of China, North Korea, or Saudi Arabia in there, and it would be just as true. But Hussein is the only bad guy, right?
Hussein's regime is not unique and it is relatively unchanged in the last two decades. Perhaps we should examine the American relations with that UNCHANGING regime....

http://www.counterpunch.org/scahill0802.html

http://mondediplo.com/1998/03/04iraqkn

http://www.dawn.com/2002/09/02/int10.htm

Have the events of 1988 changed since then? It's always unfortunate when a nation brushes atrocities under the rug for the purposes of political necessity, but to bring them back out to encourage a war seems completely underhanded.

 

[Warrior4Jah]

No one else intends to use nuclear weapons on the US. Iraq will. Period. They pose a threat to teh US and need to be taken care of, Saudi Arabia, China, etc. do not pose a threat to the US. We can only do so much in this world strathy boy, and protecting our well being comes first.

 

[strathyboy]

Originally posted by Warrior4Jah
No one else intends to use nuclear weapons on the US. Iraq will. Period. They pose a threat to teh US and need to be taken care of, Saudi Arabia, China, etc. do not pose a threat to the US.

So you are absolutely sure Hussein will use nuclear weapons on the US? Do you realize that he has no ICBM's capable of delivering said nuclear weapons anywhere near the US?
In the end, the US is striking first. Call it a pre-emptive strike if you wish, but in the end you are blatantly attacking first. Officially, the US has always claimed to engage only in defensive or reactive wars (even if I don't agree with that statement ), but in this case, it would clearly be a pre-emptive strike.

Originally posted by Warrior4Jah
We can only do so much in this world strathy boy, and protecting our well being comes first.

Originally posted by Warrior4Jah
Ya know whats really not just? That thousands of people live under Saddam Hussein iron grip, in poverty where the first bad thing you say can get you killed. You know whats really not just? That thousands of his own people and gassed and killed, and he goes on ruling.

You have just voiced the exact contradiction that makes me concerned by American involvement in this. In one breath you say America must protect itself at all costs, and in the next breath you say you must help out those people in an unjust situation. It's very very clear from looking at history that America will look out for itself first, so it seems the peak of hypocrisy to claim to care that much about the Iraqi's.

 

[PastorFreud]

I'm new to these posts. This is my first one. But I am really confused having read this thread. Are we simply discussing what Americans should do as Americans or are we discussing a Christian response to this situation. I don't see the Christian response and the American response as one and the same. It seems many in this discussion do.

As Christians, our response to war should be formed and shaped by our identity as Christians. Our understanding of the Bible, the way God works in the world, and the teachings of Christ should be foundational for our thinking about war? No?

If there is a different thread where Christians are discussing the war from a Christian perspective, please tell me where it is.

 

[Sailor_4_Christ]

One thing comes to mind when I think of Hussien, dictatorship. I know that every country has there own government, and thinkings on how everything is run, and I am not saying that we are 100% in the right for trying to stop him. But if any man/woman is insane enough to kill their own people just because they dissagree with them, is wrong. Even if Iraq did have the capabilities to do an over the ocean strike, he would go for the big hit first thing, he start small, ie: invading smaller, poorer countries. Then in time he would be capable of an over seas attack. Personally, I would not like to see this. Maybe I am just partial, I love my home just the way it is, and I don't think that we could handle another conflict on our soil. Assess the situation before it becomes a problem. Personally, I would like my children, as well as everyone elses children, to grow up without having to worry about living in a world that they would be scared just to go outside. I love God, and my family above all things, that is why I chose to join the military, to defend what I love.

 

[strathyboy]

Originally posted by Sailor_4_Christ
One thing comes to mind when I think of Hussien, dictatorship. I know that every country has there own government, and thinkings on how everything is run, and I am not saying that we are 100% in the right for trying to stop him. But if any man/woman is insane enough to kill their own people just because they dissagree with them, is wrong.

Who says insanity is necessary in order to kill those who disagree with oneself? You might have to write off many of history's monarchs as insane if that is characteristic. Heck, even Nixon ordered the army to open fire on protesters during the Vietnam War. Does this mean Nixon was insane?
Anyways, there are lots of countries on earth that have dictatorships, several of which are much more brutal than Saddam's, and yet America maintains a healthy and friendly relationship with some of those countries. How is this justified?

And I agree completely with PastorFreud's response. The Christian response to this situation is not necessarily the same as the American response, nor should it necessarily be so.

 

[Wolseley]

Heck, even Nixon ordered the army to open fire on protesters during the Vietnam War.

If this is a reference to Kent State University in 1970, your memory of the event is a shade hazy.

 

[Morat]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I thought that Iran was becoming very rapidly more liberal. The President is a member of the reform party, a cleric recently resigned, noting widespread governmental corruption, and a recent poll (coordinated from within Iran) showed an overwhelming majority supported renewing ties with the US. Morat, I don't think Iran is the big enemy you make it out to be.

  They're trying to. Whether the moderate influence overcomes the conservatives currently running the government is unknown.

  After all, the fundamentalist Shi'ites run the government and the army, and fundamentalist clerics can still lay down the law.

   As for the rest of the posts: Yes, Saddam is an evil, nasty dictator. Yet you act like he's the only one out there, and that we don't support others just as bad. Here's a wake up call: He's no better or worse than half the countries we call "friend".

 

 

[Warrior4Jah]

Ahem, the people of Iraq do nto deserve to be in such a position. Fortunatly, an attack on Iraq woudl not only help increase the security of teh aemrican people but also the freedom of the Iraqi people. Dont accuse ME of hypocrisy Strathy Boy.

Hussein DOES have the capacity to launch nuclear weapons on American interests. If and when he does get nuclear weapons, I am SURE he will attack the USA. An attack on Iraq is in DEFENSE of Americans well being.


*To Morat* This has been explained time and time again Morat, other evil nasty dictators will NOT attack the U.S.A., Iraq will! Iraq poses a threat, otehr countries do not. International law bars the USA from rooting out evi dictators, not that our safety is in jeopardy we have every right to attack Iraq.

 

[tom]

presidant bush wants todo this so this wont devlope into anything worst in the future thats why he wants to deal with it now. i know war is a very scar thing to have to go to.

 

[PastorFreud]

And the role of Christians in a culture? particularly a culture of war?

When we refuse as either Americans and/or Christians to acknowledge our own culpability in this conflict, I am not sure we can ever come to place of agreement on what to do next. Acknowledging the ways we have added to and created this conflict does not mean that we necessarily sit back and do nothing. But a refusal to admit that America helped create the mideast situation is likely to lead to a military demonstration of our arrogance and pride.

As Christians, we are called to honesty, righteousness, and truth. How can we support a military conflict steeped in misrepresentations of truth (on all sides), abuse of power (largely on the American side), and absence of objectively demonstrable proof? The president's speech several weeks ago was filled with appeals to emotion, circular reasoning, causal fallacies, and attacks against straw men.

I'm sorry. Under these circumstances I cannot believe that war is justified. This does mean not that we do nothing. There is a lot that could be done to address the evil that we have perpetrated in the middle east.