theophilus

I know this doesn't belon here and I'll be glad to have it moved, but I wanted people to know about it.

I'd be interested to know the sentiment toward the prospect of war with Iraq. Not for argumentation, but to get a sense of where we're at.

I'd like responses to include a basic statement in support or oppositon to the war; a specific statement of worldview (atheist; Christian; Hindu, etc) and a BRIEF statement of the reasons for support/oppostion.

I'll start.

I am opposed to the war.
I am a Christian (Reformed).
I am opposed because I believe it is not a "just" war which is the only defensible war for Christians.
I define a just war as a defensive war (I believe that such wars are not only "permissible" but are mandatory for a government to fulfill its legitimate responsibility).
I believe that a defensive war may be "preemptive" if it meats the following criteria:

1. The adversary must have given clear expression of his INTENT to attack.

2. The adversary must have the MEANS, i.e., the weapons to carry out such an attack.

3. The adversary must take some overt ACTION toward launching an attack, i.e., he must mass his troops along your border.

I do not believe this war satisfies ANY of these criteria vis a vis the US.

I am also opposed becasue our Constitution gives no authority for using our military for:

1. Regime change (except as a component of a just war)

2. Liberation of other people.

3. Enforcing the dictates of international organizaitons.

Again, this is not for argument. I will not argue with other posts. If there is a need for clarification, questions can be asked.

beastmaster

I am in favor of war under certain circumstances and opposed under others.

Atheist.

I think a credible threat of force is essential to ensure that Saddam submits to the UN weapons inspections that are necessary to enforce the terms of the 1991 ceasefire agreement. France's position that war is not justified under any circumstances is ludicrous. We must threaten force, and for that threat to be credible, we must be willing to use force if needed.

However, it would be extremely imprudent to go to war right now. Not illegal, not immoral. Just a damn bad idea.

Jobar

Opposed; atheist/pantheist.

If Saddam posed a credible threat to the US, and did not sit on all that oil, and Republicans weren't so prone to cynically use wars to inspire patriotic support of *their* administrations (but not Democratic ones), I would feel far less opposition to war with Iraq. (I do in fact think that if North Korea does not cease development of nuclear weapons, there is abundant cause for war with *them*.)

And this is a political discussion, so-

PopeInTheWoods

Atheist. Liberal. Democrat.

As much as it pains me to admit it, I agree with Shrubya about using force against Iraq. They're simply in violation of the agreements they made to effect the 1991 cease-file. Now the cease-fire and the dictates related to it may have been enacted through the UN, but in my view they were also obligations to the coalition nations (of which the USA was the main one).

Not that I wish Shrubya and cronies hadn't managed to piss off most of the rest of the world in the process. Their implementation has been atrocious, but the task itself is worthwhile.

Andy

John Hancock

I view this war as no different then Andrew Jackson's incursion into Seminole Lands then under Spainish colonialism in 1818, runaway slaves and purchased slaves were treated better amongst the Indians. He like the Bush Administration claimed "immutable law of self defense". It soon became apparent that he employed the poor whites of the nation to batttle for the interests of wealth plantation types and land speculators. The average citizen gained nothing from his imperialistic land grab. Just as the average citizen will not profit at all from United States control of mid eastern oil. In fact King George wants to budget all wealth into the hands of a few. While destroying social programs that are intented to offer upward social mobility.

This war profits the few at the expense of the many.

Martin Buber

diana

Of course, if you hadn't posted this in EoG, I wouldn't have read it.

From a military POV, I just want to make the observation that this:

is based upon an obsolete model of war. You might consider changing your criteria to reflect the way we fight now and the behavior we have learned to expect from our enemy.

Saddam has demonstrated time and again that he's a sneaky bastard and a coward. He is not chivalrous. He does not announce his intent. He doesn't need to. He builds weapons of mass destruction, and we have reason to believe he doesn't plan to use them to make brownies.

When we catch him stepping over the line, he tucks tail and runs, then waits for us to go away so he can do it again.

I agree with your point 2, but I'm also quite convinced that he does, indeed, have the means. He manufactures weapons the US has sworn off, because they are uncontrollable in scope once deployed, indescriminately destroy entire ecosystems and render areas uninhabitable for years.

Just because an enemy doesn't have our firepower does not mean that enemy isn't a very real threat to us (and others). I believe Blackhawk Down illustrates this nicely.

Amassing of troops along borders these days has less to do with an actual intent to invade and more to do with deterrence. We're amassing troops there now not because we want to go to war, but because we want not to. We want him to think really hard about what he's doing, and it helps his decision-making to give him a visual.

If we really wanted to fight him, we'd have brought the smack down from here. He'd have been bombed into oblivion before he even knew we were pissed off. If we really wanted that.

War is about political objectives, as you well know. The US tries to accomplish their political objectives with minimal bloodshed. He knows that. At this point, we're both strutting around the ring, screaming and beating our chests, hoping the rival will stand down in his own best interest. That's why we're there--because we have a clear political objective, but want to avoid the fight.

d

theophilus

Martin, do you mind specifying your worldview?

theophilus

There are several more "just war" ideas. It might be helpful to list a couple of them:

1. There must be a specific defensive purpose, e.g., to right a wrong or recover something.

2. Only a level of force sufficient to redress the asault or to prevent such may be used.

bgponder

I support total war with the Hussein Regime, though I do not think Dubyah is anything near the leader we need.

Atheist.

I hold a degree in Petroleum Technology, and ten years working in the oilfields knowing what it takes to get it out of the ground; and folks, what they were teaching us in 1978 about world oil reserves leads me to believe that, unless a deal is struck and drilling implemented in the very near future for all of that black stuff under Siberia, and/or we basically annex South America, most specifically the Maracaibo Basin of Venezuela (another potential political mess), the fact is that until alternative energies are developed, we must have reasonable access to those reserves to continue to be the commerce engine of the world. Period.

With a rogue like Saddam in control of those reserves, especially with the possibility of him having nuclear capability--the detrimental possibilites on the world economy are far too great.

Sincerely, BarryG

Krieger

Religion: none: Strong Atheist

Politics: Marxist

I oppose all imperialism!