War! What is it good for!?

Amy responds to the Just War posting with the following comments:

We were the aggressor, not Iraq.
Diplomatic avenues were not exhausted.

Regarding the first issue. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991. We went to war and booted them out. There was no end to the war. Only a cease-fire. A cease-fire based on easy to understand conditions. But it was still a state of war. We enforced a no-fly zone and sanctions were “enforced.” I use quotes there because the Oil for Food program was so corrupt it is a joke. But you won’t hear about it in the main-stream media because the UN is a pure and good organization(tongue planted firmly in cheek). Funny, all the blame America first folks who blamed the sanctions for the suffering of the people in that country never seemed to want to look at the UN allowing Saddam to take the $ from the Oil for Food program and bribe the UN, other countries(Russia, France and Germany, thank you very much) and spend it on his own palaces. That was the America’s fault. But I digress.

Saddam was continually locking onto our aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone and firing missiles at them. This is an act of war. This is a violation of the cease-fire. This is grounds enough to end the cease-fire.

And by Amy’s logic, we never should have gone to war with Germany in WWII. We had no plans to declare war on Germany. Germany declared war on us. So we declared war in return when we declared war on Japan. Germany hadn’t attacked us at the time.

That aside, Iraq was still the aggressor by attacking our aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone.

I’m not sure what other Diplomatic avenues there were to try. As I described above, many French, Russian and German businesses had been bribed using oil vouchers, and this includes many diplomats and bureaucrats. There was no way those 3 countries were ever going to support us. There were 12+ resolutions from the wonderful UN. And nothing happened. Nothing. Saddam kicked the inspectors out in the late 90’s. He allowed them back in when it looked like war was imminent but still wouldn’t let them go where they needed to go.

I constantly hear this “we should have tried more diplomacy!” Like what? I hate to sound like the President since he isn’t my favorite President by any means. But , should we have gone for 13 resolutions? 14? 25? At what point do you actually go to war?

But judging from her response, and I kindly thank her for it, Amy says a war is just if we were attacked and all diplomatic options were exhausted. But #1 can be waived if it is for humanitarian reasons. Is this right? What is the justification for humanitarian reasons? What has to exist for it?

Amy said that this current war could be justified for humanitarian reasons. Well, if you support it for those reasons, then why not support it? Arguing about what the justification is certainly grounds for discussion. But it doesn’t make it an unjust war. I don’t think anyone can really say that country was better off with Saddam in control.

Amy goes on to say that the war was justified by the administration for the following 2 reasons:

There are weapons of mass destruction that are an imminent danger to the US.
Saddam Hussein was directly implicated in 9-11. (And thus, had indirectly attacked us)

Regarding #1, the President never said there was an imminent danger. In his state of the union address before the war he asked, do we wait until it is imminent?(I’m paraphrasing but that’s close to what he said)
Go back and find me a single quote from the President where he says the threat from Iraq was imminent. It’s not there. And I would prefer we not wait until it is imminent. In this day and age, imminent does not exist, mainly because if it is imminent, it won’t be for long. It takes about a second to go from imminent to “It just happened.”

And for all the carping on WMD, many people in the know seem to think that he didn’t destroy them. They are just in Syria and were transported there before the war. But aside from that, we HAVE found canisters of nerve agent. Certainly not the stockpiles we expected. But see above for that.

And for #2. Nowhere was Saddam directly implicated in 9-11. If you can find it, or that quote from the president on #1, I’ll buy you and Heather a steak dinner next time I visit. My word. They said there were ties to Al Qaeda and that has been documented (check the 9-11 report) but the President never said there was a direct connection between Iraq and 9-11.

Just War

Last month's co-winner of the comments contest, Amy, made a comment I hadn't noticed until recently. It was in response to my mean, old man rant last month.

She said:

I don't think this is a just war because it doesn't meet one of the basic requirements of a just war: we started it--it was not a war of defense.

Others have said the same but I suppose we have to figure out what we think a "just war" is. I think Amy, based on her comment, defines it by whether or not we were attacked first.

Anyone else have thoughts? I'll post mine a bit later.

Suffice it to say, it will reference Old testament scripture and WWII.

Assorted Thoughts

-If you don’t know who you are going to vote for…don’t vote. Spare the rest of us. If you can’t decide the difference between the two, don’t disgrace the act of voting by casting an ignorant ballot.

-Ashlee Simpson is stupid. Nothing new there, I know. At least her sis is worth looking at. Anyway, she was the “musical” guest on SNL. In her 2nd “performance” the “band” started playing the last song she did. And then she started "singing" it. Problem is, she wasn’t singing. The microphone wasn’t near her mouth. So she, realizing that she’d been caught lip-synching, starts dancing a little jig on stage. The "band" continues to pretend they are playing. She ends up, after about 10 seconds, walking off the stage, leaving the "band" up there. The performance continues with the cameramen zooming in on the "band" members. After about 30 seconds of it, the director just gave up and cut to commercial. At the end of the show, when the host says his goodbyes, Jude Law makes a mention of “Hey, it’s live TV.” Then Ashlee blames it on her "band" for playing the wrong song! Real classy. If that were the case, just stop them, make a joke and do the right song.

-Bought the new John Mellencamp greatest hits album this past weekend. It’s good and has a new song on it, called Walk Tall. I’d heard the last 2/3 of it. Well, I popped in the CD and listened to the whole song. Here is the first part of the song:
The simple minded
And the uninformed
Can be easily led astray
And those that cannot connect the dotsHey look the other wayPeople believe what they want to believeWhen it makes no sense at allSo be careful of those killing in Jesus’s name*He don’t believe in killing at all*

Now, I know he leans pretty far to the left and he’s supposed to be talking about those who lean right. That’s fine. But what jumps out at you up there? For me, it was the 2nd to last verse. “So be careful of those killing in *Jesus’s* name.”(my emphasis).

Really? So, people killing in Jesus’s name is the main problem he sees in the world? Funny, I don’t remember anyone driving 2 planes into the WTC and killing 3000+ people for Jesus. Or the Pentagon. Or that field in PA. I don’t remember seeing anyone getting their heads sawed off while still alive in the name of Jesus. I don’t remember seeing and Christians running around and killing hundreds of schoolchildren in Russia. Islam is a violent religion and is the cause of many of the wars across the world today (most of them) and John is concerned about those killing in Jesus’s name? Yup, Christianity is the problem. Out of touch. As are most left-leaning celebrities. It’s a shame. He makes really good music, and this song is no different. Just lyrics that make no sense.

Update and A WINNER!!!!

Yeah, I’ve been missing. The rocket scientists at work decided to implement Web Filtering on Monday. Blogs and web based Email are among the sites being blocked. So I can’t read blogs or update them. It’s created a ton of problems no one had the ability to predict, it would seem.

Anyway, life is good! And old friendship has been mended and I’m really happy about that. I’m getting involved in a 40 day Bible study before I leave in November to go overseas again. We’re playing in a high-level volleyball league on Wednesday nights and playing well against competition that is a level or two above us. It’s been a good learning experience for me and the rest of the guys.

Everything else is going fine. Thanks for checking on the Blog. Also, I have an award to give out. It’s for the most coments made by other folks on my blog for the month of September. It’s a tie among family. Amy and Heather both tie with 3 comments. So the get the free baked ham award. Next time I visit, I’ll let them bake me a ham for dinner. Just kidding, I’ll take them out to dinner. Now, Peter would have won if he had signed all of us comments using his name. Using “Smiley” doesn’t count.

Sorry dude!

Just a note for the October contest. Only real comments count. No gratuitous commenting over and over with just a letter or word. You have to be trying!

VP Debate

I know I’ve blogged on politics a lot lately but it’s the nature of the year and the season. I watched last night’s VP debate. It was really drab but somewhat interesting (I’m a drab, boring guy, I guess). Gwen Ifill did a good job moderating as the questions were equally difficult for each candidate, much better than Jim Lehrer did on Thursday. But just once, I wish there was a viable candidate that would explain that it’s not the government’s job to fix a problem. Here are some of the questions and the answers I would have paid to hear:

Ifill: You two gentlemen are pretty well off. You did well for yourselves in the private sector. What can you tell the people of Cleveland, or people of cities like Cleveland, that your administration will do to better their lives?

Candidate: It’s up to the people to make their lives better for themselves. Government needs to protect the people and protect their God-given rights. Beyond that, government needs to get out of the way and let people live their lives. It’s not the government’s job to make people’s lives better. It’s the people’s job to make their own lives better. That’s where the responsibility lies.

Ifill: I want to read something you said four years ago at this very setting: "Freedom means freedom for everybody." You said it again recently when you were asked about legalizing same-sex unions. And you used your family's experience as a context for your remarks.
Can you describe then your administration's support for a constitutional ban on same-sex unions?

Candidate: I personally don’t think the government should be in the job of marriage. I support abolishing its recognition of marriage and just creating civil unions for all to recognize the commitments people will make to each other. This will guarantee rights of inheritance, visitation in the hospital and health benefits. People shouldn’t be looking to the government to “legitimize” their marriage. That’s between them, their partners and God.

IFILL: I will talk to you about health care, Mr. Vice President. You have two minutes. But in particular, I want to talk to you about AIDS, and not about AIDS in China or Africa, but AIDS right here in this country, where black women between the ages of 25 and 44 are 13 times more likely to die of the disease than their counterparts.
What should the government's role be in helping to end the growth of this epidemic?

Candidate: Why is there a role for government in this? This is an issue of people’s personal actions. Government’s role here should be to encourage responsible behavior and get out of the way of drug companies so they can develop treatments and cures. (ed note: Is AIDS really still a political issue?)

Of course, I know these answers won’t come from a viable candidate. People want to hear about how someone else is going to fix their problems and give them money.

But I can dream…

Life

On another blog, someone asked the question "Is it logically inconsistent for someone who is pro-life not to be a pacifist?"

I responded by saying it is logically consistent because abortion is the taking of an innocent life. War and self-defense are not the intentional taking of innocent lives. Sure, innocent people die in war and that is a tragedy but unfortunately it happens and it is not anyone's intent(unless your an Islamic terrorist).

That is the reader's digest version of my thoughts. Tell me yours.