Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (36615)	8/9/2002 5:54:51 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hard to make case against Iraq By ANTHONY B. ROBINSON SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST Friday, August 9, 2002 "Wars and rumors of wars" goes a phrase from a verse in the New Testament. These days we have both. But of late we seem to be hearing much more of the rumors of war --against Iraq -- than we do reports about the war on terrorism. The nearly daily rumors of war against Iraq are deeply troubling. Let us acknowledge the obvious: Saddam Hussein is a malevolent force in the volatile Middle East, a leader who is guilty of heinous acts. But this seems a case where the old childhood adage applies. "Two wrongs don't make a right." In my book it remains wrong to invade a nation that has not attacked our country or our allies. As the rumors mount and the drumbeat for war grows louder, there are a host of specific questions to be asked and answered. For openers, what really is the case against Saddam? That is, what do we know about his capacities and intentions? What real evidence is there that Saddam and his regime constitute an imminent threat to the American people or our allies? We have heard the cryptic slogan-like accusations. "This is a man who has poisoned his own people." "He is secretly developing weapons of mass destruction." "He has violated U.N. mandates." But these are more slogans than a convincing or substantive case for a war that would not only put American lives at risk but that would further jeopardize the already sorely tested and traumatized people of Iraq. Second, the administration has given no indication that it will seek a constitutionally required Declaration of War from Congress. The intent of such a requirement is, at least in part, that a convincing case be made for such a drastic course of action as invading another country or going to war. Yes, some elements of secrecy are lost in such open deliberations and proceedings. But I thought that was the point, that we do things differently here. When we turn to the ethical tradition of the Christian faith, other important questions arise from the Augustinian doctrine of just war. This set of teachings attempts to describe the conditions that must be met if a Christian is to take part in what is always an unholy yet sometimes unavoidable military action. I will not attempt here to consider each of the criteria that the just war tradition holds forth. But ponder this one. For a war to be considered "just," all other available means of resolving conflict have been tried and exhausted. A recent article in "The Christian Century" magazine cites the work of George Lopez and his colleagues at the University of Notre Dame. Lopez has outlined a three-part strategy to contain Saddam without military action. "The first step is to revise U.N. sanctions to tighten controls on Iraq's oil revenues and military-related goods while easing restrictions on civilian economic activity. The second is to bring back U.N. weapons inspectors to complete the U.N. disarmament mandate and re-establish an Ongoing Monitoring and Verification system. Finally, in the event that Iraq refuses to allow weapons inspections, create a border monitoring and control system." Beyond the questions of substantive and compelling evidence of an Iraqi threat, processes of deliberation in duly constituted bodies and exhausting other means to resolve a conflict, the largest looming question here is the matter of U.S. moral authority. If we do not hold ourselves to high moral standards there is nothing left but "might makes right," and that really does mean a world of fear and brutality for all. Moral authority does not derive from bravado, nor is it grounded in the impulse toward revenge. Since Sept. 11 there has been some of both, but really surprisingly little. By and large, the American people have responded with decency and restraint. Still, one can understand and forgive a certain amount of bravado and appeal to emotion from the person on the street, but not from the person in the White House. Moral authority does derive from a capacity for self-criticism, for honest self-examination. It derives from the ability to apply the values and judgments made of others to oneself. It derives from the capacity to discern the power of self-interest to warp and distort one's judgment and actions. Two generations ago the great American theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr, wrote: "Moral pride is the pretension of finite man that his highly conditioned virtue is the final righteousness and that his very relative moral standards are absolute." In matters of war and rumors of war, one wants a leader who has doubts, who is not absolutely sure of himself. Having doubts does not mean being paralyzed into inaction. It means recognizing one's own capacity for self-deception. The president has set a course for which he ought to remain resolute -- taking seriously the reality and threat of terrorism. But this course will be defensible only if the United States does not make of it a license for unilateral adventurism. Moreover, launching war on Iraq seems a sure way to recruit more to the terrorist cause. An unprovoked U.S. invasion of Iraq may -- at its best, and there's no assurance of such an outcome at all -- provide a short-term solution. But this short-term solution will squander the moral authority that must be the basis of our long-term hope and leadership at this crucial and precarious moment in the world's history. ----------------------------------------------------- Anthony B. Robinson is senior minister at Plymouth Congregational Church: United Church of Christ in Seattle. E-mail: trobinson@plymouthchurchseattle.org seattlepi.nwsource.com

To: Bilow who wrote (36615)	8/9/2002 10:33:56 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Wow!! I agree with you in one post, but then find myself absolutely disagreeing with you in this one. It's important for international relations that countries know that if they keep their feces within their own border, Interesting analogy.. But as you know, no one can stop the wind and the pervasive smell always drops property values and attacts rats and riff-raff. And besides, people like this are generally psychopathic or sociopathic and the next thing you know they'll be trying to drive you out of the neighborhood so they can stack their feces in YOUR yard. launching an unprovoked, (or in this case insufficiently provoked), attack upon another state. What's the level for "sufficiency"?? I opine that it all depends on what you perceive as being the potential threat, versus the current one. We've "contained" Saddam for 12 years, yet he failed to abide by UNSCOM inspection mandates and eventually kicked the inspectors out when they got too close to finding the "family jewels" in his WMDs treasure. The guy has violated the terms of the armistice. That, in itself, is justification UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, to continue the war and overthrow him, or force him to comply with the terms of the original armistice. This is not illegal.. What it's really about is whether anyone wants to enforce the armistice or merely ignore him. The guy has been nothing but intransigent towards the norms of international relations and the accords governing relations between states. Thus, I hardly see why he should enjoy the protection of international protocols that he neither acknowledges, nor supports (except when they benefit him). With the world's only superpower appearing to be out of control That's EXACTLY what is needed in order to prevent Saddam from being able to "calculate" his way out of this via our predictability. He has to understand that, despite all the hollow warnings of the past, this time we actually might mean it. And recall that, while Carter could not obtain the release of our hostages from Iran, the day Reagan entered office, those hostages were on their way home. They Iranian KNEW he was not someone to trifle with, let alone try to predict. It would be a better world if those nations could, like Kuwait, instead rely on the US to show up to put the aggressors back across their borders. Actually, it would be better when the US (and other nations) were required to "show up" that we REMOVED the source of aggression, rather than just slapping his wrists and "grounding him for life". After all, how many of us were "grounded" but snuck out anyway seeking to defy our parents and do what we want? The US has a strong tendency to make diplomacy personal. In short, it's Saddam's history. Gee Carl.. You seem to imply that the Iraqi people actually had a choice in Saddam's "election".. Well, I guess they did actually... "vote for me or we'll kill your family".. Yeah.. I can see why you believe we shouldn't focus on Saddam as the ABSOLUTE ruler of this state (so long as no underboss will risk betraying him). The Iraqi regime is dictatorial in the left leaning (i.e. socialist / communist theory) rather than right leaning. Ah..hmmm... You might recall that in Hitler's Germany, Nazi translated as "National Socialist Party". I know it's a fine point, but they can call themselves whatever they want, but few "socialist" states actually live up to their stated ideals. They all become totalitarian and brutal. Baathism is a mixture of Fascism, Nationalism, Socialism, and whatever else its members seem to find pertinent. But all of their "high ideals" were superseded by their required absolute loyalty to Saddam Hussein's cult of personality. jajz-ed.org.il (You should read this) Hawk