Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00215)

stevestubbs@yahoo.com quotes Jimmy Carter:

> But to use the presence
> and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all
> United Nations resolutions -- with war as a final option -- will
> enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.

For us to "use the presence and threat of our military power to FORCE
Iraq's compliance with all United Nations resolutions," (caps added) we must
be willing to go to war. Of course war is and should be the final option.
Dubya has said as much. The difficulty arises when a lot of well-meaning
people advocate "Give peace a chance" as the final option. We have been
doing that for over a decade. Maybe we should do it for another decade. In
that time, far more Iraqi citizens have been and will continue to be
brutally killed, imprisoned, tortured, and otherwise disposed of by Saddam's
regime than will be harmed as a result our collateral damage. The fact that
Saddam INTENDS his brutality is overlooked by well-wishers who prefer to
focus on the unfortunate but certainly unintended results of US military
actions.

Bill


----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Stubbs" <stevestubbs@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 8:13 PM
Subject: Theos-World Jimmy Carter Speaks Out


> Just War -- or a Just War?
>
> By Jimmy Carter
>
> New York Times| Op-Ed
>
> Sunday 09 March 2003
>
> Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy,
> reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two
> centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have
> been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for
> international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and
> mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against
> Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these
> premises.
>
> As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by
> international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the
> principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially
> unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an
> almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most
> notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist
> Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel
> based on eschatological, or final days, theology.
>
> For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.
>
> The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent
> options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear
> alternatives to war exist. These options -- previously proposed by
> our own leaders and approved by the United Nations -- were outlined
> again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own
> national security not directly threatened and despite the
> overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world,
> the United States seems determined to carry out military and
> diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of
> civilized nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan
> is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless
> Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the
> purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will
> change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and
> safe during the bombardment.
>
> The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and
> noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise
> accuracy, inevitably results in "collateral damage." Gen. Tommy R.
> Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has
> expressed concern about many of the military targets being near
> hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.
>
> Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered.
> Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to
> tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.
>
> The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the
> society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in
> the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
> can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve
> regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps
> occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For
> these objectives, we do not have international authority. Other
> members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous
> economic and political influence that is being exerted from
> Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure
> to get the necessary votes or else a veto from
> Russia, France and China. Although Turkey may still be enticed into
> helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control
> of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has
> at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.
>
> The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what
> exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it
> is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will
> destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize
> our security at home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition,
> the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable
> institution for world peace.
>
> What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such
> a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt
> sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks,
> even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated;
> increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought
> international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory.
> American stature will surely decline further if we launch a
> war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence
> and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all
> United Nations resolutions -- with war as a final option -- will
> enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.
>
> Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, is chairman of
> the Carter Center in Atlanta and winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace
> Prize.
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>