For my confirmation a few years ago, my mother-in-law's mother gave me one of Jimmy Carter's books on spirituality (The Personal Beliefs of Jimmy Carter: Living Faith/Sources of Strength). The man is a true inspiration to read. For that reason, I tend to seek out what he writes. Today, we have a gem in his NYT op-ed piece. No rhetoric, just pure common sense that speaks to the heart and the mind. After he presents all of reasons why we have absolutely no moral right to invade Iraq, he follows up with a solution. Something you don't see in most op-ed rants.
Just War - or a Just War?: "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."Posted by greg at March 9, 2003 08:45 AM
“There are no easy answers. People of good will may apply ethical principles and come to different prudential judgments, depending upon their assessment of the facts at hand and other issues. We conclude, based on the facts that are known to us, that a preemptive, unilateral use of force is difficult to justify at this time.” U.S. Catholic Bishops
These are the words that President Bush received from our Bishops. I , for one , trust that he received these words with a prayerful heart. The Bishops acknowledge that they are working with only the facts at their disposal; they all so refer to unilateral force. President Bush has much greater information as to all pertinent facts; so, along with a coalition of willing countries he is able to see the coarse to moral Justice.
1 The Object is to serve Justice: by removing Saddam and his government, there by ending the torture and murder of his own people, which he has done in the most hideous manner. Not only has he been unjust in his own country but he has invaded Kuwait and bombed Israel. There was and end to this war only with his agreement to disarm; which he clearly has not done. In the eyes of our administration Saddam has demonstrated that he willing supports terrorism.
2. Our Intentions is to build a better world where all people are allowed basic human rites and to do this with the least loss of human life.
3. Circumstances: For over a decade peaceful effort has been exercised in the face of evil. Saddam has abused and toyed with men of good will much too long. The decision to have to fight for Justice is no decision it is a moral duty.
The Bible also tells us Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for Justice. In reading your ‘argument’ I was able to see clearly another lesson: that of "do onto others as you would have them do unto you". I thank God that we live in a country where you can express your views freely. That I am not living in fear that a man, so fallen from God’s will for his life as Saddam, will be taking Stephanie or Baby Peter and torturing them in front of you because you expressed views contrary to the government, I thank God. If I were in this circumstance, I would pray to God that someone would invade my country in order to see Justice and peace rule. St. Peter tells us not to fear for your body but for your soul. I would be very scared to see war; but I don’t know how, if I did see such harm come to our family, I could pray for Saddam; thereby failing my moral obligation to love and pray for him. Justice is not vengance.
I shall pray now for a miracle that the Holy Spirit will touch Saddam’s heart that he will step aside and allow Justice.
Yours in Christ, PJ
Spelling corrections: course, vengeance thank you PJ
Hi PJ,
You have some great thoughts here, and to be honest, I think I agree with everything you say. We are blessed to be able to speak our minds. Valiant men and women have shed their blood to maintain our ability to do that.
Each of the points are true. The world should be ousting Saddam, as pretty much everyone (except maybe the French), would agree with. We should be helping the Iraqi people achieve independence. We should be removing torturers and criminals from power. We should be routing secret nuclear programs, illegal weapons, and bringing to light the intentions of people like Saddam.
Here's where we would part ways though. Is the cost of our president's approach to this worth it(the breakdown of NATO, UN, world hatred toward America, political instability in the middle east, increased terror threats at home and abroad)? Is it the role of the US to force every country in the world to adhere to our standards? If so, then why the picking and choosing as we've done? There are far more dangerous situations in the world right now, like Korea, Syria, Israel/Palestine, Turkey, etc. The US has gone from protector of democracy to inflictor of democracy, whether the country can handle it or not.
You can argue (and it's a valid one too) that the UN is the one doing the enforcing with it's resolutions. I would agree with that one. The UN is definitely screwing this whole thing up. France is completely in the wrong for threatening to veto the one thing that the Security Council is in place to do ... which is to be the final ultimatum when countries flaunt the will of the world. But, our approach to fixing this is to toss out the baby with the bathwater. We're willing to castrate the SC and disregard it's decisions to implement one of it's other decisions. In essence, we like the SC when we agree with them, otherwise, we do what we want. I think this is a disaster. World order is not achieved by flaunting the body that was created to maintain it. It's achieved by working to increase the effectiveness of the SC. It's achieved by being courteous to our neighbors. It's achieved by not insulting them when they disagree with us. It's all about being a mature person in the playground of the world here. France is definitely being a whiny brat. But the US is being the bully. None of these things contribute to world stability, justice, or peace.
Sure, there's lots of references to terrorists and nuclear facilities and weapons of mass descruction. Unfortunately for us, most of the allegations and evidence has been proven false, non-existant, or forged. Our country has been feeding us as much propaganda as Hussein feeds his people. Only if you're outside of the maelstrom of rhetoric do you get all the details. There's a reason the rest of the world (not just France and Germany) think our evidence is flimsy and our motives suspect. History has taught us that we should be suspect, and usually for good reason.
The good old times of people having blind faith in our elected officials to make responsible decisions ended long ago. We've learned over and over again that for every "fact" we're told about, there are nine others that sometimes support the one, or outright contradict that one. Our country is filled with intelligent people who are sending off their loved ones to face the possiblity of death. While our soldiers chose that risk, the families did not. The people deserve to the respect of being shown the real evidence. If our government withholds that from us, then it does not deserve our support. We'll let our election process work out the kinks. Unfortunately, the damage will have already been done.