No Replacement For Displacement

Please, make it stop!

Here we go again. Our pal Jimmy "I lust in my heart to have a clue" Carter, winner of the 2002 Nobel Appeasement Prize, has written yet another article in the Howell Raines Gazette to show the country exactly why he got his butt royally kicked by Reagan in 1980. Anyway, time to break out a pair of steel-toed fisking boots:

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.

What international law was involved in the Mexican American War? Who were we allied with when we took on Spain? And how much "mutual restraint" did we show when we leveled cities in Germany and Japan in WWII?

As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by [Don't you mean 'thoroughly incompetent in the handling of'?-JB] 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.

"Substantially unileral." Except for the 40 or countries that have signed on, the Kuwaitis, Qataris, Bahrainis and Turks providing troops and basing, and all of Eastern Europe and Japan.

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.

"The only religious leaders who are qualified to talk about whether a war is just are those who are opposed to the war." Nice way of writing off people who disagree with you including Iraqi expatriate Imam Hussein al-Sadr:

"We are against war, but we are also against dictatorship," Imam Hussein al-Sadr, head of the Islamic Institute in London, told the small crowd gathered outside Parliament. "We don't believe that Saddam Hussein's staying in power is less catastrophic than a war."

Now Jimmy, are you going to call him a Baptist crackpot too?

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.

Surrender is not an option. Stop listening to the French ambassador.

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.

Yes Jimmy, that's our war plan, all right. We plan on bombing every orphanage, hospital, and bio-war lab baby milk factory in Iraq. After we get all those targets, we'll launch our top-secret anti-kitten missiles too.

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.

In other words Le Jimmy du Carter(yes, you are such a weenie your name needs to be converted to French), if Saddam commits a war crime by deliberately using his civilian population to shield his WMD from attack, we should let him?!?

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.

Right, and the Czech meeting with Iraqi agents never happened, and there is absolutely no.reason why we should think Saddam had a hand in the anthrax attacks, right?

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.

Here's the scoop Le Jim. Just war doctrine puts the legitimate authority with the leadership of the country in question, accountable to the laws of that country. Aquinas would be spinning like a top in his grave if he thought that the determination of whether or not a war is just should be left to the French.

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.

In other words, by attacking Iraq, the terrorists who are trying to kill us will react by trying to kill us?

Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.

The institution for world peace that has Iraq heading up the council on disarmament, and Libya chairing the Human rights commision.

What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region?

What about America's standing if we cut and run, and let the world know that we are willing to abandon our countries because weenies like you want us to?

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.

The same outpouring of sympathy and support that resulted in dozens of "Yes....buts" from all over the world?

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.

American stature be worth nothing once it is known that we won't fight to defend ourselves, or worse, if we took your advice, and placed the lives of American citizens to the great wisdom of the French. By the way, we are threatening the use of force against Iraq, and Iraq is still not complying with the 17(!) resolutions that Iraq has flouted with complete impunity.

Frankly, reading this makes me glad, not only glad, but ecstatic that Ronald Reagan kicked your butt to hell-and-gone in 1980. To think what damage you might have done with another four years boggles the mind.

Posted by John Bono at March 9, 2003 01:02 AM | TrackBack