Just War

The intractable conflicts that plague so many parts of the earth remind Christians of a Bible prophecy. The book of Revelation speaks of a critical period in history during which a symbolic horseman would "take peace away from the earth." (Revelation 6:4) This picture of unremitting warfare is part of a composite sign that indicates that we are now living in a time described in the Bible as "the last days." (2 Timothy 3:1) God's Word assures us that these last days are a prelude to peace.
The Bible explains at Psalm 46:9 that real peace requires an end of war, not in just one region of the globe, but in all the earth. This same psalm specifically mentions the destruction of the weapons of Bible times—the bow and the spear. The weapons that proliferate nowadays must likewise be destroyed if mankind is ever to live in peace.
Ultimately it is hatred and greed rather than bullets and rifles that fuel the flames of war. Covetousness, or greediness, is a fundamental cause of war, and hatred frequently leads to violence. To uproot these destructive feelings, people need to change the way they think. They need to be educated in the ways of peace. The ancient prophet Isaiah realistically states that war will cease only when people 'do not learn war anymore.'—Isaiah 2:4.
At present we live in a world that teaches adults and children, not the value of peace, but the glory of war. Even children are being trained to kill.
More than 300,000 child soldiers—both boys and girls—are still fighting and dying in the endless civil conflicts that plague our planet. In developed countries, the appalling situation of the child soldier may seem a world away. Even so, many Western children are learning to wage war in the comfort of their homes.
Take José from southeastern Spain as an example. He was a teenager who enjoyed practicing martial arts. His prize possession was a samurai sword that his father had bought him for Christmas. And he loved video games, especially violent ones. On April 1, 2000, he emulated in real life the aggression of his screen hero. In an orgy of violence, he killed his father, his mother, and his sister with the very sword his father had given him. "I wanted to be alone in the world; I didn't want my parents looking for me," he explained to the police.
Commenting on the effects of violent entertainment, author and military officer Dave Grossman noted: "We are reaching that stage of desensitization at which the inflicting of pain and suffering has become a source of entertainment: vicarious pleasure rather than revulsion. We are learning to kill, and we are learning to like it."
José learned to kill. He didn’t set out to be a killer, but training of one sort or another warped his thinking. Such training—whether for children or for adults—sows the seeds of violence and war.
Lasting peace can never be established while people are learning to kill. Many centuries ago, the prophet Isaiah wrote: "If only you would actually pay attention to [God's] commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river." (Isaiah 48:17, 18) When people acquire accurate knowledge about God's Word and learn to love God's law, violence and war become repulsive to them. Even now, parents can make sure that the games their children play do not encourage violence. Adults can also learn to overcome hatred and greed. God's Word has the power to change personalities.—Hebrews 4:12.
The prophet Isaiah stated that there is a direct relationship between divine education and peace. He foretold: "All your sons will be persons taught by Jehovah, and the peace of your sons will be abundant." (Isaiah 54:13) The same prophet foresaw a time when people of all nations would stream to the pure worship of Jehovah God to learn of his ways with the result that "they will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore."—Isaiah 2:2-4.
Apart from providing education, God has established a government, or "kingdom," capable of ensuring worldwide peace. Significantly, the Bible describes God's chosen Ruler, Jesus Christ, as the "Prince of Peace." It further assures us that "to the abundance of the princely rule and to peace there will be no end."—Isaiah 9:6, 7.
What have a guarantee that Christ's rule will successfully eliminate every kind of war. The prophet Isaiah adds: "The very zeal of Jehovah of armies will do this." (Isaiah 9:7) God has the will and the means to preserve lasting peace. Jesus has every confidence in this promise. That is why he taught his followers to pray for God's Kingdom to come and for God's will to be done on earth. (Matthew 6:9, 10) When that sincere request is finally answered, war will never again blight the surface of the earth.

ijwavc xqhwitg plrg kylmb gpdlzi ygtoznqw ftqrujksn

ijwavc xqhwitg plrg kylmb gpdlzi ygtoznqw ftqrujksn

ijwavc xqhwitg plrg kylmb gpdlzi ygtoznqw ftqrujksn

pamnyix nyzdsoqi wtken vqwebgfd vriz modewbtps qdvufeazi

pamnyix nyzdsoqi wtken vqwebgfd vriz modewbtps qdvufeazi

pamnyix nyzdsoqi wtken vqwebgfd vriz modewbtps qdvufeazi

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/tramadol1st/ Tramadol

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/tramadol1st/ Tramadol

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/tramadol1st/ Tramadol

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/tramadol1st/ Tramadol

vsmr oaigsen vgbqerdc ksqcvizn mkhsbgdve usgcq ajinbemzr

vsmr oaigsen vgbqerdc ksqcvizn mkhsbgdve usgcq ajinbemzr

Hi, my sites:981aad

Thank GOD, You found out something, that this world realy need. http://mike18movies.ifrance.com/

http://yty.freehostia.com/1998-infiniti-i30.html 1998 infiniti i30

http://yty.freehostia.com/1998-infiniti-i30.html 1998 infiniti i30

http://yty.freehostia.com/1996-infiniti-i30.html 1996 infiniti i30

http://luok.t35.com/kate-spade-ipod-case.html kate spade ipod case

http://luok.t35.com/kate-spade-ipod-case.html kate spade ipod case

http://tungus.007ihost.com/discount-curtain-rods.html discount curtain rods

http://tungus.007ihost.com/discount-curtain-and-drape.html discount curtain and drape

http://tungus.007ihost.com/swarvoski-crystal.html swarvoski crystal

http://tungus.007ihost.com/swarvoski-crystal.html swarvoski crystal

http://tungus.007ihost.com/swarvoski-crystal-bead.html swarvoski crystal bead

http://tungus.007ihost.com/swarvoski-crystal-bead.html swarvoski crystal bead

http://tungus.007ihost.com/swarvoski-crystal-bead.html swarvoski crystal bead

http://tungus.007ihost.com/rug-shag-white.html rug shag white

http://tungus.007ihost.com/nextel-i90.html nextel i90

http://tungus.007ihost.com/ohio-state-sweater-vest.html ohio state sweater vest

http://tungus.007ihost.com/ohio-state-sweater-vest.html ohio state sweater vest

http://tungus.007ihost.com/merrell-hiking-shoes.html merrell hiking shoes

http://tungus.007ihost.com/queen-fitted-sheet.html queen fitted sheet

http://tungus.007ihost.com/queen-fitted-sheet.html queen fitted sheet

http://tungus.007ihost.com/hoover-vacuum-windtunnel.html hoover vacuum windtunnel

http://tungus.007ihost.com/hoover-vacuum-windtunnel.html hoover vacuum windtunnel

http://tungus.007ihost.com/rave-trampoline-water.html rave trampoline water

http://tungus.007ihost.com/free-motorola-ringtone-tracfone-v170.html free motorola ringtone tracfone v170

http://tungus.007ihost.com/free-l6-motorola-ringtone.html free l6 motorola ringtone

http://tungus.007ihost.com/free-l6-motorola-ringtone.html free l6 motorola ringtone

http://tungus.007ihost.com/free-i730-motorola-ringtone.html free i730 motorola ringtone

http://tungus.007ihost.com/free-i730-motorola-nextel-ringtone.html free i730 motorola nextel ringtone

http://tungus.007ihost.com/e315-motorola-ringtone.html e315 motorola ringtone

http://tungus.007ihost.com/croscill-comforter-set.html croscill comforter set

http://tungus.007ihost.com/c261-motorola-ringtone.html c261 motorola ringtone

http://tungus.007ihost.com/c139-motorola-ringtone-tracfone.html c139 motorola ringtone tracfone

http://tungus.007ihost.com/c139-free-motorola-ringtone-tracfone.html c139 free motorola ringtone tracfone

http://tungus.007ihost.com/c139-composer-motorola-ringtone.html c139 composer motorola ringtone

http://tungus.007ihost.com/c139-composer-motorola-ringtone.html c139 composer motorola ringtone

http://tungus.007ihost.com/c-difficle-drug-prescription.html c difficle drug prescription

http://tungus.007ihost.com/c-difficle-drug-prescription.html c difficle drug prescription

http://tungus.007ihost.com/aarp-drug-plan-prescription.html aarp drug plan prescription

http://tungus.007ihost.com/aarp-drug-plan-prescription.html aarp drug plan prescription

http://tungus.007ihost.com/garage-hoover-vacuum.html garage hoover vacuum

Also in the WP this week: Shock Waves from Syria -Did Israel bomb a secret nuclear facility equipped by North Korea? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/19/AR2007091901965.html

So the message to the Israelis is, your best bet is to take the next boat for Texas. If you keep this up, someone is sure to lay a few nuclear eggs in Tel Aviv and Haifa.

Also in this week’s WP we see that: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday an upcoming U.S.-sponsored Mideast conference must be "substantive," and that Israel and the Palestinians must draft a document beforehand that lays "foundations for serious negotiations."

The Palestinians want the conference, tentatively set for November, to yield an outline for a peace deal, complete with a timetable, while Israel wants a vaguer declaration of intent. Key Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia, have said they would only attend if concrete results are achieved. (Fat Chance). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/20/AR2007092000289.html

As to the question of a just war in Iraq, supposedly central to the war on terror, it is the British and American imperialists who are responsible for the creation of the terrorists in the first place:

For the case of the British, who were being terrorized by Menachem Begin’s Irgun, they should not have caved in and vacated Palestine, leaving it to the terrorists.

Because the British caved in to the terrorist demands, we have had 60 years of uninterrupted war and terror in the so called ‘Holy Land’. Countless thousands of innocents (women and children) have been slaughtered, and millions of families have been driven into refugee camps in neighboring countries.

In the Washington Post we now see that the Israelis are threatening to cut off the Gaza strip’s fuel and electricity. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/19/AR2007091901156.html

The war in Iraq is largely the result of the influence of the Israeli lobby: Wolfowitz, Pearl, Libby, Kristol, etc. Their motivation was to get rid of Sadam Hussein because they viewed him as the main threat to Israel in the region.

So it is appropriate to examine the root cause of the Middle East instability in general. Here is an excerpt from a post from another thread that is also relevent here.

Rick says, the question is:

What's the first thing Tony Blair should do if he wants to make progress as the Quartet's Mideast peace envoy? ("Quit" is not an acceptable answer.)

Since Britain started this whole mess with the Balfour Declaration in 1917, this is a singularly appropriate question.

Zuni says: ‘There never was a legitimate state of Palestine.’

Rick says: True, but following WWI, there was a British Mandate of Palestine that included Palestine and Transjordan, in which Palestine occupied the region now occupied by the illegitimate ‘State of Israel’, the West Bank and Gaza.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Zuni says: ‘What in the hell is illegal and immoral about the Balfour declaration and Jewish, nee Zionist immigration?

Rick says: From Wikipedia ‘The Balfour Declaration of 1917 (dated November 2, 1917) was a classified formal statement of policy by the British government on the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of the World War I.

The letter stated the position, agreed at a British Cabinet meeting on October 31, 1917, that the British government supported Zionist plans for a Jewish "national home" in Palestine, with the condition that nothing should be done which might prejudice the rights of existing communities there.

So the result was the forceful injection by the Crusaders, of the Zionist Jews, who had been expelled from the region 2000 years ago; they could not coexist in peace with the native population. They had invaded and occupied this region following their great escape from slavery in Egypt; they had a Holier than Thou attitude, and claimed to be God’s chosen people.

Who would have thought that such a Zionist immigration could ever satisfy: ‘the condition that nothing should be done which might prejudice the rights of existing communities’ of Palestine?

The British soon recognized the folly of this policy and attempted to halt the Zionist immigration. They were attacked by a group named Irgun (some call it Etzel), established by the Right-Wing of the Zionist Movement in Palestine and the violent wing of the Zionist movement. The most well-known of these attacks was the King David Hotel bombing which occurred on July 22, 1946. This was a well-planned act engineered by the Irgun's Leader and future Prime Minster, Menachem Begin.

So the Balfour Declaration, and resulting Zionist immigration, was a terrible mistake. The British tried and failed to reverse this terrible decision.

Repercussions of this heinous crime are behind all turmoil and bloodshed in the Middle East including Iraq, Lebanon, Palestinian occupied territories, Syria, Iran etc.

The whole world will never see peace as long as the crime of the 20th century is not corrected.

http://tungus.007ihost.com/hoover-steam-vacuum.html hoover steam vacuum

http://tungus.007ihost.com/dr-sandal-scholls.html dr sandal scholls

http://tungus.007ihost.com/dr-sandal-scholls.html dr sandal scholls

http://tungus.007ihost.com/hoover-upright-vacuum.html hoover upright vacuum

http://tungus.007ihost.com/dr-footwear-scholls.html dr footwear scholls

http://tungus.007ihost.com/dr-footwear-scholls.html dr footwear scholls

http://tungus.007ihost.com/discount-sheer-curtain.html discount sheer curtain

http://tungus.007ihost.com/discount-rug-shag.html discount rug shag

http://tungus.007ihost.com/discount-fendi-handbag.html discount fendi handbag

http://tungus.007ihost.com/discount-curtain-rods.html discount curtain rods

http://tungus.007ihost.com/discount-curtain-rods.html discount curtain rods

http://tungus.007ihost.com/swarvoski-crystal.html swarvoski crystal

http://tungus.007ihost.com/swarvoski-crystal-bead.html swarvoski crystal bead

http://tungus.007ihost.com/rug-shag-white.html rug shag white

http://tungus.007ihost.com/nextel-i90.html nextel i90

http://tungus.007ihost.com/ohio-state-sweater-vest.html ohio state sweater vest

http://tungus.007ihost.com/merrell-man-shoes.html merrell man shoes

http://tungus.007ihost.com/merrell-hiking-shoes.html merrell hiking shoes

http://tungus.007ihost.com/in-maryland-mortgage-processor.html in maryland mortgage processor

http://tungus.007ihost.com/merrell-shoes-kid.html merrell shoes kid

http://tungus.007ihost.com/merrell-shoes-kid.html merrell shoes kid

http://tungus.007ihost.com/hoover-vacuum-windtunnel.html hoover vacuum windtunnel

tecnzxh uinlhkzft dxtvz ljhfvagxc hngazi jnqhawur lqdhzwxc http://www.rpsxi.wtupi.com

tecnzxh uinlhkzft dxtvz ljhfvagxc hngazi jnqhawur lqdhzwxc http://www.rpsxi.wtupi.com

euzhjbd taeykdxl keicq wasomb znacv vdhw mpoj

War in Irak has been totally injustified and has already costed the file of many hundred of thousand of poor civiltians and few thousands soldiers.
There is a country in the most total mess and nobody has an idea how to contain now this situation.
I am afraid Mr. Bush is just planning to go ahead in search for more petrol for his friends and is looking to Iran. After all the false evidence and proves of Iraq mass destruction arms we start getting now evidence of Iranian arms....
This is an already seen movie!
The mess generated in Iraq is already enough and Mr. Bush is really driving the world in a disaster!
Will a democratic nation like the USA come to action and firmly ask to stop this absurd, criminal war?

"...the US has been a very well behaved Super-power historically speaking."

Not sure if Native Americans, the victims of American bombing campaigns in South-East Asia or of their proxies in South and Central America would agree with that observation.

A reading of the history of the United Fruit Company and it's connection to the Mayan genocide in Guatemala may be of interest to you. (This is where the term "banana republic" comes from.) Here's a taste:

http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/peten.htm

http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2003/discoveringdominga/special_witnessfl.html

Sadly, the Iraq "situation" is not, as you say, the "new norm".

Regards

A Hermit

A Hermit once said, "As bad as things were under Saddam the situation is now worse by every possible measure." This is very true. Almost any government is better than chaos.

Before the war looking at America from the outside I was shocked at how unified America was in her march to war. Sure Sadam had it coming and sure he was a fool. He did try to assassinate the first prez. Bush and he can't cry when he's invaded later. And giving cash to the suicide bombers is reason enough to loose your throne.

But wasn't this mess inevitable? Didn't America loose friends? Isn't America divided now? With that many soldiers in high pressure situations wasn't it more likely than not that a certain percent would act like animals and smear the honor of the US?

Even though America wins every engagement and hundreds of foes die for every US soldier the American people never really wanted to kill and be killed. They wanted Sadam out and they jumped at a bad option. I know that America can bear hardship when it is unified in a righteous cause. In WW2 many days she lost more people than in the years of this war combined!

Losing soldiers for an important mission is not the problem. Fighting a war America really didn't think clearly about first and doesn't really want to be in is.

America is not bad. Sadam was. But this is a bad war.

And for you US bashers did Rome, or Parthia, or China, or the Turks, or the Aztecs, or the Assyrians, or the Russians, or the British Empire ever have as much of a power advantage as the US has now? And didn't they act with even less self control than the last 100 yrs. of US history? If this Iraq situation is not the new norm the US has been a very well behaved Super-power historically speaking.

In the lead up to the Anti-Iraq-War Rally about to begin in Washington in a few hours, 27 January 2007, and announced in advance twice by Washington Post, my final post on this thread:

“The most effective way to love our country (US) is to fight like hell to change it.” – Michael Kazin (in Newsday)

Useful links:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/subsection/0,,884056,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weblog/special/0,10627,894156,00.html

UNITED FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE

With more than 1,400 member groups under its umbrella, United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) is the nation's largest grassroots peace and justice coalition. Since its founding in October 2002, UFPJ has spurred hundreds of protests and rallies around the country, including the three largest marches against the Iraq war.

http://www.unitedforpeace.org

ANTI-WAR RALLY 27 JANUARY 2007:

On Saturday, 27 January 2007, people from every corner of the country will gather in massive numbers in Washington, DC, to protest the war in Iraq. The pre-march rally will be held on the National Mall, between 3rd Street and 7th Street.

List (subject to change) of scheduled speakers, in alphabetical order:

1. Mayor Rocky Anderson, Salt Lake City, UT

2. Moriah Arnold, 12-year-old sixth grader from Harvard, MA

3. Carlos Arredondo, Gold Star Families for Peace

4. Medea Benjamin, founder of CodePink: Women for Peace

5. Leslie Cagan, National Coordinator, United for Peace and Justice

6. Representative John Conyers (D-MI)

7. Eve Ensler, playwright

8. Jane Fonda, actress/author

9. Kim Gandy, President of the National Organization for Women

10. Danny Glover, actor/activist

11. Reverend Graylan Hagler, Plymouth Congregational Church, Washington, DC

12. Jonathon Hutto, active-duty member of the U.S. Navy

13. Reverend Jesse Jackson, RainbowPUSH Coalition

14. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)

15. Rabbi Michael Lerner, Tikkun Magazine

16. Kevin Martin, Executive Director, Peace Action

17. Garett Reppenhagen, Iraq Veterans Against the War

18. Tim Robbins, actor/activist

19. Susan Sarandon, actor/activist

20. Eleanor Smeal, Feminist Majority

21. Bob Watada, father of Lt. Ehren Watada, first officer to refuse deployment to Iraq

22. Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA)

23. Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)

24. Ann Wright, retired Army Colonel, former State Dept. diplomat

Music:

1. Emma's Revolution

2. Bedouin - rapper

3. Raging Grannies - from California to New York

United for Justice with Peace

March on Washington 27 January 2007

http://www.justicewithpeace.org

Veterans, Military Families, Community Leaders Deliberate on Two Days of Testimony Charging that the Iraq War is Illegal: Citizens’ Panel to Announce Findings Before Watada Court Martial

Tacoma, Washington 20-21 January 2007 - In an unprecedented two-day Citizens’ Hearing held over the weekend, more than 600 citizens joined a distinguished tribunal panel in listening to testimony about the legality of the US invasion of Iraq. The Hearing was convened to present evidence that Lt. Ehren Watada would have presented in his February 5 court martial on the question that the military ruled barred from entry last week — the question of the Iraq War’s legality. Lt. Watada has repeatedly asserted that because the Iraq War is illegal, it is his duty to refuse orders to deploy. He is the Army’s first commissioned officer to take such a stand. Panel Chair David Krieger asserted: “If Lt. Watada cannot get a full hearing about the war’s legality in a military trial, then his case should at least be presented in the court of public opinion. This Citizens’ Hearing was about giving Lt. Watada’s position equal time.”

Many of those who testified, most of whom would have been called to testify at the court martial if the judge had allowed that evidence, agreed that Lt. Ehren Watada had not only the right to refuse to deploy to Iraq in an illegal war, but had a duty to do so. Whether violations of the Nuremberg Principles or the US Constitution, some testifiers asserted that Lt. Watada should be recognized for his courage rather than undergoing a Court Martial.

Panelist Rich Moniak from Juneau, Alaska, whose son served in Iraq and Afghanistan, said during the deliberation: “The testimony presented to me highlighted how this war has failed the Iraqi people and placed our soldiers at risk of being accessories to war crimes.”

Law professors Benjamin G. Davis and Richard Falk agreed that there are clear legal grounds on which the war is illegal. Falk, citing the sections of the US Army Field Manual, emphasized that international law is applicable to the behavior of US soldiers in a times of war and that soldiers have the duty to refuse unlawful commands. Davis sharply criticized the decision of the military judge to not hear Watada’s full defense, stating that Americans have a right to have their defense heard.

The most compelling testimony came from former members of the US military, including five veterans of Iraq. According to Ann Wright, a former Army Colonel and US diplomat who served three and a half decades for the US government, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell created the preconditions that led to torture. She added: “We must ensure that members of the US military are not put in the position of being ordered to carry out crimes against humanity.”
Darrell Anderson, who received a Purple Heart for his service in Iraq, talked about a situation he was involved in when orders were issued to “shoot everyone” regardless of whether they were civilians, including children. He stated that they used, what he called, “excessive force.” He said: “I realize it was my duty as a soldier to refuse this illegal war.”

According to Chanan Suarez-Diaz, who also received a Purple Heart for his service in Iraq, the psyched up emotions among the troops resulted in US soldiers taking “trophies” of brain matter from Iraqis they killed and putting such in their refrigerators on base.
Immediately following the closing statements, the panel retired to discuss the testimony, consulting the US Army Field Manual and the Nuremberg Principles. They discussed the testimony until well into the night. Panelist Staughton Lynd, an attorney who holds a PhD in history from Columbia University, said: “The overpowering testimony from Iraq veterans highlighted the conditions that soldiers on the ground are facing.”

Russell McNutt, a veteran of three wars: World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, stated: “I was exposed to a lot of knowledge. The soldiers who served in Iraq that we heard from were facing the dirty end of war. In urban warfare there are no definite boundaries, in different instances the enemy can be in front of you or behind your back. There is a lot of tension about who is a civilian and who is an insurgent. Under those circumstances, instantaneous decisions must be made in responding to threats. Time to exercise discretion is limited, but every effort should be made to ensure innocent bystanders are not injured through the use of deadly force.”

Tribunal organizer Zoltan Grossman commented: “It is the command structure, rather than individual soldiers, that puts enlisted personnel in the position where they feel they have to commit war crimes to survive. The command structure is ultimately responsible for war crimes or crimes against humanity. For example, testimony indicated that the dehumanization of Arabs through the use of racial slurs comes from a systematic training process, not only from individual soldiers’ prejudices or fears.”

Elizabeth Falzone, whose cousin was killed while serving in Iraq, reflected: “The Citizens’ Hearing provided a real venue for citizens to hear from soldiers who are returning from Iraq. Hearing from them and more from family members is especially important with the “surge”, and the repeat deployments that we’re seeing.”

The Citizens’ Hearing and the distinguished panel will release the full report prior to Lt. Watada’s court martial, including the panel’s final statement and excerpts from the testimony. Interviews with panelists or testifiers can be arranged through Cindy Sousa at 206-734-5040 or cindy@sdmcc.org.

There are now video and audio clips on the web site: http://www.wartribunal.org , and more will be available.

Information about Lt. Ehren Watada’s case, his February 5th Court Martial and the mobilization leading up to it, and a video clip of his speech is at http://www.thankyoult.org

Veterans, Military Families, Community Leaders Deliberate on Two Days of Testimony Charging that the Iraq War is Illegal: Citizens’ Panel to Announce Findings Before Watada Court Martial

Tacoma, Washington 20-21 January 2007 - In an unprecedented two-day Citizens’ Hearing held over the weekend, more than 600 citizens joined a distinguished tribunal panel in listening to testimony about the legality of the US invasion of Iraq. The Hearing was convened to present evidence that Lt. Ehren Watada would have presented in his February 5 court martial on the question that the military ruled barred from entry last week — the question of the Iraq War’s legality. Lt. Watada has repeatedly asserted that because the Iraq War is illegal, it is his duty to refuse orders to deploy. He is the Army’s first commissioned officer to take such a stand. Panel Chair David Krieger asserted: “If Lt. Watada cannot get a full hearing about the war’s legality in a military trial, then his case should at least be presented in the court of public opinion. This Citizens’ Hearing was about giving Lt. Watada’s position equal time.”

Many of those who testified, most of whom would have been called to testify at the court martial if the judge had allowed that evidence, agreed that Lt. Ehren Watada had not only the right to refuse to deploy to Iraq in an illegal war, but had a duty to do so. Whether violations of the Nuremberg Principles or the US Constitution, some testifiers asserted that Lt. Watada should be recognized for his courage rather than undergoing a Court Martial.

Panelist Rich Moniak from Juneau, Alaska, whose son served in Iraq and Afghanistan, said during the deliberation: “The testimony presented to me highlighted how this war has failed the Iraqi people and placed our soldiers at risk of being accessories to war crimes.”

Law professors Benjamin G. Davis and Richard Falk agreed that there are clear legal grounds on which the war is illegal. Falk, citing the sections of the US Army Field Manual, emphasized that international law is applicable to the behavior of US soldiers in a times of war and that soldiers have the duty to refuse unlawful commands. Davis sharply criticized the decision of the military judge to not hear Watada’s full defense, stating that Americans have a right to have their defense heard.

The most compelling testimony came from former members of the US military, including five veterans of Iraq. According to Ann Wright, a former Army Colonel and US diplomat who served three and a half decades for the US government, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell created the preconditions that led to torture. She added: “We must ensure that members of the US military are not put in the position of being ordered to carry out crimes against humanity.”
Darrell Anderson, who received a Purple Heart for his service in Iraq, talked about a situation he was involved in when orders were issued to “shoot everyone” regardless of whether they were civilians, including children. He stated that they used, what he called, “excessive force.” He said: “I realize it was my duty as a soldier to refuse this illegal war.”

According to Chanan Suarez-Diaz, who also received a Purple Heart for his service in Iraq, the psyched up emotions among the troops resulted in US soldiers taking “trophies” of brain matter from Iraqis they killed and putting such in their refrigerators on base.
Immediately following the closing statements, the panel retired to discuss the testimony, consulting the US Army Field Manual and the Nuremberg Principles. They discussed the testimony until well into the night. Panelist Staughton Lynd, an attorney who holds a PhD in history from Columbia University, said: “The overpowering testimony from Iraq veterans highlighted the conditions that soldiers on the ground are facing.”

Russell McNutt, a veteran of three wars: World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, stated: “I was exposed to a lot of knowledge. The soldiers who served in Iraq that we heard from were facing the dirty end of war. In urban warfare there are no definite boundaries, in different instances the enemy can be in front of you or behind your back. There is a lot of tension about who is a civilian and who is an insurgent. Under those circumstances, instantaneous decisions must be made in responding to threats. Time to exercise discretion is limited, but every effort should be made to ensure innocent bystanders are not injured through the use of deadly force.”

Tribunal organizer Zoltan Grossman commented: “It is the command structure, rather than individual soldiers, that puts enlisted personnel in the position where they feel they have to commit war crimes to survive. The command structure is ultimately responsible for war crimes or crimes against humanity. For example, testimony indicated that the dehumanization of Arabs through the use of racial slurs comes from a systematic training process, not only from individual soldiers’ prejudices or fears.”

Elizabeth Falzone, whose cousin was killed while serving in Iraq, reflected: “The Citizens’ Hearing provided a real venue for citizens to hear from soldiers who are returning from Iraq. Hearing from them and more from family members is especially important with the “surge”, and the repeat deployments that we’re seeing.”

The Citizens’ Hearing and the distinguished panel will release the full report prior to Lt. Watada’s court martial, including the panel’s final statement and excerpts from the testimony. Interviews with panelists or testifiers can be arranged through Cindy Sousa at 206-734-5040 or cindy@sdmcc.org.

There are now video and audio clips on the web site: http:// www.wartribunal.org , and more will be available.

Information about Lt. Ehren Watada’s case, his February 5th Court Martial and the mobilization leading up to it, and a video clip of his speech is at http://www.thankyoult.org

James says:

"The Iraq war is a just war if Sadam was defying the international community (namely the U.N.) by: attacking our fighters in the no-fly zone on a daily basis, developing chemical and biological weapons, developing nuclear weapons, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's, funding international terrorism, harboring international terrorists in training camps on Iraqi soil, rewarding Palestinian suicide bombers families with cash, etc. He had 17 U.N. resolutions requiring him to cease these and other activities but he refused."

Unfortunately for your argument the facts are not what you claim.

1) First of all the "no fly zones" had no basis in international law.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1175950.stm

American and British forces were increasing their incursions into Irqi territory. Firing on foreign military aircraft in your own airspace is a defensive, not an aggressive, act.

2) Saddam had no illegal weapons programs. The Iraq Survey Group confirmed this after the invasion, and the UN inspectors were in the process of confirming this before the invasion.

3) Saddam's worst atrocities were committed in the `80's with the support of the Reagan administration, which sold him high tech equipment, chemicals, helicopters and provided the Iraqis with satellite intelligence which they used to target their chemical weapons.

The humanitarian situation in Iraq was nowhere near as dire in 2003, except for the effect of international sanctions which were killing more Iraqis than Saddam did.

Since the invasion the situation has become even worse. Saddam was a brutal tyrant but the religious fanatics who have taken his place, with American help, are even worse,They kill barbers for shaving men's beards, they beat women for not covering their heads, they firebomb liquor stores and beauty shops. For women especially the human rights situation in Iraq has actually become much worse.

The Humanitarian justification also fails when one considers that the US is ignoring equally horrific behaviour on the part of other regimes, some of whom are allies in the "war on terror". Uzbekistan is a good example, look it up.

3) The only international terrorists operating in Iraq prior to the invasion were Zarqawi's group, (which was not affiliated with Al Qaeda and was actually operating in the Kurdish zone where Saddam's forces couldn't go because of the no-fly zone) and the MEK, which was fighting a terroriat campaign against the Iranians from the southern no-fly zone.

The Iraqi regime's support for Palestinian terrorists was no more strident than that of the Saudis, but nobody's talking about invading them.

4) Saddam's government was conforming to the UN directives on its weapons programs, granting unprecedented access to inspectors.

Israel, by the way, has a number of outstanding UN resolutions it has been ignoring for years. I don't think this justifies an invasion there, either.

Not one of the justifications you claim in your post holds any water. As bad as things were under Saddam the situation is now worse by every possible measure.

I don't see the justice there.

Regards

A Hermit

I've been watching this page to see if anybody could name a "just war". Maybe Salidaan's conquests,the American Civil War,England's Peasant wars ? If it is justified by removing a totalitarian authority, maybe the U.S. should rethink why it didn't aid the Chinese or Cuban revolutions that led them to their communist states.It would seem that if your defending your nation(or somebody elses) then you didn't start the war and subsequently you are justified. i.e. WWII,the Czars vs.the Golden Horde, Mexican-American War, the Arabians war with the Ottoman.
The war in Afghanistan,I still think it's odd that Syria and Iran had sanctions against the Taliban and had begged for international support. With NATO support the bombs flew, the Taliban was toppled and bin-Ladan is still at large. I guess we're still waiting on the history books. By liberating Kuwait it would seem NATO was justified in the Persian Gulf War. In Desert Storm the American coalition has failed to provide any proof of it's actions. No WMDs,no ability to attack the U.S. in 45 min., no paper trail supporting Al Qaida link. O.K. Saddam was a bad man but the list of bad men and women running countries is historically long.From Sumeria to America history has been paved in man's blood.

Perhaps we should start by defining the word "just." Like the term "love" or "beauty," justice is a Platonic value that has no lack of possible definitions but few concrete one. Justice to one person may be injustice to another depending upon their point-of-view.

For example, should one person kill another (especially in Dallas County, TX), the family of the victim would undoubtedly consider the trial and death-sentence conviction of a suspect "just." Yet the family of that convicted may consider the verdict "unjust." Who is right? Who is wrong? Can terms like just or unjust even be applicable in this case, and if so, which term is most appropriate?

Additionally, should the accused later be found innocent of the charge, what exactly is justice now? Is it just to release the convict and is it just for the convicted person to seek monetary or civil retribution? Has the prosecutor and victim's family suddenly become unjust? It is a very complicated issue and has been ever since the days of the Greek Socratic method.

So, is the war in Iraq a "just" war? It depends upon one's perspective. Ultimately, those who decide whether it is indeed just or unjust will be the future generations of the world who will judge this war by the facts - or at least the facts as they see them!

James Coppock
Omaha, NE
http://thelastbastionofreason.blogspot.com

james- look at iraqi history- the 2 main religious groups were fighting a loooong time before america ws even a country

The Iraq war is a just war if Sadam was defying the international community (namely the U.N.) by: attacking our fighters in the no-fly zone on a daily basis, developing chemical and biological weapons, developing nuclear weapons, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's, funding international terrorism, harboring international terrorists in training camps on Iraqi soil, rewarding Palestinian suicide bombers families with cash, etc. He had 17 U.N. resolutions requiring him to cease these and other activities but he refused.

We went in, removed him from power, allowed the Iraqi's to vote in the their own government and form their own constitution. We are now assisting their newly elected government with security and in the training of their troops so that they can soon take over security for the nation.

In the midst of this activity, the two main religious sects of the nation have started fighting with the aid of Iran and Syria. This unfortunate situation has made our task much more difficult than was previously anticipated but it doesn't change the justification for the war. Saddam was a growing threat in the region and we acted with a number of other nations to eliminate the threat.

We will stay in Iraq until the new government asks us to leave. They need us until their military is strong enough to keep the peace.

I believe that if it is to be successful, the new government must have a heavy hand in dealing with the continued sectarian violence.

I am of the same position as John Helding, above.

Wars are the product of primitive civilizations. If we need to kill other people to solve our problems with each other, then we are not so enlightened are we?

We can all stop murder in our civilization, if everyone were to just agree not to murder anyone, no matter how serious their problems with other people were. The same is true for war: if people and countries were to all agree that no matter what the differences, we would help each other to solve each other's problems, war could disappear almost overnight. But most of us don't care enough about other people's problems, we don't listen enough, and we don't try to respect and understand enough. Simplistically speaking, that's why people use guns on each other and go to wars.

In this context, there are few, if any, just wars.

I have to say ive really enjoyed reading everyones opinions on this question and have learned some too.

anaside- im sorry AMERICANCHRISTIAN- but your coalition of the atheist gay muslims is kind of funny-
i know you were writing i a stream of consciousness kind of way-

but there are WAY more christians than anyone else-
did it ever occur to you that gays feel there is a war against them? for a long time? and atheists definitely know thereis a war against them-
and now we muslims know theres a physical war against us!

who is waging THOSE wars?

we all have to look at ourselves thats all we can do- i knowyoure just venting your frustrations but there are alot of gays and atheists and even a couple muslims on these boards-

im sorry - that was just too funny- im going to pepper my conversation with the gay atheist muslim coalition now-

its been real everyone- i ws kind of sad when i saw the new question because i knew it would siphon attention away fro this one.
peace

At first, I felt the war in Iraq was just because I was really naive/ignorant enough to believe that the Iraqis needed/wanted our help to get rid of Saddam at the time. At the time, though, I had read enough about Muslims to think that they may do exactly what they are doing today, but I thought, Well, our president and leaders would surely know. WRONG!!! Jeeze, it's hard to believe they are so ignorant about these people. And then not to have a plan afterwards! What were they thinking??? I do honestly believe in helping people when they need our help, but as someone else said, if we're going to do that, then we should do it for everybody and not just this one or that one. It's sad, though, that now the world will probably never help the Sudanese, the people in Bangladesh, in Somalia, and so many other countries Muslims are fighting & killing in as they try to take them over. Unfortunately, we now have a war on Christian right here in the USA, of all places. I am sorry, but I will never forgive the gay community because it is, mainly, the gay community who is launching this war on Christians in the USA. I kept thinking, who are these people and why are they trying to divide this country at a time we needed to be divided. So I started my investigation & found it to be, mainly, the gay community. They are accusing all Christians who disagree with them about anything of wanting to take over the USA and the world and believing that the Bible tells Christians they are supposed to take over the world, of all the insane things. I have searched and searched to find Christians who believe this way and cannot find one. Muslim extremists/terrorists wanted so badly to make this a war between Muslims and Christians, and with the help of America's gay community, and some atheists, they just may be able to swing it. Sorry, I got off the subject here. Anyway, no, I do not feel this war was just. However, now we are really in a mess and I am not sure just leaving the Iraqis alone would be right, either, after we got them into this mess. The world is such a screwed up place now. I, at least, used to be happy and felt lucky to live in the USA, but now I feel that the gay community is destroying this country right now and they have torn us all apart. And I had nothing against these people before now. In fact, I was for gay marriage and whatever. Now I feel that these people must be demons because they are so deceitful, filled with hatred, and are nothing but lying, destructive, very dangerous people.

One doesn't have to be much of a historian to have predicted that W's plan for Iraq was likely to fail. Regardless of what we may think about Russia, when they invaded Afghanistan, they were a world class super-power with a modern, large military. After years of waging war against the embedded guerilla fighters there, Russia basically went bankrupt, and their people were very tired of their young men and women coming home in body bags, and nothing had been accomplished. Do you think Osama didn't recognize this glaring fact?? He has gloated about this destruction of our economy as well. "W" apparently didn't notice that a super-power went bankrupt trying to fight hit-and-run guerillas. When "W" invaded Iraq, he was embarking on a nearly identical debacle as Russia's war in Afghanistan.
History is full of many examples of the ineffectiveness of well-financed, contemporary armies failing against guerilla warfare. Viet Nam comes to mind as well as 1775 when we were the guerilla fighters against the mightiest military in the world at that time. We outlasted our opponent at that time until the English treasury ran out. War, amongst other evils, is very, very expensive. When we're through with Iraq, the cost will likely be over a trillion dollars. Think what good we could have done with these resources. There are all sorts of worthy causes: millions dying of hunger could be fed, education could be supported, epidemic diseases could be treated and/or cured - so many worthy causes....that could have made our country stronger and more admired, instead of feared and despised.
Of course, the real immediate tragedy is the loss of 3000+ young men and women and the impact on their families. Not always mentioned are the nearly 25,000 who are now disabled and will have to go through life without an arm or leg, the continuing medical care they will need, etc., etc.

First of all, does anyone who is in their right mind really think that a roughly 12% increase in troop strength can make any difference at all??? Well, maybe if there were two massed armies facing each other on a battlefield. BUT, this is definitely not the case. If we could double the number of boots on the ground over there, it is my opinion that this would only double the rate of our KIA's and casualities. When you're getting picked off by suicide bombers wearing dynamite vests, etc., and IED's, a massed modern army is not a solution. This should be painfully obvious to nearly everyone by now.
WWII was entirely different. We were attacked by another country's military force, killing a lot of our servicemen and destroying much of our navy. We HAD TO go to war, like it or not, just or not!
GW got us into this mess to save face after 9/11. I guess he thought that he'd do another Desert Storm and be in and out in a couple of weeks and be a big hero. When he landed on the aircraft carrier and announced "Mission Accomplished", this was apparently what he had in mind. Problem was, he could not convince any of our traditional allies that this plan made any sense, i.e., they didn't see how we could "justify" starting a war in the middle east. Gee, I guess that they were right.

This war is decidedly unjust. Even using the "Just War Theory" developed by Augustine and amended since, this war fails to meet these criteria:

1. "War must be a last resort." But, this war was not a last resort. The Weapons Inspectors had not yet finished their search and had requested more time. It is impossible to agree that this war meets this criterion when weapons inspections would eventually have demonstrated that the alleged justification, removal of WMD, would not have been necessary.

2. "The war must provide for protection of the innocent." Since the beginning of the 20th century, the great majority of deaths in war have been civilians. In this case, the Johns Hopkins Univ. study, with methodology validated by MIT, calculates that more than 600,000 civiilians have died as a result of this war from shooting, bombings, disease and poor health care, and other war-related causes. In today's wars, it may be argued that this criterion is never met. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the overwhelming majority of people who have killed in wars have been civilians.

3. "A proportion of good over evil must be maintained." This criterion cannot be met either. The Johns Hopkins study provides ample evidence that this criterion has not been met. Despite removal of Saddam, any other good that may come from this war is difficult to see at this point. The evil, the cost in terms of Iraqi and US casualties (death and life-time injury and mental health problems on all sides) and the financial burden, now estimated at more than $2 trillion by Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize-wining economist, is staggering.

Peace. William H. Privett

Again, I believe there is such a thing as a just war. Our conflicts down here are nothing more than a continuation of the great conflict that began in heaven.
Revelation 12:7-9,12-13

7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the devil, and satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him......12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. 13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

War began in heaven, before this world was. Satan lost, as well as his angels, and were cast into the earth. Those very forces-satan and his angels-are the tempters and contention promoters we all experience. They "inspire" wickedness in men and they rejoice in war and death and wickedness. However sick war may be, however much we dislike it(I dislike war), war began in heaven. Gods' armys defeated the great dragon, satan, and satan was cast out to come here. Here on earth the war continues. I do believe Christ would have us be compassionate and turn the other cheek. His way is the way of kindness and mercy. But the Lord expects us to defend our wives and our children from the merciless tortures those who would destroy them. Again I say I don't know if this war is just or not. I don't know the facts. But war in general ought to be avoided if at all possible. We can avoid it through tolerance and kindness, love and obedience to Gods law BEFORE THE WARS START, not just after we have been humbles by them.

This war is decidedly unjust. Even using the "Just War Theory" developed by Augustine and amended since, this war fails to meet these criteria:

1. "War must be a last resort." But, this war was not a last resort. The Weapons Inspectors had not yet finished their search and had requested more time. It is impossible to agree that this war meets this criterion when weapons inspections would eventually have demonstrated that the alleged justification, removal of WMD, would not have been necessary.

2. "The war must provide for protection of the innocent." Since the beginning of the 20th century, the great majority of deaths in war have been civilians. In this case, the Johns Hopkins Univ. study, with methodology validated by MIT, calculates that more than 600,000 civiilians have died as a result of this war from shooting, bombings, disease and poor health care, and other war-related causes. In today's wars, it may be argued that this criterion is never met. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the overwhelming majority of people who have killed in wars have been civilians.

3. "A proportion of good over evil must be maintained." This criterion cannot be met either. The Johns Hopkins study provides ample evidence that this criterion has not been met. Despite removal of Saddam, any other good that may come from this war is difficult to see at this point. The evil, the cost in terms of Iraqi and US casualties (death and life-time injury and mental health problems on all sides) and the financial burden, now estimated at more than $2 trillion by Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize-wining economist, is staggering.

Peace. William H. Privett

This war is decidedly unjust. Even using the "Just War Theory" developed by Augustine and amended since, this war fails to meet these criteria:

1. "War must be a last resort." But, this war was not a last resort. The Weapons Inspectors had not yet finished their search and had requested more time. It is impossible to agree that this war meets this criterion when weapons inspections would eventually have demonstrated that the alleged justification, removal of WMD, would not have been necessary.

2. "The war must provide for protection of the innocent." Since the beginning of the 20th century, the great majority of deaths in war have been civilians. In this case, the Johns Hopkins Univ. study, with methodology validated by MIT, calculates that more than 600,000 civiilians have died as a result of this war from shooting, bombings, disease and poor health care, and other war-related causes. In today's wars, it may be argued that this criterion is never met. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the overwhelming majority of people who have killed in wars have been civilians.

3. "A proportion of good over evil must be maintained." This criterion cannot be met either. The Johns Hopkins study provides ample evidence that this criterion has not been met. Despite removal of Saddam, any other good that may come from this war is difficult to see at this point. The evil, the cost in terms of Iraqi and US casualties (death and life-time injury and mental health problems on all sides) and the financial burden, now estimated at more than $2 trillion by Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize-wining economist, is staggering.

Peace. William H. Privett

There is nothing just in war when you compare the events to chosen set of rules set by the "fittest."

The Iraq war was not, and the aftermath is still not just. Unfortunately, life is set on rules that provide the one with 'malicious intent' or the 'greedy' to play his/her games. No one can explain how the UK & the USA managed to skip UN Security Council resolutions prior to the war!

About religion and belief: there is a distinct difference between religion and faith. To believe in a religion means to follow a dictated set of rules bound in a book or foretold by a person. This could be following a 'one all powerful god' as in the case of religions developed through Semitic origins, or a 'group of gods' as in the case of Asian or Greek temples for instance. Belief does not necessarily mean that you believe a 'supreme being' that effects life in many fields. Some believe that this 'godly existence' is right in their own hearts.

I remember reading comments on Moses in some of the postings. I must remind those that Moses died 'in sight of Canaan." Now, Moses was a Hebrew prophet but Hebrew prophets denounced Canaan and the Canaanites. Why? Because they were involved in sacred prostitution, divine halicunation and child sacrifice at the Hinnom Valley near Jerusalem called "Gehenna" (hell in today's language).

For the comments on Jesus Christ I must point out to the injustice done to him that he was laid suffering on the cross, bleeding to death while a huge population which outnumbered all military forces within the city stood and watched him die. How do you expect a Jesus serve such a cowardly selfish society?

Now, George Bush claims he consulted a 'Higher Father' (in an interview with Bob Woodward while in other programs he referred to this 'power' as God or God Almighty) before he made preparations to invade Iraq. This sounds illogical since if such authority granted him with his requests, such violence would not exist within Iraq today. There are articles on the subject that claim they know the whole truth that contradict Bush's claims. Visit http://oreofthehun.tripod.com/Return1.htm for an interesting reading. The same web site also provides more information on the 9/11 incidents from a perspective that ordinary people would not be aware of in general. See the clues in the article http://oreofthehun.tripod.com/Finkel.htm for instance.

Why doesn't someone think of asking George Bush to verify his claims on the 'received authority to invade Iraq' ? Who was this Higher Father, or God, or God Almighty, or whatever he/she is?

Can American citizens, or the people living in the USA, be absolutely objective and impartial on this issue? Because amblem of their Senate is a white eagle while the emblem of their Military Forces is a Bald Eagle receiving its power from David's Star. Their money is stamped with the 'all seeing eye' . Who is absolutely impartial and objective in that country? The USA charged and tried British bankers that allegedly committed crime in the USA by having them deported to the USA. Would they be 'JUST' enough to provide the same opportunity to the rest of the world for the trial of George Bush by select impartial judges from all over the world?

There is nothing just in war when you compare the events to chosen set of rules set by the "fittest."

The Iraq war was not, and the aftermath is still not just. Unfortunately, life is set on rules that provide the one with 'malicious intent' or the 'greedy' to play his/her games. No one can explain how the UK & the USA managed to skip UN Security Council resolutions prior to the war!

About religion and belief: there is a distinct difference between religion and faith. To believe in a religion means to follow a dictated set of rules bound in a book or foretold by a person. This could be following a 'one all powerful god' as in the case of religions developed through Semitic origins, or a 'group of gods' as in the case of Asian or Greek temples for instance. Belief does not necessarily mean that you believe a 'supreme being' that effects life in many fields. Some believe that this 'godly existence' is right in their own hearts.

I remember reading comments on Moses in some of the postings. I must remind those that Moses died 'in sight of Canaan." Now, Moses was a Hebrew prophet but Hebrew prophets denounced Canaan and the Canaanites. Why? Because they were involved in sacred prostitution, divine halicunation and child sacrifice at the Hinnom Valley near Jerusalem called "Gehenna" (hell in today's language).

For the comments on Jesus Christ I must point out to the injustice done to him that he was laid suffering on the cross, bleeding to death while a huge population which outnumbered all military forces within the city stood and watched him die. How do you expect a Jesus serve such a cowardly selfish society?

Now, George Bush claims he consulted a 'Higher Father' (in an interview with Bob Woodward while in other programs he referred to this 'power' as God or God Almighty) before he made preparations to invade Iraq. This sounds illogical since if such authority granted him with his requests, such violence would not exist within Iraq today. There are articles on the subject that claim they know the whole truth that contradict Bush's claims. Visit http://oreofthehun.tripod.com/Return1.htm for an interesting reading. The same web site also provides more information on the 9/11 incidents from a perspective that ordinary people would not be aware of in general. See the clues in the article http://oreofthehun.tripod.com/Finkel.htm for instance.

Why doesn't someone think of asking George Bush to verify his claims on the 'received authority to invade Iraq' ? Who was this Higher Father, or God, or God Almighty, or whatever he/she is?

Can American citizens, or the people living in the USA, be absolutely objective and impartial on this issue? Because amblem of their Senate is a white eagle while the emblem of their Military Forces is a Bald Eagle receiving its power from David's Star. Their money is stamped with the 'all seeing eye' . Who is absolutely impartial and objective in that country? The USA charged and tried British bankers that allegedly committed crime in the USA by having them deported to the USA. Would they be 'JUST' enough to provide the same opportunity to the rest of the world for the trial of George Bush by select impartial judges from all over the world?

There is nothing just in war when you compare the events to chosen set of rules set by the "fittest."

The Iraq war was not, and the aftermath is still not just. Unfortunately, life is set on rules that provide the one with 'malicious intent' or the 'greedy' to play his/her games. No one can explain how the UK & the USA managed to skip UN Security Council resolutions prior to the war!

About religion and belief: there is a distinct difference between religion and faith. To believe in a religion means to follow a dictated set of rules bound in a book or foretold by a person. This could be following a 'one all powerful god' as in the case of religions developed through Semitic origins, or a 'group of gods' as in the case of Asian or Greek temples for instance. Belief does not necessarily mean that you believe a 'supreme being' that effects life in many fields. Some believe that this 'godly existence' is right in their own hearts.

I remember reading comments on Moses in some of the postings. I must remind those that Moses died 'in sight of Canaan." Now, Moses was a Hebrew prophet but Hebrew prophets denounced Canaan and the Canaanites. Why? Because they were involved in sacred prostitution, divine halicunation and child sacrifice at the Hinnom Valley near Jerusalem called "Gehenna" (hell in today's language).

For the comments on Jesus Christ I must point out to the injustice done to him that he was laid suffering on the cross, bleeding to death while a huge population which outnumbered all military forces within the city stood and watched him die. How do you expect a Jesus serve such a cowardly selfish society?

Now, George Bush claims he consulted a 'Higher Father' (in an interview with Bob Woodward while in other programs he referred to this 'power' as God or God Almighty) before he made preparations to invade Iraq. This sounds illogical since if such authority granted him with his requests, such violence would not exist within Iraq today. There are articles on the subject that claim they know the whole truth that contradict Bush's claims. Visit http://oreofthehun.tripod.com/Return1.htm for an interesting reading. The same web site also provides more information on the 9/11 incidents from a perspective that ordinary people would not be aware of in general. See the clues in the article http://oreofthehun.tripod.com/Finkel.htm for instance.

Why doesn't someone think of asking George Bush to verify his claims on the 'received authority to invade Iraq' ? Who was this Higher Father, or God, or God Almighty, or whatever he/she is?

Can American citizens, or the people living in the USA, be absolutely objective and impartial on this issue? Because amblem of their Senate is a white eagle while the emblem of their Military Forces is a Bald Eagle receiving its power from David's Star. Their money is stamped with the 'all seeing eye' . Who is absolutely impartial and objective in that country? The USA charged and tried British bankers that allegedly committed crime in the USA by having them deported to the USA. Would they be 'JUST' enough to provide the same opportunity to the rest of the world for the trial of George Bush by select impartial judges from all over the world?

More on Iran here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6274147.stm

"Iran offered the US a package of concessions in 2003, but it was rejected, a senior former US official has told the BBC's Newsnight programme..."

Is Iraq a just war? You've got tapioca for brains if you think so. A war started for personal vendetta and to gain control of another country's natural resources is immoral. Bush and Cheney should be impeached, and tried for war crimes against humanity at the World Court.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and Bush knew it. He started planning the Iraq War at his first Cabinet meeting in January 2001 - seven months BEFORE 9/11. Bin Laden is in Afghanistan, the Saudi Arabians attack us and we attack Iraq? How insane is that? Bush is a total and miserable failure as a leader and as a human being. A pathological liar who has changed the reasons for going to war with Iraq over 25 times!
Iraq is in Civil War and we should leave and let the chips fall. Thanks to Bush, the U.S.A. no longer is looked up to by the nations of the world. Bush thinks he's President/Dictator of the World and everyone has to do what he says.
Iraq is not and may never be ready for democracy. The cultural differences between Iraqis and Americans is a deep chasim. Bush can't understand anything but "I am the boss. Do what I say or you are unAmerican and unpatriotic!" I hope God has prepared a special place in Hell for Bush for the hundreds of thousands of deaths he has caused.
If the Republican Congress was doing their job, we wouldn't have this fiasco on our hands. Now the Democrats have inherited a sinking ship and are trying to keep it afloat. The world would be a better place if George W. Bush had never been born.
I know that if the man who truly won the 2000 election, according to the recount, was president, Al Gore, a Viet Nam veteran would have handled things in the right way and totally better then inept, corrupt slacker Bush.
Those who voted for Bush in 2004, knowing what he was, also bear guilt for what has happened since then. It will take decades to undo the mess Bush has made in our country and the world.

what happened to leaning on God in all situations....who knew, we're Americans, haha we don't need God.

wow

Just or Unjust war is an argument one can have in the context of the secular world, the limited finite span of our current lives. When one comes at it from a spiritual and infinite context, as in "I am an eternal soul and in relationship with God/Spirit/The Light" ... the question becomes, "Do I wish to tarnish and damage my eternal soul by the killing of other eternal souls in order to protect land, possessions, earthly life?" I am often taken that those who often most strongly profess a belief in God and eternal life (e.g., evangelical Christians) are those who seem to most vigourously support the concept of 'just war' and fighting and killing to protect what's ours in this world. Or course Jesus encourages/demands that we let go of our 'possessions' in this world in order to live more fully in the eternal life.
War is as outdated and primitive a human behaviour as was/is slavery. In time we will act to rid ourselves of such behaviour. If we survive 1,000 years, our civilization will look upon our willingness to tolerate war as "just" as a barbaric and primitive practice. At best, at the very best, war is a tragic, and supposedly necessary evil and failure of our current state of spiritual evolution. God save us and help us realize the folly of ever attempting to justify the unjustifiable.

FYI

Citizens' Hearing in Washington
20-21 January 2007.

Panel Chair - David Krieger

Details: http://www.wartribunal.org

I believe there is such a thing as a just war. I believe war should only be a last resort, and as a means of defence. It is to protect our wives and our children, our lands and our possessions. War should be avoided when possible.
I wish I could say whether this war is just or not. All of the evidence seems very vague. It doesn't help that the media seems to a large degree biased on this issue. There are many who support and preach the idea that this war is unjust. There articles and entries stink with the stench of biased opinion. I applaud those who cover this war who cover it with an unbiased perspective. The fact is that we do not know all of the facts. It is difficult to get a correct perspective with enough fact to make a good judgement on this issue. God knows whether this war is just.

I just watched a PBS special about the intelligentsia in iran being siphoned off- and nelwy graduated college students- proficient in english- stating their intentions to come to the west for employment- deomgraphically iran has a very young and highly literate population- sanctions against iran will likely yield the same results sanctions against iraq did- an isolated population angry and alienated more easily manipulated by their own right- people keep calling for reform in the mid-east- but it seems obvious that there is no real support- irans self critics should be given loud voices here but all we hear are thedrums beating for a new war-

it seems that predictably- the opposite effect that is purported by the US is the reality.
thanks hermit
peace

Oops; that should have read "the invasion of Iraq undermined the reform movement in IraN".

Gosh you're right, Concerned Christian, what would an Iranian political scientist know about Iranian politics? What was I thinking...

You're just avoiding inconvenient facts. The situation just isn't as strictly black and white as you'd like it to be. It never is, really.

And you'll never learn that if you make excuses like that one for not actually finding out what people have to say before just dismissing them as unreliable. But that would mean actually having to think about things, wouldn't it?

Fact is there is plenty of vocal dissent in Iran,in spite of the theocracies repressive policies. Did you read the CBC article I linked too? Have you even heard of Shirin Ebadi?

You need to educate yourself a little instead of just making knee jerk judgements.

So go back, read the article this time and then try to come up with a comment that actually addresses the issue (remember, my point was that the invasion of Iraq undermined the reform movement in Iraq.) I look forward to seeing if you actually have anything to say on that subject.

Regards

A Hermit

A Hermit,

I started to read the referenced article until I saw the bio on the author:

"Hadi Semati, a professor of political science at Tehran University, is currently a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington."

Hmmm, not a very good source of information about Iran since any negatives would mean a stoning or worse after his recall.

And your e-mail contacts in Iran are ???

Here's a short article for you to peruse, Concerned Christian:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0924-05.htm

Published on Friday, September 24, 2004 by the Los Angeles Times
Democracy in Retrograde - The Iraq War has Slowed Calls for Reform in Iran

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

Go back and re-read my comment. I did not say "the number of reformists in Iran have been on the rise since 2003." What I said was "the reformists in Iran had been on the rise prior to 2003." Big difference.

The fact is that democratic political reform in Iran had a real chance before 2003. The invasion of Iraq gave the hardliners the ammunition they needed to cut the legs out from underneath the reformers; much like those in America who opposed the war were denounced as "anti-American" those in Iran who insisted on reform were denounced as "pro-American" (and therefore anti-Iranian.)

The result is that the reformist Khatami is out and the extremist, Ahmedinijad is in. But even now there is resistance to extremism in Iran.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/16/iran-president.html

Regards

A Hermit

This definition of "Insanity" is attributed to Albert Einstein: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expectiong a differnt result." Is not the third time of a "surge" contained within that definition of insanity? And then there is "BOHICA" - a Vietnam War expression: "Bend over. Here it comes again!" So bend over America. Bush is on the loose and he hasn't a clue as to how to extract us from Iraq. The only way to win a war game? Don't play. Unless of course one is insane. There are no "Just Wars" - just, wars. No one ever wins.

A Hermit,

Please provide proof that the number of reformists in Iran have been on the rise since 2003. Might you have e-mailed some of these reformists lately?

"Ancient history, lies and mistakes. Hardly the same at all compared to the Islamic barbarism I was on about."

Srebrinica was hardly ancient history, Mr. Brock. Neither was that mistaken American air atack in Somalia last week. Tell me, is it more humane to blow people's heads off with a 20mm cannon from a gunship than it is to cut it off with a knife? To me both methods seem barbaric.

--------------

"Terrorism is the violence of the weak and we condemn it; war is the violence of the strong and we glorify it." - Sydney Harris

---------------

And neither Victoria (a muslim) nor I (a humanist) are apologists for terrorism; this is just a tactic on your part to avoid dealing with the actual arguments.

The weakness of your position is clearly demonstrated by the speed with which you resort to insults and personal attacks. I see you haven't been able to offer a factual, rational rebuttal to any of the points I made.

You might want to review the site rules, by the way. If you want to talk with the grownups please try to behave like one.

---------------

"Concerned The Christian Now Liberated" says:

"Bottom line: Iran is a member of the Axis of Evil and one of the reasons we are in Iraq is to keep the Evil from spreading."

Since one of the the major impacts of the American invasion of Iraq has been an increase in Iran's power and influence in Iraq and elsewhere, and a serious degradation of America's ability to challenge them in any real way, I'd say that's been a big mistake.

In any case, the reformists in Iran had been on the rise prior to 2003. The people of Iran are overwhelmingly young and want reform, but they are unlikely to welcome American interference since all it has done so far is increase the power of the Mullahs. Confrontation, threats and insults are unlikely to win their support. They won't work for David Brock in this forum and they won;t work for George Bush in the real world.

Regards

A Hermit

Bottom line: Iran is a member of the Axis of Evil and one of the reasons we are in Iraq is to keep the Evil from spreading.

Sunnis butcher Shiites and vice versa because of some Dark Age disagreement of the "decendentcies" of Mohammed. What better proof that the Muslim religion fails miserably as a rational belief. Such hatred for fellow Muslims is beyond significant stupidity.

And an open Internet in this Evil country would fast bring it to reality and maturity but we know that will not happen.

the declaration of mass ignorance cleranceation.
cleared up and plained long time ago,truth been distinguished from false.the honorable messengers of the creator lord,came to human kind carrying the truth ,explaning the truth,living the truth in practice.the way life is ,it contain both, knowledgeable heads and ignorant heads ,more power to the truth,you would not appreciate the truth unless you know ignorance.if you think education is expensive try ignorance.

It seems this place is foll od morons, Islamists and now an apologist Nazi who blame everyone else for Hitlers planned conquering of the world and mass murder. Last time I looked Poland, France etc etc were not any part of Germany. What a slime you are Kammermeier!

Christ, you people truly deserve the Islamic hordes that will soon swamp and destroy this freedom you are happy to piss away!!!

A Hermit :

Ancient history, lies and mistakes. Hardly the same at all compared to the Islamic barbarism I was on about.
You're a moronic apologist. And you're as much as a problem as fanatic delusionists like 'Jihad Victoria'.

To Daniel Buckland,

I don't know anything else about the Sally Quinn article, but your assertion that U.S. soldiers would not be in Korea is incorrect. During the Korean War (which is what you seem to be talking about), U.S. soldiers were cared for at Tokyo General.

I know this from a friend of my mother's. She was a nurse at Tokyo General and told me of the soldiers she used to treat there.

I'm sure that military history would verify this.

Again, I know nothing about the rest of her article.

Comments:
War is un-just simply because “The first casualty of war is the truth.” If only we could have a fact commission come in from anther planet to clarify and straighten out the Second World War, America and England would be so ashamed of itself, they would never even have invaded the Panama Canal or the island of Wright. One is only allowed to go over the fence when that particular fence was established by a foreign power, transgressing through your homeland, and you feel compelled to cross over it to rescue your own citizens, not your own interests, but people in jeopardy. Both sides ought to stop right there without any further provocations of insults, revenge or seeking a just solution. The international law was broken when a willful border was drawn in someone else’s country. This willful act cost the lives of 55 million people. The next time it happens it might cost 55 times 55 million of innocent lives. Stop and think you foooools.
( This was written after I read all of the above comments. )
Charlemagne

Not even close, it has been tried 3-4 times in the past.

Mr Brock:

I assure you I am as appalled as you are by the atrocities committed by Islamic extremists. Just as I was appalled by the massacre of 7,000 Muslim men and boys by Christian extremists at Srebrenica, and the genocide of 800,000 in Rwanda (once known as "the most Christian country in Africa").

But it is most unfair of you to tar Victoria with that brush, just as it would be unfair of me to equate all American Christians with Timothy McVeigh.

In short, you need to get a grip on yourself and grow up.

Regards

A Hermit

its my intention to stay away from this post for a minute in the interest of free exchange of ideas and starve the troll
peace all

I particularly like the 'rules' where wounded Muslim fighters clutch grenades to their body to nlow up the U.S soldier foolish enough to go near them (perhaps even to help).

Victoria...you're a liar and a fanatic Islamist...
Muslims seem to forget these 'rules' of yours when they strap bombs onto themselves and board busses and trains.

They seem to forget this when they fly planes into buildings.

They seem to forget this when they blow up Mosques and shrines and all the worshippers in and by them.

They seem to forget this when they plant car bombs in market places.

They seem to forget this when they be-head the 'enemies of Allah' (and shout his name while doing it!) on camera for all the world to see.

Iran in particular liked to push as many brainwashed children into the line of fire as possible...Even Saddam's army got to the point where they refused to fire because of the carnage suffered on 'good' Muslim children on their way to Martydom.

And tell all this 'Islam is fluffy and warm in war' to the piles of heads that turn up regularly on Iraqi street corners.

Tell that to the be-headed U.S. soldiers they captured.
Tell that to the Christian Aid workers and (suitably stupid and misguided) peace campaigners they have also be-headed.

If you think for one second that a U.S. soldier captured by your Islmist friends will be remotely well treated you are more of a fantasist (or a liar) than I thought!

And the difference with things like Abu Ghraib is that they are condemned and the people brought to justice...
Whereas those Islamists that saw off the heads of bound captives (in the case of a female Muslim news reporter they slowly sliced off her head, while being filmed on a mobile phone camera, and placed it on her dead, naked chest) are classed as great warriors and are worthy in the eyes Allah!

Civilians ar killed in wars. By all sides.
But few cultures SPECIFICALLY target as many civilians as possible (or like Hezbolah place their civilian killing rockets in civilian areas...and then moan about dead civilians when the rocket sites are taken out!) and then also consider such targetting as a holy act!

Not even the IRA went so far out of their way to kill as many civilians as possible.
They often gave warnings and they did not want to die while carrying out the attacks.
None of this applies to the terrorist acts Muslims carry out (to gain Martydom and be seated next to Allah with all their juicy virgins) so even when you compare their 'rules' to other fanatics... Islamists are unique in the threat and danger they pose to those 'non-combatants or non-fighting personnel'!

Keep on spreading the Islmist lies Victoria...I'll always be there to tell the truth of the matter.

DAVID BROCK you should know by now that i skip your posts and will not respond to your taunts- but perhaps you need an outlet so go right ahead- maybe it helps to keep you from expressing this negativity to people you may meet-

My post was a respectful response to EMM- who stated that the rules of war neede updated-
just letting her know that they had been- and extensively-

the post was just a small piece- anyone can search rules of war in isalm and see the extensive thought the subject has been given-

for instance- if a combatant enemy ON THEIR HONOR states with their mouth they will cease aggression- muslim are ordered to conduct said combatant unmolested to a neutral place of safety and release them.

if the combatant was lying and comes back and breaks their word- they are subject to whatever fate a combatant suffers in war.

like anything thee are people who honor their code of ethics- and those who dishonor them.

but having a compassionate and fair code is certainly preferable to chaos.
peace
Mr Brock- id suggest you dont wate your energy in addressing me as i scroll past your posts-however im sure youll win many hearts in your mission to malign islam, because people are silly sheep-\o wait- no theyre not- theyre intelligent reasonable beings so possibly you wont but only be preaching to the choir.

No and we need to stop being hypocrits. We say we believe in God. Number one if we do, then why don't we practice what it says in the 10 commandments: Thou shalt not kill. Americans pretend One Nation Under God!! I don't think so. We are a Nation under the rich, corporate greed mongers, Whimpy Law Makers with no back bone and that especially includes the Dems. I was a dem until this past election. When they decided to play the game of giving my social security away to illegal aliens, I switched to independent. A nation of Laws is a joke. There have been laws on the books for decades. What's up with this so-called provide a pathway to citizenship. There is already of Pathway. That pathway is called the Citizenship PROCESS. Follow it!! Now illegal immigration is a just war that we should be worried about!!! Do't for one moment think you're so called safe, when thugs, dope dealers, are crossing the borders every day and Bush puts Border Guards in jail for trying to stop the dope dealear, and the dope dealer is brought into the US to testify against the border patrol. That's War!!

No and we need to stop being hypocrits. We say we believe in God. Number one if we do, then why don't we practice what it says in the 20 commandments: Thou shalt not kill. Americans pretend One Nation Under God!! I don't think so. We are a Nation under the rich, corporate greed mongers, Whimpy Law Makers with no back bone and that especially includes the Dems. I was a dem until this past election. When they decided to play the game of giving my social security away to illegal aliens, I switched to independent. A nation of Laws is a joke. There have been laws on the books for decades. What's up with this so-called provide a pathway to citizenship. There is already of Pathway. That pathway is called the Citizenship PROCESS. Follow it!!

----Islam clearly prohibits subjecting captives to ill treatment----

HO HO! Tell that to the piles of heads that turn up regularly on Iraqi street corners.

Tell that to the be-headed U.S. soldiers they captured.
Tell that to the Christian Aid workers and (suitably stupid and misguided) peace campaigners they have also be-headed.

If you think for one second that a U.S. soldier captured by your Islmist friends will be remotely well treated you are more of a fantasist (or a liar) than I thought!

And the difference with things like Abu Ghraib is that they are condemned and the people brought to justice...
Whereas those Islamists that saw off the heads of bound captives (in the case of a female Muslim news reporter they slowly sliced off her head, while being filmed on a mobile phone camera, and placed it on her dead, naked chest) are classed as great warriors and are worthy in the eyes Allah!

Just how much more of this apologist garbage do we have to take off you Victoria!?

Concerned The Christian:

Let's not make the mistake of equating all Muslims with the terrorists. That's like judging all Christian by the behaviour of the Ku Klux Klan or the Christian Identity movement.

Regards

A Hermit

"The Prophet used to instruct his followers during battles and tell them not to be embittered or inclined to commit treachery. He asked them to spare non-combatants, particularly children and hermits."

And we hermits appreciate it, Victoria, really we do...;-)

Violence of any kind can only ever be justified as a last resort, when all other options have been exhausted and the goal is self protection, or protection of the defenseless.

Invading Iraq never came close to fulfilling those criteria.

What sickens is that the Shiites were NOTHING in Iraq when Saddam was there!
They were kept out of power, murdered, tortured and generally targetted by the Sunni's.

Yet now, thanks to the US and UK troops, they are the biggest group in parliment and are the main power in Iraq!

And yet what do they do??? They blow up and shoot the (especially British) troops who they owe EVERYTHING to.
Without us Saddam would still be cutting off their ungrateful ears!!

The fact is we should have left Saddam to it.
He was just another nutty Muslim who liked to kill other Muslims in his spare time (as usual).
He had no WMD's...he was no threat to us.
He was a Muslim/Arab problem but nutty Bush and his poodle Blair had to stir it up!

Now they should leave, and then it's up to the Muslims to stop butchering each other (and the Christians of course) and live in peace in this Muslim 'Brotherhood' we hear so much about.

Let these madmen get on with it. At least it will keep them busy and give The West time and resources to prepare for the real threat we face...The Islamist Jihad threat that has already infiltrated The West in massive numbers thanks to the PC brigade stupidly fostering this Islamic viper in its busom for so many years!

----(2) Fighting must never be against non-combatants or non-fighting personnel.----

WOW! They seem to forget this when they strap bombs onto themselves and board busses and trains.

They seem to forget this when they fly planes into buildings.

They seem to forget this when they blow up Mosques and shrines and all the worshippers in and by them.

They seem to forget this when they plant car bombs in market places.

They seem to forget this when they be-head the 'enemies of Allah' (and shout his name while doing it!) on camera for all the world to see.

Iran in particular liked to push as many brainwashed children into the line of fire as possible...Even Saddam's army got to the point where they refused to fire because of the carnage suffered on 'good' Muslim children on their way to Martydom.

Civilians ar killed in wars. By all sides.
But few cultures SPECIFICALLY target as many civilians as possible (or like Hezbolah place their civilian killing rockets in civilian areas...and then moan about dead civilians when the rocket sites are taken out!) and then also consider such targetting as a holy act!

Not even the IRA went so far out of their way to kill as many civilians as possible.
They often gave warnings and they did not want to die while carrying out the attacks.
None of this applies to the terrorist acts Muslims carry out (to gain Martydom and be seated next to Allah with all their juicy virgins) so even when you compare their 'rules' to other fanatics... Islamists are unique in the threat and danger they pose to those 'non-combatants or non-fighting personnel'!

----Remember Vietnam? It was a civil war too-----

Really? Strange how this 'civil war' had the Communist side (brutal in their methods) supplied with weapons from Communist regimes like China and Russia!

The Communists sent money and weapons, the U.S. sent troops.
And yet people (all benfitting from NOT living under Communist rule) seem to forget the involvement of VARIOUS Communist regimes in this so called 'civil war'!

----It appears we have a member of the radical terrorist Muslim public relations department in our midst----

Yes, Victoria is well known for it.
She just thinks that putting 'peace' at the end of her Jihadist PR postings (full of the endless lies and hypocrisy the Islamists always spew out) makes it all okay!

It appears we have a member of the radical terrorist Muslim public relations department in our midst i.e. trying to dismiss suicide bombings, brain washing of poor, uneducated Muslims, blowing up fellow Moslems, mosques, pipe lines and utilities of their own country by using statements like "The fact is that there are no rules of war more humane and realistic, than the rules of Islam" to justify these horrors.

How do we differintiate between Bush and Saddam? As an end result, action of both have destroyed countries and killed scores of innocent people. I don't believe Bush made good faith efforts to avoid the war in Iraq.

----The fact is that there are no rules of war more humane and realistic, than the rules of Islam.---

HA! Sorry to say none of this fantasy actually happens in the real World when Muslims (as they always do) go to war!

Muslims in Iraq CHOSE to butcherm torture and rape fellow Muslims when taken of Saddam's leash.
It's the same 1000 year old butchery and barbarism they have always been carrying out against non-Muslims and THEIR OWN PEOPLE.

And unlike any rare atrocities in the UK/U.S. army... which are condemned and punished...the butchery and sadism carried out by Mulsims in Iraq (often against women who dare to work or call for equal rights) is praised and classed as a holy act !

Joel,

Here is a suggestion for reforming Islam. The method has in fact helped "reform" Christianity at times. IT would be nice to simply do away with ideas of "reform" all together and simply reject all three (maybe more?) religions based on the "book" but monkees might spit nickels, too.
The type of "reform" is to find a long lost text having any number of interesting concepts... this one....is a mysterious, ancient parchment, found near the hills of Medina.
The parchment, the only one known at this point, is written by Mohammed's own hand. It will say...."yes there are doubts in my mind about this heaven thing, about this little biblos in my hand, as if this book might serve the desert people from every dry tribe in the dust. Allah, Yahweh, El, all the younger gods, perhaps you need to come to water, drink deep, set aside thoughts of the end and superior knowledge. When I do this with my wonderful, rich wife, there is peace in my home. Allah? Oh, you say that if I make peace, comfort, sharing, like the ancient ones, my path in heaven will be attended with how many virgins???

This is just a bit of it- but i didnt want to take up all the pages- in response to the one who said the rules neede to be updated--

RULES OF WAR IN ISLAM

War has always been a complex subject for objective study or analysis. Given the nature of man, one cannot imagine a world without wars. The best we can strive for is to have a code of rules for war. It is the merit of Islam that it does provide such rules, which remain ever nobler and more realistic than any other code existing for the conduct of war.

Concerning the rules of combat as outlined in Islam, the following points are important to note:

In war as in peace, the injunctions of Islam are to be strictly observed. Worship does not cease during times of war. Islamic jurisprudence maintains that whatever is prohibited during peace is also prohibited during war.

Allah says in the Qur'an what means:

*{Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities.Lo! Allah loves not, aggressors.}* (Al-Baqarah 2:190)

The above permission to fight clearly lays down the following conditions: (1) Never commit aggression; fighting is allowed only for self-defense. (2) Fighting must never be against non-combatants or non-fighting personnel.

The Prophet used to instruct his followers during battles and tell them not to be embittered or inclined to commit treachery. He asked them to spare non-combatants, particularly children and hermits. Caliph Abu Bakr gave the following instructions to the commander who led the campaign to Syria:

"Do not betray, be treacherous or vindictive. Do not mutilate. Do not kill children, the aged or women. Do not cut or burn palm trees or fruit trees. Do not slay a sheep, a cow, or camel except for your food. And you will come across people who stay in hermitages for worship; leave them alone to what they devote themselves to."

Justice is highly valued in Islam and no Muslim is allowed to violate it even in times of war against their bitterest enemies. From the early days of Islam, medical assistance was available to all irrespective of religion or creed and was even given to the enemies. The medical profession itself was specially honored in Islam, and it was the duty of the Muslims to offer help in this regard to all.

A well-known example is that of Salahuddin Ayyubi (Saladin), who gave medical help to his opponent Richard the Lion-Hearted of England, who was seriously ill during the Crusades. He sent his own doctor and personally supervised Richard's treatment until he became well. This is in contrast with the behavior of the invading crusaders. When they entered Jerusalem on July 15, 1099, they slaughtered seventy thousand Muslims, including women, children, and the elderly: "They broke children's skulls by knocking them against the wall, threw babies from roof tops, roasted men over fires and cut open women's bellies to see if they had swallowed any gold."

This description was given by Edward Gibbon, the famous historian; and in modern warfare, this example is paralleled by the atrocious behavior of the Serb army in Bosnia, to quote just one instance.

For the first time in the history of warfare, it was Islam that adopted an attitude of mercy and caring for the captured enemy. Unprecedented by previous legal systems, and long before the Geneva Convention, Islam set the rule that the captive is to be sheltered by his captivity and the wounded by his injury. Islam made it obligatory to feed prisoners.

Ibn Umayr, one of the captives of Muslims in the Battle of Badr recalled: "Whenever I sat with my captors for lunch or dinner, they would offer me bread and themselves [eat] the dates, in view of the Prophet's recommendation in our favor." Please note that in that desert situation, bread was a more luxurious item of food than dates.

Islam clearly prohibits subjecting captives to ill treatment by denying them food, drink, or clothing. According to Islamic law, the captive belongs to the state and not to his captor. The ruler has the ultimate option, as he sees fit, to grant him freedom immediately or at a later time, as he sees fit.

Sometimes enemy prisoners were exchanged for Muslim prisoners held in enemy hands. An acceptable ransom for release was for the prisoner to teach ten Muslim children to read and write. Combatants were set free upon their word of honor not to fight again; and if they broke their promise and were caught again, they might be severely dealt with.

Islam never fought civilian populations, but only fought despotic rulers. Islamic war was one of liberation and not one of coercion. The liberated people had the freedom to choose their religion, and Muslims often fought to ensure this freedom.

The process of active intervention to stop or remove aggression is a development that modem international law has recognized. And fourteen centuries before the establishment of the League of Nations and later the United Nations, Islam decreed such responsibility. This principle is based on the Qur'anic saying, which means:

*{ If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah; but if it complies then make peace between them with justice and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just).
The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: So make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers; and fear Allah, that ye may receive Mercy.}* (Al-Hujurat 49:9-10)

One of the major shortcomings of modern international politics is its scant regard for moral obligation. Time and again, treaties and agreements are flouted. From the outset, Islam has emphatically prohibited breach of trust and treachery. Recent examples of signing a pact with a nation with a hidden intent to attack it are diametrically opposed to the rules of combat Islam has laid down. The Qur'an tells us what means:

*{O you who believe!Fulfill your undertakings…}* (Al-Ma'idah 5:1)

The Qur'an also says what means:

*{Fulfill the covenant of God when you have entered into it, and break not your oaths after you have confirmed them; indeed you have made God your surety; for God knows all that you do…}* (An-Nahl 16:91)

If Muslims sense the violation of an existing treaty by the enemy, they should first declare the annulment of that treaty before embarking on war again. The Qur'an clearly says what means:

*{If you fear treachery from any group, throw back [their covenant] to them, [so as to be] on equal terms: for God loves not the treacherous.}* (Al-Anfal 8:58)

The fact is that there are no rules of war more humane and realistic, than the rules of Islam.

at the vegetabel market.
human is food eater and market goer.the market place is as huge as this life,at the market place,people sell and buy ideologies ,forces of the market make the balance and equilibrium,by washing and sweeping away bad ideologies.forces of the market is human nature,nature is self diagnostic,self balanceing ,just, for humankind.
the mass malpractice of the market is covered by the upper mercifull amperela of the creator lord,above all,he is the creator of this universe.people are highly urgent to study the autheintic scripture of the creator lord.if not let them study the book of history,if not let them study the forces of the market place,if not ,we are faced with the book of life,says,hard headed makes soft back,just,for human kind.the irresistable law of life doesnot discriminate against no body nor favor no body.

As per JD Crossan, one of the On Faith panelists, the historical Jesus said or did only 33% of what is listed in the NT. The rest are embellishments added by the authors to make Jesus more like the Greek and Roman gods. See Crossan's book, The Historical Jesus.

By the way, John 3:3, 20+. Kingdom and Children: (1) Gos. Thom. 22:1-2; (2) Mark 10:13-16 = Matt 19:13-15 = Luke 18:15-17; (3) Matt 18:3; (4) John 3:1-5,9-10, as per Crossan, is the authentic Jesus speaking: "In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

WORTH CONTEMPLATING

It is worth contemplating that the man who told the American people and their Congress that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction necessitating war, who took us to war illegally, who has branded innocent men as “enemy combatants” and held them illegally at Guantanamo, who is responsible for torture at Abu Ghraib prison, who authorized the rendition of suspects so they could be tortured in other countries, whose war in Iraq has led to over 3,000 American deaths, more than occurred on 9/11, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, who has stretched our military so thin it may be unable to protect the country in the case of a real crisis, who always asserted he took orders from his commanders “on the ground” and then fired the commanders who gave him advice he didn’t want to hear, who now offers us “the surge” as a last desperate attempt to save his own reputation at the expense of American soldiers, is the same man who has his finger on the nuclear button, believes in preemptive war and has warned that all options are on the table, including the nuclear option.

David Krieger
January 2007

http://www.wagingpeace.org

Hello Justin from New Castle - are you saying that "Jesus Freaks" like yourself are against war?

I thought most born-again Christians favored the Iraq war and were strong George Bush supporters.

PS I'm from NC, too. Go Hurricanes

Mary,
I agree that the only way for war to end in the world is for people to change. Jesus said that we must be born again. That confused Nicodemus, and continues to confound people today. It is an over used statement that usually creates rolled eyes or smirks from people who won't try and understand what it means. In order for a person to realy change, the old nature in them must die away and a new nature must be born in them. The new nature led and nurtured by the Holy Spirit that also is part of their new nature.
The problem is that the evil nature of man is still present in the world. Christian people should never try to impose their religion on others. However should introduce the good news that there is forgiveness for all past wrongs done,and a way to be reconciled to God. Not by force but by example.
I would also agree that we are now pilgrams in a hostile world and residents of a Kingdom that is to come.
Jesus told us that there would be wars and rumors of wars. He did not say that we would escape them.
If a person were to brake into your home and attempt to kill you or the people you love. Would you gladly allow them to? Or would you fight back?
Throughout history ambitious men have used the name of Christ for evil. Jesus warned us of false christs. As well as wolves in sheeps clothing.

All of the wars of conquest that the nation of Israel waged to take the promised land from the people who already dwelt there, were ordered by the God of Israel. In most cases God himself or angels under his orders fought for Israel. Would you question wether or not a war ordered from God were just or unjust?

During the D Day invation of Nomandy, the chaplains were so active on the battlefield, going from dieing solder to dieing solder. That the Germans thought they were medics.

I believe that history proves man's inability to govern himself. So I await my coming King, but I will protect my family,my country and our freedoms with my life if needed.

I believe just war doctrine is in urgent need of updating. The worldviews of Augustine and Aquinas are really not applicable to the world of today, where we have weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and people, including many in the USA, who maintain the right to both produce them and use them, even preemptively. Any world war in which WMD was widely used would result in not only the destruction of our presumed enemies, but perhaps even ourselves and all life on earth. My position is that any such use is immoral period.

There is no truth, no belief system, no religion, no God or gods that could ever justify risking the extermination of all humankind and perhaps all of life on earth.

War other than for defense is imorral, what the US & Britan was without doubt imorral, but let's no drag religon into it and start quoting GOD through the bible. After all as I know it GOD didn't write the Bible man did and choose what HE wanted in it and disregarded what HE didn't want in it!

War should only be fought in self defense not preemptively. Also all political leaders should be required to have thier children on active duty in the military during thier tenor in office to make sure when war is called for itis out of neccessity not arogance!!

If the Arab-Isreali issue was handled in a seriously honest manor instead of giving Isreal whatever it wants almost all of the middleeast issues would be resolved.

Think about what us Americans would do if some other country came to the USA and raided, stole, and split it into tiny fragmented pieces like was done to Palistine. I think us Americans would be loading up our shotguns and making homemade bombs, I guess we would then be considered terrorist & extremists. I assume then that the rest of the world would have to wage a war on terrorism against us.

And remember that for all Augustine's writings on a just war &tc. when Rome fell in the west--during the time that the saint lived--Christianity in the lands conquered by Rome fell with it. Missionaries and monastics re-converted Western Europe by peaceful means. So St Paul was right all along, wasn't he? The evil of the barbarian conquest had been eventually overcome with good.

Steven,

Well, I have always been as interested in history, (although you could call the New Testament "His-story") as much as the Bible. The early Christian period is of paramount importance here. These men and women were the closest we can get to the actual living Christ and his apostles. How did they behave? What actions did they take? What policies did the ancient Church fathers lay down that persist to this day?

I think you will find in their actions a determinance to take the non-violent route, an avoidance of the military--Christians discussed if a soldier could even be a Christian--and an unwillingness to swear obedience to the Roman Gods. In this I guess they were early practicioners of the separation of Church and State.

It was even harder for them than it is for us today, but the faith endured.

I read somewhere--can't attribute it--that progess should not be judged in terms of what changes--change being a constant--but in terms of what remains. In this sense the non-violent aspect of Christianity shines through.

Mary,
You have answered well. I would only agree with "every word that procedes out of the mouth of God"
It has been my lifelong study, the Scriptures. My point in quoting Ecclesiastes was to point out that there is no end to opinions nor is there any end to thoese ready to express theirs.
Futhermore it is my conclution that the study of the Sermon on the Mount, shows us that we can only strive to be "perfect,even as I am perfect".
As much as I too, want to be all God wants me to be. If I were to be able to prevent the torture or murder of my children. By hurting or even killing the assailant. I am affraid I too would be guilty of killing.
The 10 Commandments when properly translated reads "Thou shall not commit murder" not the widely misinterpeted "thou shall not kill."
The Christ is our only hope of ever being freed of the evil of this world. Until his return I am affraid we will still have to deal with the evil that is present here. And deal with it from the heart of Christ in our own hearts. Easy to say very difficult to actualy do.

Well, Steven, it is interesting that you quoted only the Old Testament, or, as it is called now, the Hebrew Bible. Unkind folk have commented that it seems to run along the track of sanctified slaughter from start to finish. I guess those were harsh time. Even so, for a sacred book, there is a lot of killing. The God of the Old Testament not only sanctions war, but is Himself the source of victory.

The New Testament (the Greek Bible, the Latin Bible?) sees things very differently and we would be fooling ourselves if we did not recognize a real tension between the revealed Truth of the Old and the Word of Jesus Christ in the New:

Let’s go through the most important words from Christ’s Sermon on the Mount:

“But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.

And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbour, and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.” Matthew 5:39-44

And further in Luke:

“But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return………………”

Are the most important words Paul’s to the Romans? instructing that evil should not be resisted with physical force, but overcome with the spiritual force of love. The Christian is never to retaliate, nor repay evil with evil for vengeance belongs only to God (Deuteronomy 32:35):

“Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, says the Lord. But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”Romans 12:19-21..

Ecclesiastes 12:12,"And further by these, my son. be admonished: of making many books there is no end;and much study is a wearyness of the flesh."
:13," Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments:for this is the whole duty of man."
:14,"For God shall bring every work into judgement, with every secrete thing, wether it be good, or it be evil."
I would suppose that most of you would agree that self preservation would be a just cause for war. Some would even dissagree with that.
If the question is put to the Kurds, I would say they believe that this war is just and welcome.
However because some of us are far removed from the actual effects of war we can easily set in judgement and discuss war from an intellectual point of view. However if you have lost a son or daughter,a father or husband to this war, your opinion would be I suppose that no war is worth the pain you suffer.
As long as there is evil in the world, there will be war. If we are to survive as a people, to continue our way of life, then we must be willing to fight and pay the price that comes with war, in order to preserve it.
If we are to preserve our way of life through war. Wouldn't it be best to fight the battle on a far distant soil rather than on our own? Wouldn't it be best to kill the enemy while it is yet still weak and not fully developed?
As long as there is evil in the world we will be faced with the question,is there ever a "just" war.

And lets not forget the nuclear arms package that was just awarded to irans neighbor and our good buddy- india.

mr wheeeler- ithink if more people had attitudes like yours peace would be a done deal- so you continue to be the ambassador of reason that you are and i will try to have better manners as a muslim in comparison.
peace

Bush's plans to attack Iran keep building just like happened before Iraq.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2154793.ece

America threatens to 'deal with' Iran over its support for insurgents

The belief that George Bush's troops "surge" policy in Iraq is also aimed at confronting Iran was strengthened yesterday when the White House declared that it was "going to deal" with the actions of the Tehran regime.

In a series of interviews, Vice-President Dick Cheney, the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and the National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, struck belligerent notes on Iranian activity inside Iraq. Mr Hadley did not rule out the possibility of US forces striking across the border.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/weekinreview/14kifn.html

Gunboat Diplomacy: The Watch on the Gulf

So why name a sailor — Adm. William J. Fallon — as CentCom’s new commander, as President Bush did earlier this month?

One word: Iran.

Admiral Fallon’s appointment comes amid a series of indications that the Bush administration is increasingly focused on putting pressure on Iran and, perhaps, veering toward open confrontation. They include the dispatching of a second Navy carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf...

I don't mean to distract, but I thought the purpose of this website was to help people understand differing religious viewpoints, and it seems to have become a xtian vs atheist bash session. I'd like to see some discussion of how we can make peace with the Islamic world, and perhaps encourage them to come play with the rest of us. Can we help them to establish a new Caliphate? Can we help to improve living conditions in their countries? It might surprise some of you out there, being as I am an Agnostic, but it concerns me more that there are children in those places who have barely enough food to eat. There are things we can do for them that would make their lives immensely better. There are things we could teach them that would improve their living conditions immeasurably. Perhaps that could be one of the next questions, or next series of questions: How can Americans make a valid gesture of friendship toward the Islamic world?

Pres Bush's plan will not succeed it will lead to more chaos and destruction for Iraq as well as for the US. Iraq should be democratic but the President so far has not brought democracy and he cannot bring democracy to Iraq.

Dear Professor Steven-Arroyo

Thank you for your well presented view. I appreciate the fact that you brought up the matter of reparation for Iraq. After WW I, Germany had to pay reparation. The US is the mightiest nation human history has ever known. Iraq is a country of 26 million people. It is only right that the US pay compensation and help rebuild Iraq. The US owes it to the Iraqis and to the world to regain its moral credibility. The rest of the world rightly sees the invasion of Iraq as a war of imperialism to gain control over Iraqi oil. The "noble" rationalisations was merely a smoke-screen.

After the midterm elections, in which the American people said "no" to Iraq war, I have great faith in the true American spirit of the American people and I am hopeful that this great tragedy will be used for the greater good of Iraq and the American people. I salute all the great Americans who opposed the war from the beginning and never gave up their effort at critiquing their own government and revealing unpleasant truths, and thus creating an opportunity for positive change.

It would be wise for the US to involve other countries interested in the peace and stability of the Middle East in finding a solution. It is possible that the Iraqis currently fighting US occupation would not attack a neutral UN peacekeeping force. The US could take the responsibility to pay for such an international force, to do the work in its stead, thus saving innocent Iraqi and US lives.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Tim, I hope as you do too - peace in Iraq. But the US presence, and support for Shiites (in arming them) makes it worst. Even Moqtada is aware of that.

Remember Vietnam? It was a civil war too. But, once the US move out, after years, the people and country did heal.

Sunnis and Shiites may be fighting now, but they have live in peace together before, and they will again in years to come.

Only problem is, for humans after a war, especially for those who are on the "losing side" after a war, the wounds are deep and won't bleed, and the scars never heal for some, many.

Remember your own American Civil War? How the southerners remembered for a generation at least, and how they harboured resentments against the Northern troops for "ruining" the South.

sorry daniel that was an inept paste- i didnt realize the source wasnt included-

its from www.jewsagainstzionism.com

under the WHY WORLDWIDE JEWRY IS OPPOSED TO A ZIONIST STATE

i can see ow you thought that was my opinion
i will only post copy from people defining themselves in what i sense is fair play

e.g. for a buddhist issue i will only post a buddhist response etc...
peace

I did not write this Daniel- this is the view of jewish religious people-

this is a very mild statement compared to the bulk of information which is why i posted it-

jewish does not equal zionism

there are many many sites one can go to--

i let the jewish people speak for themselves-

true torah jews against zionism

orthodox rabbis against zionism

jews not zionists

it is not a matter of whether it is in agreement with islam or not

i had many friends who were anti-zionist jews in pittsburgh years and years before i ever even heard of islam

zionism is a political movement- not a religious one

again- i did not write this

my political views are just that- political
peace

To Victoria from Daniel. Victoria, with all due respect, what you just wrote about Israel is sheer nonsense. Basic common sense dictates that should the Jewish people follow what you just wrote they would cease to exist as a people unless they managed to convert people in countries in which they really have no political stake. No people can exist without its own nation unless being allowed to exist in foreign nations--or converting the foreign nation to itself in a sense by converting it to its religion.
What I find most disturbing is that your prescription for the Jews is actually something of Islam's goal: to not be identified with any nation but to spread out and convert all peoples...

This is not to say I do not think it would be better for the Jews to assimilate--especially should they all move to the U.S.--and just work toward new identities (in fact all people should put religion and nationalism, etc. aside toward new identities), but this of course is not what you mean. You expect them to somehow muddle along without a territory of their own while your own Islam spreads out amongst all nations and declares nations have nothing to do with Islam while actually Islam controls all territories...

Nice to see you so actually human Victoria, now go cuddle your kitties....

In general this reflection on the war has been interesting. We have the religious people totally against war of any type--no justification for war--while obviously enjoying all the fruits of the necessarily questionable decisions everyday by political leaders--because no nation even remotely approximates saintliness and we all are implicated in trying to move human life forward in all its messiness--and then we have the atheists with really no weighing in on the matter because a life without God necessarily means having to muddle through and make questionable decisions...

Very interesting--very interesting indeed....

MR GALE

ZIONISM is only 100 years old.
The problem in palestine is zionism, not arabs.
Israel drew up partition plans that stole all the fertile land form the palestinians and gave them no access to water. Water is neccesary for life.
That is why the plan was rejected.

palestinians did not leave because of arabs.
blaming the victims is not a valid argument.
The Jordanians i know just want the palestinians to leave jordan. by any means

this is some of the opinions of jewish religious about the state of israel-
who can speak better about it?
not you or i-

onies of the true opinion of the Torah.

1) In the past two thousand years of the dangers and sufferings of exile not once did any of the Sages of Israel suggest that we make a state to protect ourselves. And in every generation we had thousands of Sages well versed in the Torah.

2) We have thousands of legal work of Torah law that have been handed down to us by the Sages of all generations. Not once do we see a word suggesting the establishment of a state. What we do find is warnings against it.

3) The founders of Zionism where all atheists who denied the Torah. And all the Torah Sages of that time opposed them and opposed Zionism, saying that Zionism would lead only to destruction.

However the true People of Israel will never change their nature or give up their faith. They are the strongest of the strong. Because of their strength the Creator gives them. Zionism is a foreign growth in the body of the Jewish People. The end will be that it will rid itself of this foreign growth and remain pure. Zionism has overcome the Jewish people by force. With fraud and terror, but none of this will help them because the truth will always remain with the help of the Creator. Zionism will not replace the Jewish People. The Jewish People will remain strong in their faith and the Zionist state will cease to exist.

4) It is therefore, our demand that the State that calls itself ISRAEL should cease to exist. Since this won't be done, we demand that they cease to call themselves "Israel", because the entire being is in complete opposition to the true People of Israel. The true People of Israel deny them permission to call themselves by that Name. The Zionist leaders have no right to set themselves up as the representatives and spokesmen of the true People of ISRAEL.

5) Since we know they will not fulfill this demand either we feel that at least we cry out the truth. And the truth will always remain the truth. By no means or force can the truth be changed. Even if all the world would say that one and one are three, the truth will remain that one and one is two.

6) Let the truth be declared. The use of the Name "ISRAEL" by that state is a complete falsification. The people of Israel have nothing to do with the state. Zionism and its state have no share and no part in the true ISRAEL.

If you use my definition of 'just', then no. If you use another definition of 'just', then yes. My definition of 'just' is a 'just definition'.

MUHAMMAD ATTA AND THE SUICICE BOMBERS FACE THE TORMENTS OF HELL

By retired California Superiot Court Judge Ken W Gale.

The Koran (Qur’an) provides that anyone who kills a believer will spend eternity in hell, subject to the torments provided by God 4: 95. Muhammad Atta and the others who participated in the destruction of the World Trade Center killed thousands of believers. Among the believers killed were Muslims, Jews and Christians. God has forbidden unjust violence 7:31.

The teachings of Muhammad set forth suicide as a sin. Those who commit suicide cannot go to paradise (1). They are condemned to the fires of hell. Hell has many punishments including the fires in the canopy above, fires below and scalding water poured down on the faces of the condemned 18: 28.

Those who participate in Jihad with the intent of dying cannot go to paradise as such intent is also suicide. Those who so participate in Jihad are condemned to the fires of hell (2).

Because a cleric or any one else calls a Jihad does not make it a Jihad. They cannot change the Koran. A Jihad must be solely in Allah’s cause. If it also has any other purpose whatsoever combined it is not a Jihad. If a purpose is to kill a Jew or Christian it is not a Jihad, it is against the words of God and condemns those who participate to the fires of hell. No cleric or other religious ruling can change the Koran. “The words of thy Lord are perfect in truth and in justice: none can change His words” 6:115. Jihad is for defense not aggression.

Prior to flying into the World Trade Center, Muhammad Atta forwarded a letter to the other participants. The letter ended with the words “I will see you in paradise” Muhammad Atta packed a tuxedo for his wedding with one of the brown eyed virgin girls, with the retiring glances, that was promised him upon his arrival in paradise 55:56.

None of those who participated in the destruction of the World Trade Center will go to paradise. They are prevented for three separate reasons. First, they killed believers, second, they were on a suicide mission and thus condemned to hell. Muhammad’s letter and the packing of his tuxedo made it clear, beyond any doubt, that they were on a suicide mission, third, their actions were an act of aggression, prohibited by the Koran. 2:186 “God does not love the aggressor”.

The same is true in respect to suicide bombers who strap explosives to their bodies and detonate them in crowds. They kill the believers who are near them. The highest death toll in Haifa from a single suicide bomber was 17 deaths. Virtually all of the 17 killed were Arab believers.

In similar respect the rockets fired into the city of Acre, by the Hezbollah, during the recent Hezbollah, Israel conflict, killed mostly Arab believers.

The blame and shame for all such killings lies with and upon the extremist and fanatical, clerics that advocate and teach hatred of the Jews. Such extremists and fanatical clerics will also be condemned to the fires of hell as their teachings have made them accessories to the murders of the thousands of believers.

There are those who lied to Muhammad Atta and the others convincing them that they would receive their rewards in paradise if they carried out their mission. Such promise of rewards that tricked and induce the killers were the pleasures of Paradise, they would receive. Such pleasures included the “Brown eyed virgin girls, with the retiring glances”, that would be available and a comfortable life in Paradise for eternity.

The extremist and fanatical clerics thereby brought about the deaths of thousands of God’s children, who were believers. The clerics punishment, whether Mullah, Ayatollah, Amman, or other will be the fires of hell with the greatest torments that God can provide. None have the power to change the punishment prescribed by the Koran and none have the power to make exceptions to the prescribed punishment. The punishment provided in the Koran condemns them to the fires of hell.

Such clerics also sinned by omission. They failed to tell Atta and the others to whom, they promised Paradise that the decision as to who was to go to paradise and who would go to hell would be made only by God, however, God’s decision would not be made until Judgment Day. Judgment Day may not come for another 3,000 years. The suicide bombers were tricked into giving up the remainders of their natural lives. Instead of Paradise their bodies will rot in the ground until the day of Resurrection, which is Judgment Day, then they will suffer in the fires of hell for eternity.

If the potential suicide bombers were aware of the fact that no one goes to Paradise or Hell until Judgment Day, and that it is Gods decision and for their act they would eventually spend eternity in the fires of hell, would there be any suicide bombers?

The clerics cannot deny that the one God referred to in the Koran is the same one God that is believed and followed by the Muslims, Jews and Christians. When Muhammad ascended to heaven he met with Moses and others of the religions. Muhammad and Moses were in the same Paradise, worshiping the same God.

When Muhammad told Moses that he had met with God and God required 55 prayers each day from the Muslims, Moses thought the numbers to be excessive. Moses then counseled Muhammad and advise him to go back to God and attempt to have the number of prayers reduced. Muhammad followed Moses’ advise and the number of daily prayers was reduced to 5.

The Angel Gabriel serves only one God. It was the Angel Gabriel who first advised Mary, the mother of Jesus, that she was to bear a child. It was the same Angel Gabriel that advised Muhammad and initially provided much of that which is written in the Koran.

The issue is not whether the Muslims, Jews and Christians believe in the same religion. The issue is whether the Muslims, Jews and Christian believe in the same one God, which they do, beyond any doubt or argument to the contrary. It is the same God whether God is referred to as Allah, Ha- Shem, Jehovah or by any other name 2: 130.

The Koran made it clear when it set forth the statement of the Angel Gabriel “To you hath he prescribed the faith which he commanded unto Noah and which we have revealed to thee, and which we commanded unto Abraham and Moses and Jesus saying, “Observe this faith and be not divided into sects therein” 42: 11.

The Koran (Qur’an) provides: “Unto God belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and he has power over all things” 5:44 including forgiveness 5:44, 5:120, had God pleased he would have made mankind one religion 11:120 in respect to religion God reserved all power to himself. God will decide between them on what they differ, on the day of resurrection 22:17, 2:107.

The decision as to the various religions are left to God for “He is the best of judges: 7:86 if the Muslims have a quarrel with the Jews they should leave it for God. God is mighty and vengeance is his 14:48.

Enlightened countries such as Jordan, that signed a peace treaty with Israel on October 26, 1994, that are not influenced by extremists or fanatics, recognized that the three religions worship the same God. Unlike some other Islamic countries, in Jordan where marriages take place between persons of Muslim and Jewish or Christians faiths there is no requirement that the Non-Muslim party be converted to the Muslim faith. They donot require the conversion due to the fact that they recognize that each of the three religions believe in the same God, therefore conversion is not necessary.

Being that they believe in the same God, all Muslims, Jews and Christians are believers within the meaning of the Koran.

The extremist and fanatic Muslim clerics that spread hatred between religions are defying both God and the Koran. God chose to keep the religions separate and reserved the right to himself to judge between the religions on Resurrection day. The extremist and the fanatical clerics are defying God and invading and usurping that which God prohibited them from doing and reserved to himself. When they attempt to divide the religions and they teach the wonderful children of Islam to hate, they are defying God.

The effect of the extremist and fanatical clerics, that donot follow the Koran and teach hate of the Jews is clearly shown. In Palestine the Muslims, and Christians live mostly in harmony. Whereas, in Palestine, the result of the fanatical clerics teaching hate is that the Muslims and Jews donot live in harmony.

It is difficult for a logical thinking person to understand the Islamic reasoning behind the teaching of hate. The Jewish tribes of Medina were instrumental in Muhammad’s success. Without their assistance and protection the Islam of today would probably never have existed.

Muhammad escaped from Meca to Medina barely in time to save his own life. He entered into and was protected by a covenant of mutual defense signed with the Jewish tribes of Medina. Prior to Muhammad coming to Medina the Jews of Medina had for years conditioned non-believing Arab tribes to the coming of a Messiah. Muhammad was therefore received by the non- believers as the Messiah, making their conversion to the Muslim faith easy for Muhammad. Muhammad thus obtained the strength to defend himself and the Muslim religion.

The Covenant of Medina was dictated by Muhammad among its many provisions it provided: “All believers are bonded one to another to the exclusion of other men. Any Jew who follows is entitled to our assistance and the same rights as any one of us, without injustice or partisanship”.

The Covenant clearly established the freedom of faith and opinion and that the Jews were considered believers.

Muhammad gained his power and his life was saved though the assistance of the Jewish tribes.

A tragedy results from the fact that the members of each of the races are children of the same God and the children of each of the races are descendants of Abraham. Their conflicts must cause Abraham grave concern.

The history and evolution of other religions has not been without problems. Power has been sought by clerics that would not tolerate a view that was in conflict with the view of the church. An example is that which happened to Galileo.

Galileo developed the telescope and used it to prove Copernicus’s theory that the earth was round. At that period of time the Catholic Church believed the earth to be flat with heaven above and hell below. The church condemned and sentenced Galileo and his entire family to death for his statements that the earth was round.

Those were darker years where scientific knowledge was limited. Today such knowledge is not limited and intolerance has no justification for its existence.

Those who wish to speak for the Muslim religion have demonstrated similar intolerance. They have advocated and decreed murders that are contrary to the teachings of both God and the Koran. When Salman Rushdie offended Islam, the Ayatollah condemned him to death. When a cleric resorts to violence or threats of violence he is not representing his religion, it is his self indulgence that is prohibited by God. Vengeance is reserved to God 14:48.

One of the more horrendous of these crimes was the October 6, 1981 murder of the President of Egypt, Anwar Sadat. Sadat was killed by an Islamic fundamentalist group during a military review. Sadat’s murder was the result of his being a true believer in peace and as such He signed a peace treaty with Israel.

The Palestinians have been and still are the pawns of outside Arab nations who have interfered with and prevented a solution to the Palestinian problem. The nations sought to resolve the problem by military force. The United Nations presented a plan for partitions and the establishment of an Arab State. The plan was rejected by the Palestinians.

At the time the plan was under consideration the United Nation’s estimate was that some 720,000 Arabs fled Palestine between April and December 1948. They fled after being encouraged by Arab political leaders with the representation that they would soon be able to return to their homes after Israel was destroyed.

The combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq were unable to destroy Israel. When they were unable to do so by military means Iraq, Iran and Syria undertook the support of terrorism.

Saddam Heusein, who aspired to be the leader in the Arab world and be considered the modern day Salidan, fostered the use of suicide bombers by payment of large sums of money. He provided payment of $25,000.00 to the family of each suicide bomber and $10,000.00 for each Palestinian killed in fighting. The estimate is that Saddam Heusein provided $35,000,000.00 for such compensation.

The Islamic Fundamentalist that are now attempting to take over Somalia have decreed that democracy is not compatible with Islam. Does this mean that these fanatics, crazies as Jordanians refer to them, have the desire to take over democratic countries?

None of the present religious problems compare with the statements and edicts of Mahoud Ahmedinejad, Iran’s President. Mahoud’s goal is the extermination of the Jews and thereafter Christians. Mahoud’s position is similar to the position taken by Hitler. Both wished to exterminate the Jews. Both have operated in a climate where children are brain washed and programmed and both have had the desire to dominate the world through death and destruction. The only difference is that Mahoud seeks such death and destruction on behalf of Islam and in furtherance of fundamentalism.

Mahoud has proceeded and advanced death and destruction through Iran’s financing and direction of Hammas and Hezbollah. Iran has thereby prevented a solution to the Palestinian problem. Like Hitler, Mahoud has no qualms about putting the lives of Iran’s citizens on the line.

If Iran obtains the atom bomb, Mahoud’s is such a fanatic that he could expose Iran’s entire population to extinctions by making a preemptive atom bomb strike against Israel. Such a strike would certainly lead to retaliatory strikes that could annihilate Iran’s population.

The dark ages are long past. It is time for Islam’s extremist and fanatical clerics to be reigned in and any attempted influence on their part be rejected. The wonderful Koran could then be a center of worship as God had intended.

FOOT NOTE

The Koran contains 114 Suras, the equivalent to chapters. It is written in rhyme and has verses that are numbered. Where there is an insertions such as 26:11, the first number before the colon refers to the number of the Sura. The number following the colon, refers to the number of the verse.

On page 1, sentences are followed by (1) and (2)
(1) refers to Hadith 7:670 Bukhari
(2) refers to the Uttaqun

the scientific mission of napoleon bonaparte.
toward the end of the 18th century ,bonaparte came to the mid east carrying on his head and shoulder the banner of science ,he was smart enough to bring with him a large number of respected scholars of science,technology,history,humanities,etc.in the begining, he never collided with the scholars of monotheism of the area ,on the contrary he was friendly,the happy marrige ,gave birth to mutual share of knoweldge ,bonaparte brought technology to the area ,and took to europe a great wealth of humanities.bonaparte the fox in scientific garment ,could,not hide his imperalistic mission no longer,so sonner the people of the area gave him the ( boot ) it was so serious it threw him across the mediterinan to the life museum du la france.the mid east is not about oil,the signifigance of the mid east is about the great wealth of the monotheism of the area,the great wealth of human thought and art ,the great wealth of history.
g.bush will do humanity a great favor if he wd send 20000 scholars of diversfied science to the mid east crowned by good intention.

And the "Blog Hog" Award for this week goes to ________? Blog Hogs are those that make commentary 24/7 snorting and reiterating as they go and generally with little or no blog etiquette or concern about spelling, grammar and/or punctuation.

In principle and in fact I don't know of one war beginning as far back as WWI that was a just war.
This does not mean the purpose of the common individual did not embark upon doing a just war, but that the true purpose of those in power knew them to be a war for empire, power, and wealth.
That America today is claimed the surviving empire by those in power has already slipped the tongue of those in power. I suppose I should say not one police-actions or killing by any other name, was done, but whose purpose by those in power was the furthering of (their) empire.

"Just" is a difficult thing to pinpoint.

Bush's reasons for killing all those innocent Muslims are no different from bin Laden's reasons for killing Americans.

If a person think al Quaeda's war is just, they should have no problem believing the NeoChristian's war is just.

soja- dont give up on the satire- i agree with you i think sarcasm is comedy's ugly cousin- you have too much to say and say it so eloquently- we want to keep hearing from you

Here is some music that helps expand one's understanding regarding the nature of war:
http://www.resourcesforlife.com/groups/activist/antiwarmusic.html

Lord God No.

We've lynched a Nation for tax cuts and oil. One can rationalize themselves into submission in relativism, Thou shalt not kill means do not kill. The killing began by active choice when this CINC threw his middle finger in Tom Daschle's face arguing for war power. It happened. It began with a curse and a scourge and many have enjoyed their taste of the water of profit. Avarice malice rage and ignorance.

Lord God forgive us. We were blinded by hate from 9/11 and threatened with stories of our annhilation.

Deb, I essentially agree with your comments. The whole Iraqi affair has been an unmitigated and costly disaster both in terms of American lives and financially. We have also lost alot of support in the international community as well. I have never seen an administration that was so adverse to diplomatic interaction with various countries with whom we have strained relations.

I believe Bush is terrified of leaving Iraq because of the very negative affect the retreat will have on his legacy. However, I think the damage has been done. His administration will always be identified with the Iraq war, a war of Bush's choice. The surge of troops will give Bush one, last chance to salvage the situation but I think it is already hopeless. Ultimately, Syria and Iran will end up benefiting from Iraq more so than the U.S.

What continues to puzzle me is how a sitting president could weigh the pros and cons of unilaterally invading Iraq (considering all the resources available to him in thinking through the issue) and believing he would come out on top. Bush totally ignored virtually the rest of the world and went it alone. It is the height of arrogance. It will take the U.S. decades to reverse the damage this administration has caused. I guess it goes to show how an administration that believes it is always right can go so wrong.

US will have fulfilled the Biblical prophecy: to provide a red carpet welcome to the Armageddon of the anti-Christ (The Beast/radical Islam of Osama bin Laden or Al-Qaeeda). The present president, GWB, and the stupid policies of his neocon pundits don't deserve the plaudits we see they are undeservedly getting from a minority section of the Americans. Nobody ever mentions that the bogus, self-destructive policies of Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith on Iraq invasion (based on the phoney suspicions of WMD etc.) have caused more decapitation of westerners and local bloodshed. All these idiotic policies have been justified by the Bush neocons and the conservative talk-show hosts like Bill O'Reilly (Fox News) by asserting that invasion of Iraq was essentially aimed at removing the tyrant: Saddam Hussain. Well, a bigger tyrant is Chinese Government. The human rights abuses in China would far overshadow what Saddam has done. It never gets out of the state controlled media in China. When the WMD turned out phoney, the same shameless, remorseless neocons stated that the invasion of Iraq was necessary to bring stable democracy in the Middle East. Oh, well... And now the GWB cluster are trusting Noor-al-Maliki who is a clever crook. Maliki is totally incompetent to deliver anything, and now Condi Rice has effectively stated that USA should look in the eyes and trust Maliki. What a bunch of bull ! And in the meantime if more soldiers die and the videos of their brutal end are shown on youtube, who will take the flak ? GWB and his neocons can always take responsibility, but what gives ? Can he (GWB) and his neocons undo/repair the brutal end of the soldiers who have laid their lives for a botched up, lost cause ?

And now the sending of 20,000 troops to Iraq would be another disaster. Even conservative Republicans like Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) have opposed this plan and think that it is a dangerous, futile policy. GWB is now playing the role as a clueless president. His adamant stance in sending additional troops would inflict much damage to USA on the long term. By raising the temperature of false polemics, USA is just digging itself in an abyss in the the quicksand of Middle East politics.

I do believe there is such a thing as a "just war." However, the invasion of Iraq was totally unjustified. Iraq posed no imminent threat to the U.S., it had no terrorists within its borders who had anything to do with 9/11 nor did it have WMD. The entire rationale for invading Iraq was to attempt to establish a democratic government in the middle east. In short, with regard to our struggle with terrorism, it was a complete distraction that has ultimately had profound and disasterous implications for our country.

The only good that will come out of the Iraqi conflict will be the ultimate transition of the U.S. political system from Republican to Democratic control. I am an independent who has voted for both parties depending on the candidates and their proposed policies and, to me, it is very apparent that President Bush's administration has lost its way. Why and how we fumbled the targeting of Osama Bin Laden still baffles me. Attack Saddam Hueissan? What were Bush and Cheney thinking? A huge blunder.

The war on terrorism should be fought with a potent, highly mobile force supported by cooperation and intelligence between the U.S. and its allies. We do not want to get bogged down in protracted and costly wars (i.e. we shouldn't be looking to invade various countries). We need to fight smarter. The Bush administration is out of its depth.

Victoria

I notice that my attempt at satire fell flat on its face. "Surge" in my opinion is advisable only when all the conditions I mentioned are taken into consideration and met. Considering the reality of the situation, it is a tall order. But the suggestions could still serve as part of brainstormiing to tackle the deep rooted problems in Iraq in the long run.

I can fully understand your political stand, and emotions. I had never in my life felt so strongly about a political issue as the invasion of Iraq. I had been passionate about doing the little I could to voice my protest before the invasion began. I still feel very strongly about the issue.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

iraq had a history before saddam ad it was never a stable area- its been run over so many times- people forget that- and the infighting was going on long befroe saddam came along and capitalized on the inherent instability- our politicians know this- do you remember- it was a blip here in the US the first thing the US did when it went to iraq was close the broadcasting stations and reopen them with american propaganda stations- cleverly geared to iraqis of course but theyve been on the job since the beginning- im watching bbc now and the fatah party in palestine is openly asking the US to not give so much "support" to them because its causing such a division between hamas and fatah- our leaders know very well what they are doing- if iraq really qwere stable wat would be the effect in that area?
would it be good for israel? and hence the US?
its not really likely is it.

for all we know the US may be a flash in the pan of history- iraq managed to survive thousands of years before us and likely will find a way to function without our interference-

i wish i were as thoughtful in my replies as you soja- but im just too political peace now and thanks

but the thing i like about you soja is you actually THINK about solutions instead of just pointing out the obvious flaws- which anyone can do

Victoria,

In reference to your post 13 Jan 07 12:59 AM, thank you for the compliments. I do appreciate your sharp observation and for expressing your views, so that it gives me an opportunity to reflect on what I have written.

You are right that the most important part of any decision made involving Iraq should be done in consultation with them and with their approval. After all, it is their country which would be affected by the decision whether in a positive or negative sense. That is why I mentioned “Do the Iraqis want the “surge?” Iraqis should feel confident that it will help bring more stability.

When I mentioned Iraqi identity, I did not imply that one would have to develop a national identity at the cost of an ethnic one. I was referring to the importance of developing a strong sense of national identity which unites the different ethnic groups at a national level. Nowhere in the world is one devoid of an ethnic identity, and yet one still has a sense of national identity that unites all in the country. The ethnic difference would not be raised as an issue in Iraq at all if the killing that is occurring among the Iraqis since the fall of Saddam Hussein were not divided on ethnic lines. The killing is no small issue. It is as serious as the inability to maintain a stable national government and get on with the business of rebuilding the country. Iraq is a country still at war, among themselves as well, four years after the fall of their dictator leader. I agree totally that self determination is what every nation wants, and I am not referring to those who are fighting the occupation. In this instance, I was focusing on the fact of Iraqis killing each other on ethnic lines. You write that the reason for the killing in Iraq is not due to ethnicity but due to favouritism being shown to one group. Resentment when favouritism is shown is perfectly human and it is a pattern in humanity that no one is anywhere is immune to. But surely there are other ways of addressing such issues than killing one’s own brethren!

You know Islam better than I do. If you say that the normal person would find the Sufi concept too abstract to grasp, I can only respond that maybe one has not tried to introduce the concept to children yet. When I was in school I had to learn the original Hindi verses of Kabir, a Sufi mystic, who was claimed by both Hindus and Muslims as their own. I had no difficulty in understanding his concept at an intuitive level at all. I did not lose my Christian faith as a result, nor did any of my Hindu classmates lose their Hindu faith.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

And this week's "Blog Hog" award goes to Victoria!!!

respectfully soja you always have such nice posts-

but i dont really think a national identity can supplant an ethnic one- it hasnt happened here in america until 3 or so generations down the line and intermarriage forced people to know intimately those from other cultures- it wasnt religion thatis bringing iraqis to blows- it is one group having favored status over another- a pattern in humanity that no one anywhere is immune to- and you are wrong when you think that iraqis have a deep hatred for each other- they dont- the best ting is to talk to them and find out what they want for themselves-
as for teaching elements of sufi thought- these ideas are pretty readily available to muslims- those who are inclined to it adopt it- but the majority of people arent attracted to sufism- its kind of abstract and liberal and doesnt appeal to everyone. Self determination is all anyone anywhere ever wants
peace

> miss information:
> To all who have ears to listen. Don't you see what's coming?

The specifics differ, but the sense that we've reached the end of a long era and something new is coming is not limited to Christianity. For example:

Those who are spiritually awake have been aware for some time that the world is at present in the midst of a period such as always precedes Avataric manifestations. Even unawakened men and women are becoming aware of it now. From their darkness they are reaching out for light; in their sorrow they are longing for comfort; from the midst of the strife into which they have found themselves plunged, they are praying for peace and deliverance.

For the moment they must be patient. The wave of destruction must rise still higher, must spread still further. But when, from the depths of his heart, man desires something more lasting than wealth and something more real than material power, the wave will recede. Then peace will come, joy will come, light will come.

http://www.avatarmeherbaba.org/erics/avatar.html

to all who have ears to listen
this universe has creator ,all good come from him while all bad come from our self human beings ,those who they are wating for the salvation incarnation are exactly like those who they are wating at the tip of water well spreading their hands toward the water, wating for the water to come up to reach their thiristy babbled mouth.people are highly urgent to wake up and smell the burning pot of coffe,read up the last divine revelation ,mercey to man kind.

Looking beyond misadventure in Iraq to reconstruction, compensation and legacy

Dr Richard Horton, the editor of Lancet, wrote in his editorial that the “coalition of the willing” who invaded Iraq could compensate for the misadventure in Iraq by leaving a public health legacy, and that foreign policy should take public health issues seriously. I add that a legacy of education, both at school and university level, could be added. When children are taught to think in terms of their Iraqi identity rather than their ethnic, the deep rooted hatred for their own Iraqi brethren belonging to other sects, a hatred that is based purely on ignorance, that is now tearing the country apart, can be overcome with time. The Islam taught could include elements of Sufi thought, in order to impart a teaching of love for all above the sectarian divide.

The epic blunder committed in invading Iraq and unleashing ongoing ethnic chaos for four years cannot be undone. With God’s help, it is possible to bring forth great good out of a terrible situation. Like King David in the Old Testament who turned over a completely new leaf after his grave mistake and went on to become the King who was known as a man after God’s own heart, the current mess in Iraq can be used as an opportunity for great good, for the US, its allies and Iraqis alike.

Do the Iraqis want the “surge”? Will the “surge” bring more safety to the Iraqis? Will the “surge” convince the Iraqis who are fighting occupation to lay down their arms and engage in nation building? Will the “surge” help with reconstruction of infrastructure destroyed in the invasion? Will the “surge” decrease the ethnic hatred that drives the killing among the Iraqis? Will the “surge” ensure that:

• There are there enough hospital facilities and medicine to treat the Iraqi wounded, enough medical personnel and facilities to treat the physical and mental damage done by war?

• The widows and children of the Iraqi men killed are being taken care of?

• The women and children have a safe place to live in, safe water to drink, electricity, enough food to eat, access to medical care, men and women can go to work and children can attend schools without fearing for their lives?

If all this can be achieved with the “surge,” let the “surge” begin! I wish the US and its allies Godspeed!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

> miss information:
> To all who have ears to listen. Don't you see what's coming?

The specifics differ, but the sense that we've reached the end of a long era and something new is coming is not limited to Christianity. For example:

Those who are spiritually awake have been aware for some time that the world is at present in the midst of a period such as always precedes Avataric manifestations. Even unawakened men and women are becoming aware of it now. From their darkness they are reaching out for light; in their sorrow they are longing for comfort; from the midst of the strife into which they have found themselves plunged, they are praying for peace and deliverance.

For the moment they must be patient. The wave of destruction must rise still higher, must spread still further. But when, from the depths of his heart, man desires something more lasting than wealth and something more real than material power, the wave will recede. Then peace will come, joy will come, light will come.

http://www.avatarmeherbaba.org/erics/avatar.html

Well Fern- i did a search for sunni-shia CONFLICTS i iran- CONFRONTATIONS- and VIOLENCE in iran and there were no articles to be had-

BRZEZINSKI was the "he" i was quoting- i wasnt saying it myself-

so my search came up with nothing on sunni-shia violence- also iran is at the crossroads of the old trade route and has such an influx of different people its really a very large mix of all sorts of people- actually its now an illegal drug crossroads as evidenced by the article you referred me to-

so 1 person was killed at a drug crossroads by an undisclosed number-(but their support and identity are also questioned- defined as ethnic minority)

also it is interjected that a sunni group of hardliners has been involved in attacks and kidnappings. well its heroinland- this isnt the regular population of iran-

and there is NO INDICATION that it is sunni-shia-
well-im ot sure what the point is but just so you know i was quoting someone-

heres the article

One person was killed last December in a car bomb explosion in Zahedan, the capital of Sistan-Baluchestan province, on the eve of local elections.

Bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan in southeast Iran, Sistan-Baluchestan is a major throughfare for narcotics and the scene of frequent deadly clashes between smugglers and the police.

The province has also been hit by a string of attacks and kidnappings blamed on Rigi's shadowy hardline Sunni group Jundallah (Allah's Brigade).

Iranian officials have accused Britain and the United States of supporting ethnic minority rebels operating in the Islamic republic's sensitive border areas.

Suggested reading:

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2007/01/11_byrd_enough.htm

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2007/01/11_falk_Iraq.htm

War should never be justified, and people should not allow any leader either in a democracy or dictatorship, to pursue a policy of hate, arrogance, or supremacy. It is better to die than to kill another person, This mindset requires a meditative and non violent view of life.

Victoria:

> Iran is an all shia country

Google search turns up that there are about 8% Sunni in Iran and there have been incidents in the past of Sunni-Shi'a violence there. For example:
http://www.iranmania.com/news/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=48685&NewsKind=CurrentAffairs

That does not answer the question about the majority of Iran's people, of course, but we need to keep the minority in mind.

Actually from what I've read the majority of Shi'a in Iran are in favor of peace with the US - the government is another matter.

But there is sadly a growing conflict between Shia's and Sunni all over the Mideast. God only knows how this will play out.

URGENT U.S.A. GLOBAL ACTION TAKE IN GLOBAL WARNING.CAUSE AND EFECT OF POLLUTION AIR,WATER AND LAND. CAUSE FLODS,HURACANE,TORNADO,AND MORE DESASTER. IS NO STOP WARS IN AFRICA. MORE POWERFULLGO TO BE THE POLLUTION CAME HERE IN FORM WATER,SNOW,TONADO ETC. PLEASE SATR SIG KIOTO TRETMENT KNOW. AND STAR REDUCED POLLUTION KNOW. REMENBER IS ONLY ONE PLANET EARTH BELONG TO ALL POPULATION AND ALL HAVE THE RESPONSABILITYS OF KEEP IN CHANGE. AND CLEAN THE PLANET EARTH IN THE 2007/ BELONG TO CORPS. AND RESIDENTIAL E INDUSTRIAL TO TAKE ACTION KNOW. DEPEND LIVES OF CHILDRENS AND SENIORS.PLEASE PRINT AND SEND TO HON. PRESIDENT IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESS TOO. APRECIATION TO SEE POSITIVE ACTION TAKE KNOW. TANK YOU TRULLY FROM MAYAGUEZ PUERTO RICO, MR. GABRIEL AVILES GOMEZ.

As an atheistic Humanist, I see violence is the last resort. Only when one cannot adaquitely justify their position with logic and sound reason does one lash out in violence... Unless one is attacked. The only just violence is defensive violence (and then only enough as is needed to defend). However, not all wars are violent necassarily. The Culture War we are forced to fight everyday is usually not a violent one... although the Religious Right have been none to beat up Professors and stone some Homosexuals. Fortunately, my side hasn't gotten violent yet. Atheist however have been called extremists for much less. All we have to do is claim not to believe, and we get labled with the same brush as those who commit violence. I guess there is a double standard for what passes as "extremism" here in America.
-Staks
DangerousTalk.net

As an atheistic Humanist, I see violence is the last resort. Only when one cannot adaquitely justify their position with logic and sound reason does one lash out in violence... Unless one is attacked. The only just violence is defensive violence (and then only enough as is needed to defend). However, not all wars are violent necassarily. The Culture War we are forced to fight everyday is usually not a violent one... although the Religious Right have been none to beat up Professors and stone some Homosexuals. Fortunately, my side hasn't gotten violent yet. Atheist however have been called extremists for much less. All we have to do is claim not to believe, and we get labled with the same brush as those who commit violence. I guess there is a double standard for what passes as "extremism" here in America.
-Staks
DangerousTalk.net

Bush, by any biblical standards, did not declare a just war. Instead, he used nearly every unbiblical measure to insure that he had a war and use more of those same measures to further insure that the war goes on. War should never be about pride, honor, or money, and yet, it seems that Mr. used these motivations in order to secure unto himself his much desired war.

One problem with Bush is one doesn't know when he is lying or just stating the truth with intent to deceive.

Please note Bush never said his higher father was/is God or Jesus' father. He only indicated he had someone higher than his daddy he had to respond to which he referred to as a 'higher Father'.

Its the naive and members of the groupie that impart the meaning that he is 'a man of faith'. The question should be: which faith? And how does the Shia fit in"?

Why can't Bush just swallow his inane pride and see that America has no coalition of the willing in the Iraq conflict. We need friends to help us now. Britain is set to withdraw many of it's 9000 troops soon. Bush needs to gain real insight quickly and lose this whole "I believe, so it's true" rhetoric. He has become a tragic figure that will erode America even further with his unjust ways. We are not a Colonial power. Who can pressure him to get a grip for Christ sake?

All hail The Great Divider. I'm sure he still sleeps well at night.

What is that saying? A poison tree bears no good fruit. Yep, that sums it all up.

Mashalla Fern- this is very expected and very terrifying- there was also a very surreal underlying subtlety being suggested here- he indicated that the shia i iraq were becoming more 'hardline' so the shift is occurring- Iran is an all shia country- so its gently swinging over to a Shia=extremist observation- one that the mediator "smelled"
subtle but consciously suggested-

its like when george winston asked in 1984- (when watching the captured prisoners of war being trundled through the streets to be bleated at by the masses)werent we their allies last week?
peace fern and thanks for the heads up

For some reason, the 'media' has ignored what used to be billed as a key facet in this President's thinking, ergo his strong fundamentalist Christian views. Supposedly, Bush listened to a higher 'Father' rather than Bush Sr when he started this war. Soon after his speech last night, a number of pundits took note of the implicit threat against Iran and Syria. One wonders: does Bush believe in a literal reading of the Book of Revelation, and is he trying his best to make its apocalyptic predictions real by instigating an 'end times' conflagration involving not just Iraq but Iran, Syria and the entire Middle East? Is this part of his thinking? If so, I'm REALLY scared. We all should be scared.

Bill Clinton had the opportunity to finish the pursuit of Bin and his boys. Because of his lack of sexual self-control (not spelled out in the 9/11 report but definitely there between the lines e.g. p. 117), gave the terrorists their opportunity to plan their attack while Bill Clinton and his administration to include Ms. Albright and his Senate and House supporters spent days, weeks and months trying to get his zipper back up.

By the time they did, Bin's boys were already in place. Bottom line: Bill Clinton and his slippery zipper caused the unnecessary loss of 3000 lives in the USA, the bloodshed and loss of thousands of lives in Afghanistan and the destruction of two magnificent edifices!!!! And maybe the deletion of that WMD called Saddam Hussien would not have been necessary.

And to keep this discussion in a religious context, "Hell is too good for Bill Clinton!!!"

We've been discussing Iraq, but get ready for the forthcoming war in Iran. Today's attack by the US on an Iranian Consulate was an act of war. And read the following to see that this is probably just the beginning. I think Dr. Brzezinski is right about the plans of the Bush administration. The next step will be to use the Navy that is gathering in the area to attack Iran. And that will make Iraq look like a playground spat. May God have mercy on all of us.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june07/zbmead_01-11.html

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: We go. But we have, in the meantime, created this, in my judgment, exaggerated horror scenario of all the dominos falling in the Middle East if we leave. So how can the administration then leave, even if the benchmarks are not met, because all of these horrible things will happen if we leave?

So what's the other alternative? And this is what really worries me. There are hints in the president's speech and in Rice's testimony today about the possibility of escalation, not necessarily in the number of troops, but in the range of the military operations, namely perhaps against Syria or Iran.

And the incident with the Iranian consulate, the rhetoric about Iran, the increasing temptation to blame our failure on the Iranians and the Syrians could push us in that direction. And there are a lot of people still around here, particularly the neocons, who would like us to have a crack at Iran.

Wiccan:

you wrote: "One of the nicest things about this site is the knowledge I'm not the only pagan around!"

You're certainly not. My own discovery of my path has been recent enough that most significant people in my life are not yet aware of it, and may not ever be due to the issues involved. Are there others on this site? I haven't seen any to my knowledge, please correct me if I'm wrong. But outside of us, and Starhawk's one posting, I don't see many more like us here. That makes me very nervous. I don't mind honest discussion and questioning, in fact I hope to be able to open a true dialogue without any ulterior 'you must be converted' motive. The peace and change that have come to my life is indescribable- I'm sure you understand that feeling of a greater freedom than before. That makes me want to share with others what I'm learning and how amazing it has been in my life. But..other questions and responders on this site have led me to wonder if it's really possible yet. One of the things that I've learned is that talking about something this personal, especially with people who believe that you're doomed even before the conversation begins, can really backfire.

"And there are a lot of very knowledgeable people to learn from. So come on in, the water's fine!"

I suspect you're right. I need to feel comfortable with those I would choose to enter a serious discussion with first, though. As i said, stay tuned.. :)

BB,

PriveR

PS. I do not weigh the same as a duck. I would drown. :)

TIM- it does kind of amaze methat epople care what happens to Iraq- nobody cared for 15 years when the US had sanctions against it and women, children, and old peope suffered the most because there just wasnt any medicine in the country to be had- food was scarce and nobody cared- why do people care what happens there now? Is it national pride being affronted? we went- we didnt have a plan or foresight to even think about a plan-

anybody with the most remedial understanding of iraqi's ethnic make-up could see the civil war that had been brewing long before we got there-

and now what im thinking about is this-

what about those boys when they come home?
remember about 2 or so years ago in the sunday supplement Parade there was a story aobut the wives and families of soldiers getting food stamps? is anyone aware how bush has raped the veterans administration's budget in the 6 some years hes been in office?

and these boys arent going to come back with their tails between their legs getting spat on by college students- i think theyll be beaten and maybe more angry- they are going to be some messed up kids- and theyre not coming back to housing and jobs and the american dream- and what happens every time america goes to war with a country?

but dont worry bout that- the republicans are already putting a loyalty test in the immigration process- just for muslims of course- so dont worry about ali and fatima moving in next door-

because we dont want to see their faces or hear their side or stories- so we wont be bothered with the reality, our collective american consciousness will be comfortable and clean-
they can continue to be the "other" and we can imagine their children blowing themselves to obtain the fox news myth of the 72 virgins-

im just rambling- i just dont know whats going to happen to all the casulties as this world is getting smaller-

so there was no plan in iraq and it seems theres no plan in america either-
im sure someone will throw some half-hearted plan together right quick before they come- therell probably be a rash of american flags hanging from windows again- but im thinking about when those flags have worn a little with time and the living casualties well be welcoming home.
peace

Suggested reading:

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2006/03/20_maguire_importance-of-people-power.htm

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2005/08/00_krieger_fable-emperor-grieving-mother.htm

Suggested reading:

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2005/03/00_krieger_war-illegal-illegitimate.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1988763,00.html

Suggested reading:

My experiments with truth, an autobiography by M K Gandhi.

http://www.counterpunch.org/foley0812.html

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/01/07/the-time-for-talking-is-over/#more-827

Errata:

I tend to think however that there will be no more wars to fight after WW III (not WW II as in earlier post), because it will be the war to end all wars, thanks to nuclear weapons.

Since I could not post the links to suggested reading, I'll give one link a try:

A reminder of Gandhi’s Satyagraha campaigns, whose politics was a fruit of his religion:

http://www.counterpunch.org/leys01082007.html

I’m giving my post around 8:52 PM that didn’t appear here, another go. Please bear with me if it appears later, because it will be very similar to this one. I’m trying to rewrite it from recollection as I wrote it directly on the page.

I believe in “just war” when I think in terms of Hitler, and how no amount of diplomacy could have helped the cause. But in the lead up to the Iraq war, every fibre in my body cried “no, no”. Could Saddam possibly be a threat to the mightiest nation on earth? What would the world come to if the mightiest nation on earth to set a precedent on waging “pre-emptive” attacks? Gandhi wrote “I worship God as truth alone.” Jesus said “I’m the Truth, the Way and the Life”. So I looked for information. The information that I could gather via the Internet confirmed my instinctive reaction. I was glad that religious leaders had openly voiced their protest, and the Pope had even sent an official delegation to Washington in an attempt to stop the war. It was beyond my logic and reason to understand why the plea of weapons inspectors for more time, were ignored; that the refusal of the UN to sanction war was not heeded. Although I have never been a political activist nor have any political affiliation, I added my voice of protest along with thousands of others. With Australian soldiers about to become part of the invasion and serve as “cannon fodder” I had a moral duty to add my voice of protest. I cried bitterly on the day the invasion began and on several days after that. I was awfully shocked.

Even now, I cry sometimes when I think of the madness of Iraqis killing each other, killing their own Muslim brethren. If every sect had its way and was successful, there would be no Iraq left. Every Iraqi would be dead. Can’t they see that?

I do believe that a violent person should be restrained in order to protect innocent lives, if the violent person cannot be restrained by reason. But it stands to reason that the violence used to stop the violent person should not end up killing more innocent people in the bargain. In that case the lesser of the two evils would be to endure and look for other creative solutions. With the current war technology, in the age of nuclear weapons, “just war” becomes a completely different ball game to the time when soldiers fought each other on the battle field in the days of old. Einstein wrote, “I don’t know how WW III will be fought, but I know that WW IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” I tend to think however that there will be no more wars to fight after WW II, because it will be the war to end all wars, thanks to nuclear weapons. The earth will become a black hole. (Aside, if global warming doesn’t get us there quicker.)

The “surge” proposed now: Can a “surge” achieve what “shock and awe” couldn’t?

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

If Bush is not loyal to the American people and to its Constitution, to whom, or what, is he loyal?

People keep explaining the problem and asking how to solve the problem.

Bush apparently is converting the Sunni into something similar to Palestinians with the Shiittes in charge and he needs more time.

If Iraq is thought of as "humpty-dumpty" then everyone should know that "all the king's horses and all the king's men can't put Iraq together again".

Also, Bush "has a bear by the tail" 'where it is dangerous to hold on, and death to turn loose'.

So the question is simply what is the best way to extricate the United States of American from an untenable position for the United States of America? The American people seem to have decided simply to walk away. Not run, walk. Not cut-and-run, simply take a walk. Backout.

The religious stuff is just to manipulate the people to do the bidding of whoever is pulling the strings.

If Bush has some other loyalty then the question and answer would both be different.

Since GWB answers to "a higher father" can it be that his reckless blundering has a purpose beyond the stated? With threats against yet more countries can he be actively creating the conditions for the End of Days?

Intentionally or otherwise...

Since GWB answers to "a higher father" can it be that his reckless blundering has a purpose beyond the stated? With threats against yet more countries can he be actively creating the conditions for the End of Days?

Intentionally or otherwise...

I posted a comment shortly before 8:54 PM which has not appeared here yet. Do the posts in this discussion have to be approved by moderators before being posted?

Any answer or help available?

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

VICTORIA:

I honestly don't know if peace will come if America stays in Iraq.

But I do know that if we leave, a wave of killing will be unleashed. Think about how long it took Lebanon to come out of civil war, or worse, Somalia.

Peace in Iraq is not a lost cause. Let's not give up.

Thanks.

you didnt strike me as a neocon pam

Interesting that you pose a question about Bush's plans in a column about faith, because only those who think of Bush as a god believe this plan will work. Those who have faith in peace, those who have faith in justice, and those who have faith in truth never wanted this war.

As to the issue of a just war, we should only base our judgments on specific acts, not on vague words. The war on drugs turns otherwise law-abiding people into criminals and creates a lucrative but deadly underground business, but the war on poverty wishes to elevate people in accordance with humane standards.

The problem, of course, appears when we discuss WWII. But again, we must review what WWII was that the Iraq war isn't. If WWII was about saving a nation, three continents, and the conscience of the US, the war in Iraq is the exact opposite: The nation we were supposed to help is now suffering even more, the continent we were supposed to stabilize is in total chaos, and the American people who see the way events unfold in their name and with their money find it hard to stare at their collective reflection.

PeopleInTheSun.com

MIKE, you are right on with your post and I could not begin to say it any better than you have. Thanks for serving your country and thanks for your up front view of it all.

Mike I posted this on the other page and of course Victoria brought it to my attention.

Thanks Victoria

TIM or better yet- the real question is-
DOES ANYONE FEEL THAT PEACE WILL COME IF WE STAY?

PEACE

Just wars are possible. As a Christian, I believe that war is about defending the poor and defenseless rather than "the national interest", which is the root of all kinds of evil. At times, our national interest has intersected the moral mission. That's about as good as any war is ever going to get, from my point of view. Just war theory was created to address what kinds of moral missions can justify wars, and thus to focus on the means and intentions of wars as opposed to the consequences, and especially as opposed to the potential realpolitik gains of a war.

If you only see war as a means to preserve the national interest rather than a moral question, there are no just or unjust wars. There are only wars that work and wars that don't work. That's why we hear so much about incompetence when pundits discuss the failed Iraq war. I feel the need to get a bit deeper than this.

I don't believe war is a righteous tool for the apocalyptic defeat of "evil". It's too easy to throw around the label for political purposes, and it's too easy to demonize rather than empathize. In other words, I don't think that the titanic struggle against world terrorism can justify the war in Iraq at all, even in the alternate universe where al Qaeda was in cahoots with Saddam (the same universe where Dick Cheney has taken up residence).

The invasion and occupation of Iraq is not a just war. We bombed Saddam heavily before the war declaration. Blair and Bush discussed ways to goad Saddam into taking the first shot, provoking the invasion. There were no WMDs, but Bush and his advisors were willing to lie about that to the American people. We fixed the intelligence to fit the predetermined policy. We even invaded without a compelling national interest, for the amoral policy wonks out there, much less a compelling moral interest. In short, the casus belli was either a lie, or as nonexistent as the weapons.

All the other post-facto rationalizations for the war pale in comparison. All the post-facto "oops, did I just disband the army" "mistakes were made" talk is a red herring; how we went to war does not change the overwhelming failure to explain why we went to war.

We had an unjust, immoral war. Besides that, now we have consequences: genocide, mutilated bodies in the streets of Baghdad, morgues full to overflowing, religious strife, death, shattered lives. Wars always have these things, which is why we try to avoid them: in an immoral war, there is no upside justification for them. Now we have a failed state on our hands, one that is splintering along religious lines. The failure of Iraq has consequences for regional stability as well.

Leaving troops in Iraq is doing nothing but providing Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias alike thousands of targets. We are occupying their country. We are infidels. We can do better than leave our soldiers holding the bag on our leader's profound failure. We don't just have an unjust war. Now we have an unjust occupation, one that has cost more American soldiers their lives than American civilians in 9/11. It's time to say enough to the war and enough to the occupation.

DrTJT:

I respect your opinion, but I would take exception to your statement that most Iraqis want America out. Where did you get your information?

I would think that what most Iraqi's want is (1) personal safety (2) economic security and perhaps (3) a future they can look forward to.

The question is how U.S. can help bring these things to Iraq. I don't think leaving is the answer, not yet at least. I wish the people contributing to this thread would drop their fixation on George Bush and think about how to solve the problem.

An interesting perspective on our little engagement in unreality. I closely read the comments by Marine Daniel M Buckland. Before we get too excited about his perspective, let me point out that I have been a military contractor for some time, and my son is also a Marine who has served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Buckland's perspective is NOT represenatative of the majority of serving military. Many, but not the majority based on any number of polls. I worked in a Joint Forces command and believe me, there are plenty of service personnel who would disagree with this Marine. I attended funerals and have a number of active duty friends who will be cripled for life, and for what. WMD, hardly, get rid of Saddam, that clearly was not the case since we're still there, bring democracy, I doubt that since one principle tenent of democracy has to do with self determination and if there is one thing the vast majority of Iraqi people agree on it is they want America OUT, NOW. So, until someone can tell me what these people are fighting for (spare me the War on Terror fable), I have no interest in supporting this little money making venture by our Commander in Thief.

This war was about two things from the start. First, it was a family feud. The Bush clan has apparently defeated the Hussein clan.
The oil companies, with their neo-con leanings, wanted to secure their profits. Even if the American taxpayer subsidized them in the form of a war. The military has probably used more oil than has flown from their oil fields in the last few years.
Thanks for your patience while I carry on a bit.

The descriptions on a just war by Louis Kiernan are certainly thought provoking; How could anyone get it all so wrong? I get it--- he is a follower of a bully named Bush, a weak minded fool, and Louis is probably a card carrying member of the Bush League, that group of idle whiners who waste our countrys resources and is filled with assumptions that his personal views trump the facts. What garbage. Will he ever grow up?

PriveR-

One of the nicest things about this site is the knowledge I'm not the only pagan around! And there are a lot of very knowledgeable people to learn from. So come on in, the water's fine!

Brightest Blessings!

A "just war"? How about a "necessary war". When? Well, in self defense. Certainly any country attacked by others without provication in an attempt to simply gain land/power/resources can justify fighting back. You hit me in the face, I may turn the other cheek. You take my backyard and kill my dog,I will fight back. What about in defense of allies? Again, if the premise begins when an ally is attacked without provication in a manner designed simply to take land/resources. Finally, what about when the weak and those who can't defend themselves are attacked? Does a just society come to aid? Go back to the original premise -- if the "bad guys" attack simply to gain land/resources...
So, you see, you can define and justify war, but where does it end. Each of these three scenerios would justify about any war, about any time, in any place. Humans can always justify their actions with words -- even when the result is much bloodshed. Until we all realize that unless we resolve to accept each others differences and acknowledge we all live on a fragile, crowded world, war will inevitably continue, just or not. I look forward to the day when swords are turned into plowshares. In the meantime, our world will continue to suffer from the weakness of our leaders, the prejudices of ourselves and the crying of the innocent and powerless as bombs fall from the sky and wipe them from the face of our planet.

Wiccan:

Much appreciated. You and I have a lot in common from what I've gotten from your other posts on this site. Our beliefs are along the same line, though not identical. ;) I'm just not sure some of the folks on this site can handle folks like us without all the name-calling; shouting/proselytizing just yet. (notice I said some, not all!) I'd like to see a little more diversity of thought than just the monotheistic/agnostc/atheist viewpoints first. Therefore i'll be picking and choosing when/if I decide to really get into some of the more personal questions about my views. The war stuff is easy by comparison. :) This is, however, one of the more tolerant of the sites I've visited, which is why I read it all the time. stay tuned..

To all- Blessed Be!
PriveR

We still haven't heard a common sense and logical reason for the war so there is no way to know if it was/is a 'just' war, or just a war.

Since the result is taking Iraq from the Sunni's and turning it over to the Shiitte's it should be assumed that that was the reason and purpose for the war.

All the reasons that have been given by Bushco and the neocons are just laying down false trails for confusing the gullible.

It now seems we are taking the Sunni's weapons while arming the Shiittes with the latest weapons.
All the data points are there including disbanding the Iraqi Army early after the invasion.

The fundamental question for the United States and the world is why did/does Bush and the neocons prefer the Shiittes to the Sunnis and apparently want the Sunnis as a minimum reduced to obedience to the Shiittes.

Since that is the result there is no logical basis for assuming that that wasn't the purpose.

The only reason for the 'surge' and staying longer appears to be to solidify the Shiitte government and to suppress the Sunnis. Bush says the mission hasn't been completed and that appears to be the mission.

The only war Bush wanted to win when he invaded Iraq was the one the neocon Republicans were waging on the Democrats and the Constitution. To serve justice now America should give Bush and Cheney a fair trial and hang em.

PriveR-

I'm glad the dam burst. Yours is one of the most eloquent posts I've seen on this site. Thank you.

After the vast numbers of innocent Iraqi civilians killed in the name of "weapons of mass destruction," your question seems less relevant than asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

An act of self defense is "just". Sending U.S. troops into Iraq and Afghanistan (and now Iran?) is not an act of self defense. Acts of retribution are not acts of self defense.

We seem hell-bent on destroying anyone and anything that isn't like us or aligned with us. We use all manner of pretext to justify our actions. Who could trust us or befriend us, all else being equal?

Is it UNJUST to assume that a war is JUST, or justified, when at least half of the people say so? Could any war be won when more than half of the people say it could not be? President Bush was right to say that those who opposed the Iraq War added more fuel to the insurgency. But when more than 70 percent of Americans did so, you have to believe in miracle to believe it could be won.

George W. Bush will burn in hell for invading Iraq, killing tens of thousands of innocents of their & ours, and destabilizing the entire middle east. A truly just war is one in which the families of those who started it are on the front lines.

Is it UNJUST to assume that a war is JUST, or justified, when at least half of the people say so? Could any war be won when more than half of the people say it could not be? President Bush was right to say that those who opposed the Iraq War added more fuel to the insurgency. But when more than 70 percent of Americans did so, you have to believe in miracle to believe it could be won.

Many Americans feel that Bush has done huge damage to the United States by invading Iraq. People here and around the world feel that America should be ashamed of its actions. But I think that by leaving immediately or slowly we only heap more shame on ourselves, by creating a disaster and then walking away from it.

Does anyone honestly feel that peace will come to Iraq if we leave, now or even next year?

Does the average Iraqi want an unfettered civil war between the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds? I doubt it.

Please, spare us any discussions about "just wars" until the next one. Instead, think about how we can bring peace to the Middle East.

Robin:

Thanks. I don't even normally post to these things at all, just lurk about and read, but something in me just broke after so many years of expressing my frustration just to those around me who have to put up with me everyday. I've been following your posts on this thread and I think you've got some great ideas.

PriveR

Bush is preparing to send more troops to Baghdad.
Do you believe there is such a thing as just war? Is the Iraq war just?

I prefer to answer this question by immediately pointing out the op-ed by David Ignatius of the Washington Post on Wednesday Jan/10/07 on Commander Petreus and counterinsurgency tactics to be used in Baghdad.

The counterinsurgency tactics to be used remind me of Gandhi's nonviolent method and will be disastrous unless that magical tipping point is actually in evidence by which Gandhi methods themselves actually worked.

My belief is that the U.S. military is still stuck in a Vietnam mindset even when considering counterinsurgency...The "new" methods to be used not only remind me of Gandhi's nonviolent method but seem inspired by WHAT MIGHT HAVE WORKED IN VIETNAM. But I doubt the methods would have worked even in Vietnam. The new methods seem applicable to not only only a rather cohesive population (homogeneous) but one truly able to be tipped against the insurgents within.

Furthermore my belief is that even when considering counterinsurgency the U.S. is manifesting symptoms of quite simply being unable to wage war...I believe firmly that not only the left wing is incapable of fighting war, but the right wing as well. The left wing protests every step of the way are well known although of course we are constantly told "the left wing is not against the troops". Less well known is that if the right wing truly had it in them 500,000 troops could easily be raised from among strictly right wing sons...

The question is really not whether we believe in just war, but rather whether we can fight a war at all...But then again obviously we do not believe in any just war at all precisely because we are incapable of fighting war at all...And obviously because the Iraq war is so ambiguous it is something of a warning to us, a situation which makes us ask ourselves if we really can imagine a situation in which we would fight...

I believe personally the U.S. is in decline. I believe there is a threat to democracy--that democracy has always been precarious--and furthermore that the threat of WMD proliferating is obvious and they will move further and further into smaller groups whether religious, nationalistic, ethnic or terroristic, but the U.S. seems to be wanting to capitalize in this situation by snatching oil or merely supporting Israel or...(everything negative we associate with right wing developments, and God forbid Jesus smiting the Muslims should be dragged into it...).

On the other hand, the liberals within the U.S. are deluded or plain cowards or both. They seem to think that merely excising the Republican party from within the U.S. is the answer or something. I suggest they take a team of homosexuals, liberated women, atheist professors and a bunch of wild college students to the Middle East for talks with the moderates there let alone the Fundamentalists committing suicide in the name of Allah...

In general I believe the U.S. thinks war is totally unnecessary and that the U.S. is something of a safe platform of democracy totally realized and that all we have to do is be good, set an example, and all the world will follow...

My belief is that WMD will continue to proliferate, we will have terrible WMD attacks, the environment will continue to collapse (in all ways), and that the world will turn into something of an alliance of the superpowers having to fight continuous small wars and skirmishes and eventually having to adopt something of a colonial attitude again (this time hopefully without relentless exploitation).

I am extremely pessimistic about the situation. Is there such a thing as just war? Just ask yourself how you expect the world to be brought under a future worldwide government, which must exist unless you believe the trajectory of history means a movement from tribes to nation states, etc. but not eventually a worldwide government...

I have nothing more to say at the moment about the situation. I believe not the slightest bit of thought has gone into it at all.

The whole concept of a just war is an excellent subject for philosophical debate. All wars involve one or more of the following: nationalism or territorialism, tribal, ethnic or religious hatred, arrogance and power,and money or natural resources. Sometimes there's a principle or two thrown in there (such as preserving the union or conserving a way of life), and many countries fight wars in direct self-defense.

The just wars by any definition are few and far between. Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito were the ultimate nationalistic megolmaniacs motivated by all of the above. Stopping them from taking over the world was just, but the defenders, the US among them, engaged in unjust acts related to one of the above (internment of Japanese-Americans in California).

The current occupation of Iraq was never a just war. Neither the Iraqi people nor their leaders had anything to do with 9/11. In addition to Afghanistan, we might have been better off confronting Saudi Arabia for providing such limited rights to its people that became terrorists. Maybe we still should, but they're our oil buddies. (Revenge, once again.)

Despite the way the war in Iraq has been dressed up as patriotic or self-defense or revenge or promoting democracy or anything else, it is and never has been any of those things. It was the brainchild of a group of very intelligent but extremely arrogant men who saw the world as good and evil (with us or against us). If we are good, then those who are not with us are evil, therefore we have every right to assert our "God given" power to attack them. They lied about their reasons and have gambled our whole country on this lie, now shown inadequately planned and executed like self-deluded amateurs. Unfortunately, they are not suffering life, limb or home as a consequence of their actions. Some are still living high off the hog. President Bush says that history will show he was right. What a convenient way to dodge responsibility for being wrong.

A just war? You have to be kidding.

i believe daniel- only a soldier would get upset by those facts- civilians dont have the anger because their service isnt diminished by posers-
here is a response from a poster on quinns own board-

it was posted as sally recounts an experience that developed her compassion while her son was in the hospital--- in formative religious experiences

Posted on January 8, 2007 19:33
Cayln:

"It was the most important thing that ever happened to me…In the end maybe it will make me a better writer because I’ve become more empathetic and more sympathetic than I ever was before.”

Dear Ms. Quinn,

I read the above in your bio, and thought just like the maze story, all of us can tell good myths about ourselves and spin them into anything we want to believe.

As for your empathy and sympathy, I have some experience of that. As a mother I shared a waiting room with you at Children's Hospital. My child had relapsed with cancer and we were waiting to have an emergency MRI. We were told that we had to wait for a boy with a migraine to have his. All of this was fine; we were used to waiting.

For an hour my five-year-old daughter and I found hidden words in puzzles, read books, played tic-tac-toe. You sat directly across from us. There were only three of us. I tried to catch your eye, Mom-to-Mom, but you didn't acknowledge our presence or smile at a very sick, very sweet, very loud little girl. You had a pile of magazines -- freebees sent to you from Vanity Fair, etc. When the nurse came to get you, you didn't offer me any of your bounty; waiting room Moms usually share; waiting room Moms are usually incredibly empathetic.

What I've learned since my daughter died is that it's easy to claim you've had a life-changing experience, but if you don't walk the walk, you can't talk the talk.

Now, let's see if this get published on your blog or if the WP is still censoring.

Posted January 11, 2007 12:28 PM

normally i dont care about such things- but i myself felt she was not genuine and taken to task for stating so- its the only negative personal comment ive made on these boards- and i apologized for it- but 2 people have opinions it might be something to look at at least

i believe daniel- only a soldier would get upset by those facts- civilians dont have the anger because their service isnt diminished by posers-
here is a response from a poster on quinns own board-

it was posted as sally recounts an experience that developed her compassion while her son was in the hospital--- in formative religious experiences

Posted on January 8, 2007 19:33
Cayln:

"It was the most important thing that ever happened to me…In the end maybe it will make me a better writer because I’ve become more empathetic and more sympathetic than I ever was before.”

Dear Ms. Quinn,

I read the above in your bio, and thought just like the maze story, all of us can tell good myths about ourselves and spin them into anything we want to believe.

As for your empathy and sympathy, I have some experience of that. As a mother I shared a waiting room with you at Children's Hospital. My child had relapsed with cancer and we were waiting to have an emergency MRI. We were told that we had to wait for a boy with a migraine to have his. All of this was fine; we were used to waiting.

For an hour my five-year-old daughter and I found hidden words in puzzles, read books, played tic-tac-toe. You sat directly across from us. There were only three of us. I tried to catch your eye, Mom-to-Mom, but you didn't acknowledge our presence or smile at a very sick, very sweet, very loud little girl. You had a pile of magazines -- freebees sent to you from Vanity Fair, etc. When the nurse came to get you, you didn't offer me any of your bounty; waiting room Moms usually share; waiting room Moms are usually incredibly empathetic.

What I've learned since my daughter died is that it's easy to claim you've had a life-changing experience, but if you don't walk the walk, you can't talk the talk.

Now, let's see if this get published on your blog or if the WP is still censoring.

Posted January 11, 2007 12:28 PM

normally i dont care about such things- but i myself felt she was not genuine and taken to task for stating so- its the only negative personal comment ive made on these boards- and i apologized for it- but 2 people have opinions it might be something to look at at least

Wow. That was a lot longer than I'd thought. sorry. :)

To GUNNERY SERGEANT, USMC

We can agree that we have been misled by our Government into an unjust war. I served in Viet Nam in the USMC. We were misled in that war also, imagine the nerve of a government telling it’s young people to go to war but you are not allowed to shoot at anybody. Are we still that stupid, how can you win a war like that? We absolutely need to amend our government (the Constitution, etc.) so we can save our Country in the future. We must not allow this to happen again. I can accept that the President as the Commander in Chief has the power to go to war, if we are attacked and action is needed quickly. But to sit back and decide that another culture needs to be a “Democratic Culture” and we need to change it – is wrong.

Even our own “Democratic System” is on shaky ground. It is the rich and well exposed that make it to the office. Not necessarily the best candidate. How can we impose our system on other countries? We created our country as “One Nation under God” and for that we were blessed and have become what we are today. We did NOT start our country as a Nation of Catholics and Protestants fighting for supremacy. How in the world can we go to Iraq (or any country in the future), remove a dictator, and expect them to start all over with a government just like ours? After removing a dictator, they have no basis for beginning a government of a free people because they were never free. You can’t begin discussion about forming a new government while the dictator is still in power, so you can’t do it. We couldn’t do it, and we shouldn’t have tried. The people of Iraq are not united by any means and therefore can not agree on leaders to govern themselves.

We were attacked by al-Qaeda from Afghanistan. Where is Osama Bin Laden? Why did we lose interest in him and move the war to Iraq? They gave up on finding Osama! He was the one that actually attacked us. If we had spent as much money and effort as we have in Iraq finding Osama we would have found him long ago. Remember – we can “read” the brand name on the side of the cigarette he smokes from space, and we are to believe they couldn’t find him? Absurd!

The best that we could have done, was go remove Saddam Hussein and then leave immediately and let the people form their own government. If we thought they couldn’t do that, then we should have left them alone.

I wondered for years why it says in the Bible that Israel would be over run and the end of the world would come (Jesus would come back to stop it). I wondered where we would be, why wouldn’t we be there to help them? I can see now – we will be exhausted and militarily depleted by fighting wars that one man (the current president) wants to fight for the wrong reasons.

How can we stop this from happening? Should I try to compose a well thought out letter to my congressman? Do they listen anymore? Or is there any hope left after Viet Nam? It doesn’t seem that they learn anything? It doesn’t seem that they realize they can’t make the world “One Nation under God”.

SEMPER FI

Priver,

Normally, I hate very long posts and pass right by them. I started to with yours till something caught my eye. I had to go back and read it and I am oh so glad I did.

Everything you posted you said for me. Word by word.

Thank You!!!

There is no such thing as a just war, for wars are forced upon men and nations for reasons of survival, national or leadership interest! The war in Iraq was driven by vengeance on the part of the United States for the September 11, 2001 attacks and dictated by its global interests and access to Middle East oil. The rationale of ridding the region of weapons of mass destruction and spreading American beliefs of freedom and democracy, while noble is not primary. Nonetheless, it is in the best interest of the United States and the western world for the US-led coalition to complete its mission in Iraq. The cost of subjugation and pacification however must be reasonable economically and politically and must lead to long term stability of the region. As the cost and casulaties in Iraq escalate, a viable win-win solution must be found. To withdraw from Iraq for reasons of costs and tactical defeats will be a big blow to global peace and stability of the region. It will likewise be a disaster for the Bush administration. The war in Iraq must be won at reasonable cost.

There is no such thing as a just war, for wars are forced upon men and nations for reasons of survival, national or leadership interests! The war in Iraq was driven by vengeance on the part of the United States for the September 11, 2001 attacks and as dictated by its global interests and access to Middle East oil. The rationale of ridding the region of weapons of mass destruction and spreading American beliefs of freedom and democracy, while noble is not primary. Nonetheless, it is in the best interest of the United States and the western world for the US-led coalition to complete its mission in Iraq. The cost of subjugation and pacification however must be reasonable economically and politically and must lead to long term stability of the region. As the cost and casulaties in Iraq continues to escalate, a viable win-win solution must be found. To withdraw from Iraq for reasons of costs and military defeat will be a big blow to global peace and stability of the region. It will likewise be a disaster for the Bush administration. The war in Iraq must be won at reasonable cost.

Daniel Buckland.

1.) Thank you for your service to the country.
2.) You are entitled to your opinon, but you are way out of line to compare your experience with Ms. Quinn's. Who the hell do you think you are? OH, a fighting soldier. That's great but that doesn't mean your BS vitriol is correct, valid or even acceptable. PROVE that she is lying about being in a Tokyo hospital! You can't! What subversive purpose would telling this obviously egregious lie serve? Your anger then extends to the "fictional" Washington Post. Talk about Fox News talking points. I believe that you are either lying about who you are or delusional. You may have served, but I really don't beleive you served in Iraq. How can you defend an administration that cuts off your veteran's benefits, doesn't provide you with the proper protective gear; sends too few of you to a hostile war zone? Your anger is misplaced if you are a soldier. Your anger is manufactured if you are not. Your anger is irrational if you are a wingnut.

I have been reading these posts for a long time. I want to say that I admire some folks here for seeing what so many won't. The US won the revolutionary war by doing exactly what the iraqis are doing.. guerilla warfare by people who know their land and will fight to the death to defend their homes.. minus the suicide bombings. It's kind of hard to stand for democracy when you're too busy blowing yourself up.

I was as shocked and as afraid as anyone on September 11, I have a sister living around the DC area. I wanted to hurt those of them who hurt us. I was afraid. I'll admit it. I was for the Afghanistan campaign. I remember hearing Bush's speech, just after 9/11 where he said 'we will find and hurt anyone who even thinks about giving them any kind of support'. I started to cry. Hard. What I heard him say that night was that he wanted to beat up the whole world. Simplistic view? Maybe- but it really frightened me nonetheless. My mom said it was just a figure of speech, that he couldn't possibly mean it. It sounded to me like a bully you pull a mean practical joke on who doesn't just shoot you, they beat up your friends, your parents, your teachers, your boss, that guy who gave you a quarter when you needed desperately to call for a ride and even someone who held a door open for you years ago.

I already didn't trust Bush and didn't like the handling of the 'election' but I was honestly ready to put it aside for the good of unifying the country together after the shock of that horrible day. But.. hearing that speech said to me that forcing someone to live the way we think they should isn't democracy at all. If they are really to be democratic, they should want it for themselves. Circumstances on the ground say that that isn't really possible at this point.

What scared me the most of all was the fact that the media is supposed to hold the administration accountable and ask the tough questions. The right calls it the 'liberal media' in the most derogatory sense, but at that time the administration did a very effective job of destroying any opposing voices to the plans for Iraq. There was no media asking those hard questions. I looked around and wondered where they were during this whole time. I'd never seen it before where everyone including newspapers and TV was doing what Bush wanted, and anyone who disagreed was not only unpatriotic, but suspect, often accused or at least maliciously gossiped about. Much of this reminds me of reading about the way things had been conducted during the McCarthy era. While we as a nation were ready to turn in our neighbors just for being different, pointing all kinds of fingers at each other, it gave the government the opportunity to run roughshod over the Constitution and do everything to take power away from the other branches of government. They did and are still counting on the fact that we will be so preoccupied with name calling and accusations flying that we won't stop to notice what they're doing next. The effects of this are still being seen on this and other threads. Meanwhile, the people that are really responsible for what happened that day are nowhere in sight. Thankfully people are beginning to wake up. It's not too late.

I cannot watch Bush on TV. I couldn't before, but it's worse now. I feel that it might be likely that I'd break my TV. That's why I like the Daily Show, Because it lets me know that I'm not alone and others can see what I do. Because if I don't laugh at it, I will cry at what's happened to this country.

We have seen firsthand what manipulation of our emotions does to our precious country. Fear creates division. To be honest, I miss those days where I really didn't care too much about politics, because I figured that they would look out for us no matter who was in charge. If they seemed like decent enough people who were willing to listen to all sides to find a solution, I was Ok to let them do whatever. We'd root out the worst folks, but that most people were trying to help those they served. But we've seen what happens when complacency overrides common sense.

I will not respond to personal attacks on myself for being a thinking person who is fighting desperately to get back the country I love. Do I have the answer? No. But nobody does. The Dems in Congress are in the worst position. If they don't give $$ for this plan, they will be accused of not allowing the 'plan' to go through. They will be seen as not supporting the troops.. If they do fund it they will be seen by those that voted them into power as not listening to what is now a large majority of people said on election day that we needed a new direction. It's a classic catch-22.

Personally I do believe that those who joined the army because they wanted to defend my right to be free- that's the noblest thing I can think of, to die for what you believe. The troops deserve our support for that reason if nothing else. From what I've read, however, there is about a 50-50 split from soldiers themselves. Some joined for that reason, others may have joined for the financial incentives, others as a way to get into college who may not have had a chance before. Many soldiers think we're doing the right thing, and more are feeling comfortable enough to say that they don't agree with this war. There is no viable definition of victory at this point. The army itself is recycling people because they don't have enough new recruited, well trained people. How is constant exposure to the horrors that Iraq shows to these forces, many of whom used to be naive kids sitting at home playing video games, going to produce people capable of doing what is needed? We are no safer than we ever were.

We've angered the international community, not to mention the new terrorists that will come up with more creative ways to hurt us. When is it enough? How many more lives- American AND Iraqi? When the troops do come home, what kind of life will they be coming to? Will they also be persecuted for feeling the need to speak out against this if they feel compelled to do so? Life is too precious to throw away on a needless war that has no discernible purpose.

But I do feel this- The lying our way into Iraq, the signing statements Bush tacked onto laws passed (I don't know the exact count but it's in the hundreds- many times more than any other president in history) where he signs a bill with stipulations on how he will or won't follow it, Katrina, the unchecked powers arbitrarily given, refusal to admit mistakes, torture, are just a few of the SO many reasons I think this president, and vice president, both need to be held accountable. NOW. I know impeachment is 'officially off the table,' but a girl can hope. I can think of no other time that it is as vital as right now. Say what you will about Clinton. I think he's a bit of a slime as a human, but he was an intelligent, educated president who thought things through, sought out others opinions, and made choices, sometimes with good results, sometimes with bad ones. Can we say that about GWB?

There was a story that ran awhile back about how frustrating it is for the forces to train Iraqis. One person said that many Iraqi troops believe that 'if Allah wills it, the bullet will find its mark', which makes it much harder to stress the need for training. How is throwing more of our lives into the fire going to compete with that in addition to everything else going wrong there?

We as Americans have to look past each other's fears and frustration and get to the heart of what people are saying. Many of the people are beginning to realize how much they've been deceived. I can understand the Republican's fear, but I can also understand and relate to the Democrats' anger and frustration at being left out of such an important discussion for too long. I suspect the only reason they're getting more of a chance to say something is because they retook the Congress.

Asking someone to leave the US because they 'don't like it' is too easy, a cop-out and absolves anyone of actually having to make their voices heard. To do the work of forcing the other side to be considered. That is the only way we can move forward and stop this before it destroys whatever credibility we have left. Just war? WWII was justified. Iraq? Not a chance. I am not totally against war to bring people who murder innocents to justice, but ONLY AFTER EVERY OTHER POSSIBLE OPTION has been used. I am against THIS war in Iraq. Have been from day one. Lest we forget- WE are the ones responsible for putting Hussein in power. WE did that during Reagan. It's one thing to say 'we're removing a dictator who did horrible things'.. but it's the ultimate in hypocrisy to say that we have some sort of moral authority to justify removing someone that WOULDN'T have been there in the first place IF IT WASN'T FOR US.

There was a song written by a canadian group called Moxy Fruvous that explains it better than I can. They're not together anymore to my knowledge and this song was written for the first Gulf War, but I can't think of a more appropriate time to use it.

Gulf War song:
We got a call to write a song about the war in the Gulf,
But we shouldn't hurt anyone's feelings.
So we tried, and gave up, cuz there was no such song,
But the trying was very revealing:

What makes a person so poisonous righteous,
That they'd think less of anyone, who just disagrees?
She's just a pacifist, he's just a patriot.
If I said you were crazy, would you have to fight me?

Fighters for liberty,
Fighters for power,
Fighters for longer turns in the shower.

Don't tell me I can't fight 'cause I'll punch out your lights
And history seems to agree
That I would fight you for me.

So we read, and we watched
All the specially selected news,
And we learned so much more about the good guys.

"Won't you stand by the flag?"
Was the question unasked,
"Won't you join in and fight with the allies?"

What could we say? We're only 25 years old,
With 25 sweet summers, and hot fires in the cold.
This kind of life makes that violence unthinkable.
We'd like to play hockey, have kids and grow old.

Fighters for Texaco,
Fighters for power,
Fighters for longer turns in the shower.

Don't tell me I can't fight 'cause I'll punch out your lights,
And history seems to agree
That I would fight you for me,
That us would fight them for we.

He's just a peacenik,
And she's just a war-hawk.
That's where the beach was,
That's where the sea.

What could we say? We're only 25 years old,
And history seems to agree that I would fight you for me,
That us would fight them for we.
Is that how it always will be?

I apologize for the length of this, but this has been 6-7 years in the building up. It feels good to purge and I hope someone will take this in the spirit it's intended. Real, honest, RESPECTFUL discourse. What this all boils down to is- I miss my country.
RSP

Define your terms: Just War

Just cause
War is permissible only to confront "a real and certain danger," i.e., to protect innocent life, preserve conditions for decent human existence & to secure basic human rights.

WMDs were believed to exist by the UN & all major intelligence agencies
Saddam allowed the 2002 terrorist assassination of dipliomat Lawrence Foley in Jordan & played host to the murderer of US Citizen Leon Klinghoffer & the terrorist who mixed the chemicals for the first WTC bombing , etc
Saddam supported suicide bombers in Israel, which resulted in deaths of US Citizens as well as Israelis.Saddam murdered 500 to 800 thousand people & raped & tortured many thousands more.

Competent authority
War must be declared by those with responsibility for public order, not by private groups or individuals.

The US is the only authority not corrupted by Saddam's Oil for Food scandal
We were the only authority with the will, competance, & power to topple Saddam.

Comparative justice
Which side is sufficiently "right" in a dispute, & are the values at stake critical enough to override the presumption against war?

Let's see, on one side a dictator willing to murder at least 40 k people a year, to rape & torture thousands more, willing to kill US diplomats & citizens, willing to attempt the murder of a former US President, willing to use WMDs against his own citizens...and unwilling to show the world that he has no WMDs...

vs the US, Great Britain, Austrailia, etc, democracies fighting for a democratic Iraq.

Right intention
War can be legitimately intended only for the reasons set forth above as a just cause.

The US captured Saddam is now supporting Democracy & Iraqi self determination. We are not looking to steal factories or enslave the population, etc

Last resort
For resort to war to be justified, all peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted.

17 UN resolutions, UN inspectors harrassed & sent packing, & years of no fly zones...Years when the Clinton Admin w/ support of Congress attempted regime change by coup d'etat & cruise missles. But it was impossible to overthrow Saddam.
The only way to stop the WMD threat & further murder was to go in.

Probability of success
Is resort to force irrational or hopeless. Are the costs incurred by war proportionate to the good.

War is unpredictable. The probability of success was great at the outset. So far we have rid the earth of Saddam & given the Kurds freedom from persecution. Hopefully we can help the Iraqi's subdue the thugs & achieve stability.
The US military & Iraqi civilian losses directly caused by the US invasion have been low. It can be further argued that the murdering of Iraqi's by terrorists & goon squads is still far lower than what Saddam would have caused both inside & outside Iraq.

The US must stay strong & win this war, (& others like it), for us to remain free & to protect the weak of this world.

Chad said:

“Also, any person who believes or lives by the principle that we should never fight or go to war lives in an imaginary world and will forever be ruled by people who are willing to fight or go to war.”

**We are, of course, already ruled by people willing to fight and go to war. And it is their and our collective failure of imagination that perpetuates the endless cycle of violence.

“People who say the U.S. lied must also believe that the Intelligence services of multiple other countries lied, even those who disagreed with the need to invade. Thus, the war was just because it was not fought for a false reason and people were not told lies to get them to agree to the war. There is a difference between being wrong and lying. Something many people who disagree with President Bush fail to grasp..”

**It is, unfortunately, simply mistaken to suggest that there was anything approaching a consensus as regards the prewar intelligence on Iraq. There was not even consensus within the intelligence community of the USA. A cursory reading of newspapers from around the world in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq would show a great deal of open disagreement about the claims made by the Bush administration. Whether President Bush lied we may never know, but the claims that prewar intelligence was consensual and undisputed are factually in error. While there is obviously a great difference between lying and being wrong, I’d suggest, that should we include the matter of competence. Prewar intelligence was badly misused by the administration, often over the objections of its own internal skeptics. And the conduct of the war itself has been so badly mismanaged that one could, I think, make a reasoned case that competency too ought to be included in the list of those things that make war justifiable.

CONCERNED WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT WERE IN SOMALIA?

Iraq is not a Just War, it is Just A WAR. WAR KILLS people. What is the Just action in that single act?

Instead of suffering under a dictator, the people are dead.

Eventualy people will tire of KILLING each other and learn to live in peace respecting each other's humanity.

Yes, there are times when war unavoidable and, regrettably, necessary (WW-II). I served in the Marine Corps, and understand the need for a strong force and the need to use it when diplomatic paths fail. But Iraq is a disaster. We need to get out now. Bush does not comprehend the magnitude of this disaster, of his failures, and his speech last night was bordering on delusional. Congress should halt money immediately. Bush is trying to buy time to pass the disaster to the next president, to dupe the public into thinking that we need a few more years to get the job done. This is a sinister tactic to try to hold down expectations until after the 2008 elections. We need to get out now. We don't belong in the middle of a civil war. We cannot solve it. Bush has failed the American people, and is now making a last ditch effort to salvage his sunken legacy. Congress, please do your job and halt the money.

PAM who are you talking to?
theres no MIKE on this post
is it MARK?
he never said he's in the service

who are you thanking and for what?

i worked for 3 years as a volunteer at the Disabled American Veterans- it was all vietnam era vets- and if there is one thing i know its this-

the real grunts who have been in the trenches and done the fighting and seen the actions are always the quiet ones-

it is always the cowards who ran away who have lots and lots to say- always-

ask any vet

this mark fellow doesnt even seem to be aware that the congress didnt vote to go to war- and bush superceded his presidential powers in doing so-
and it is being discussed as we sit here

RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE WAR POWERS ACT

SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

CONSULTATION

SEC. 3.
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

1) THE PRESIDENT DIDNT CONSULT CONGRESS
2) THE REQUISITE CONDITIONS FOR WAR WERE NOT MET

PEACE

This is a discussion without the possibility of a resolution because there will never be an agreement on what is "just." People have disagreed for centuries about this and will continue to do so.

Also, any person who believes or lives by the principle that we should never fight or go to war lives in an imaginary world and will forever be ruled by people who are willing to fight or go to war. War should not be the first response but it should always be on the table. Without the threat of war or military action, dictators and tyrants around the world would run roughshod over the peaceful people of the world. The fact remains that, in this world, there are bad people with evil intentions. Thankfully the U.S. is willing to stand up to some of these people. The U.S., unfortunately, cannot remove every awful ruler because that is not our role. The decision to remove or not requires a balancing of goals and motives.

The people who argue against the U.S. being in Iraq and in the same breathe suggest the U.S intervene militarily in Somalia, the Sudan or Haiti are creating mirages. These people dislike the use of U.S. military force unless there is a direct attack on U.S. soil. They use these other countries as a way to distract.

Getting to the original question: is the war in Iraq "just"? I believe the original reasons for going to Iraq were well thought out and well reasoned. Some of the underlying reasons/assumptions have not been proven to be true and some have been proven to actually be false or wrong. I, however, do not believe people lied because that requires a person to purposefully mislead while knowing the actual truth. We went on the believe that Iraq had WMDs, that Saddam failed to comply with 18 U.N. Resolutions and that post 9/11, we cannot afford to risk the safety of our country, especially when Saddam had repeatedly promised to re-pay the U.S. the original Gulf War. People who say the U.S. lied must also believe that the Intelligence services of multiple other countries lied, even those who disagreed with the need to invade. Thus, the war was just because it was not fought for a false reason and people were not told lies to get them to agree to the war. There is a difference between being wrong and lying. Something many peope who disagree with President Bush fail to grasp.

MIKE, you are right on with your post and I could not begin to say it any better than you have. Thanks for serving your country and thanks for your up front view of it all.

i reccomend a book for all interested that lays down the history and us intervention in that area of the world- its called ALL THE SHAHS MEN i think KINZER is the author- it documents papa georges foray into the seminal beginnings of the CIA and british petroleums deisre to continue stealing the oil form the iranians- ive been watching the drums of war truning to iran for 2 solid years now- so much so that weve even had an unconscious sheeple above talking about the reasoning being for staying in iraq is to control the 'dangerous neighbor iran'.

is it moral to remove an abusive parent (ruler),leaving his traumatized family members to traumatize each other?
this is neither a vote for the US' intervention in Iraq or against it. it is a legitimate question from a bewilderd Muslim.
is it acceptable to let the abuse continue or do we have a moral obligation to intervene?
the international community has repeatedly failed to intervene when it should have, letting situations fester to intolerable level resulting in horrific results- Bosnia, Rowanda and now Darfur.
the US hyper, and often unwise, ways of responding to such world problems seems to backfire with tragic results to itself and to others.
there is no substitute to intesifying our efforts to suuport what is good (Maroof) and admonishing what is wrong (Munkar)

The british have colonized most of the world for hundreds of years. They were much more methodical in their approach, and therefore lasted for centuries. Look where they are today! The unites states is more implulsive with its foreign policy throughout its history. The Iraq war was a disaster, not because the US is weak, but because the US administration did not understand the Iraqi's, their culture, and how they perceive their own leaders and outsiders. It was indeed a cakewalk in the war days, but that's because Iraqis were not involved. I believe that the administration and the media painted a nice picture of how Iraqis will receive the US in their land and they were convinced that Iraqis were brainwashed against the US.

Today, with over 3000 US killed and over 25K injured, with over 10K unable forever to go back to duty, I am not sure who was really brainwashed, the Iraqis or the American administration? My concern now is that with the added 21K troops, the world is in for a very tough 2007 in Iraq. What the administration stil don't understand is that the problem has never been in the number of US troops, it is and has always been in the ability of the Iraqi government to get over its own secterial agenda. Iraqis need to focus on Iraq now as ONE country. You can't lead a unity government while, in the back of your mind, thinking on how to improve your future position on a negotiating table if and when the Iraq partitioning takes place. Position improvement is an open ended project that includes everything from assigning cabinet members to eliminating others who don't share your vision. That's Iraq today!

is it moral to remove an abusive parent (ruler),leaving his traumatised family members to traumatise each other?
this is neither a vote for the US' intervention in Iraq or against it. it is a legitimate question from a bewilderd Muslim.
is it acceptable to let the abuse continue or do we have a moral obligation to intervene?
the international community has repeatedly failed to intervene when it should have, letting situations fester to intolerable level resulting in horrific results- Bosnia, Rowanda and now Darfur.
the US hyper, and often unwise, ways of responding to such world problems seems to backfire with tragic results to itself and to others.
there is no substitute to intesifying our efforts to suuport what is good (Maroof) and admonishing what is wrong (Munkar)

is it moral to remove an abusive parent (ruler),leaving his traumatised family members to traumatise each other?
this is neither a vote for the US' intervention in Iraq or against it. it is a legitimate question from a bewilderd Muslim.
is it acceptable to let the abuse continue or do we have a moral obligation to intervene?
the international community has repeatedly failed to intervene when it should have, letting situations fester to intolerable level resulting in horrific results- Bosnia, Rowanda and now darfur.
the US hyper, and often unwise, ways of responding to such world problems seems to backfire with tragic results to itself and to others.
there is no substitute to intesifying our efforts to suuport what is good (Maroof) and admonishing what is wrong (Munkar)

The Democrats were already offensive enough before Bush's speech but now that they have Republicans like Norm Coleman joining the cut-and-run chorus who knows what clueless trash we'll hear next from those with no strategy of their own besides trusting the U.N. and Iraq's terrorism-loving neighbors.

Bush's speech was pure pragmatism. He realizes things aren't going well and that it's time for a change but he won't be bum-rushed by those questioning his constitutional authority and congressional authorization to commit troops and pursue the enemy whereever he is.

If Democrats want to go down the Vietnam era low road giving aid-and-comfort to another beaten enemy and refuse to recognize the difference between no threat to the home front then but an ultimate threat to it now, that's their business...and their political risk.

Democrats think the message voters sent last November was "get out now" but what they really want whether they realize it or not is what we just got, an aggressive new plan to finally defeat the insurgency and turn control back over to the Iraqis so we can move on to the next front of the war on terror, which may be in Iran.

The president's plan makes sense because it hinges on Iraqis taking responsibility for their own future:

The Iraqis will appoint commanders responsible for security in Baghdad and deploy army units and police across the city's nine districts. They will conduct the patrols, setup the checkpoints, go door-to-door smoking out terrorists, restrain the militias (especially al-Sadr's) and regain the trust of their countrymen.

The American people are justifiably fed up with Iraqis fighting each other along religious lines rather than uniting for the common good against the terrorists but that doesn't mean we should abandon them having said it's time they got their act together, something they still need our help to do.

We'll commit whatever forces General Petraeus, the West Point grad who literally wrote the book on counter-terrorism, deems necessary to stabilize Baghdad and al-Anbar province so al-Maliki's government can finally implement a permanent solution of its own.

We won't abandon Iraq to mostly foreign terrorists on the payroll of Assad and that malevolent moron Ahmadinejad who hope to kill democracy in Iraq so they and their terrorist proxies can use it the way they once used Afghanistan to plot attacks on the U.S. itself.

We won't resurrect failed Democrat strategy from the Vietnam era conceding defeat to another enemy who couldn't beat us anywhere but in the U.S. Congress.

Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other arab states in some way contributing to the chaos in Iraq either through action or inaction will finally be held accountable as Bush said in wonderfully blunt diplomatic language when he sent another supercarrier to the Persian Gulf.

The Iraqis now realize our military commitment isn't limitless, that they don't have a blank check courtesy of the American taxpayers, and that it's up to them now to stop fighting each other and start fighting our common enemies instead.

Senate Democrats led by the forgettable Dick Durbin wanted to be heard and they've been heard. Bush listened to what they had to say, balanced it against what our commanders, our allies and the Iraqis had to say, and concluded the Democrat answer is no answer at all.

They have a right to run Congress but not the right to run the White House as well usurping executive authority, reneging on almost unanimous congressional authorizations, and making decisions the Founders said are the prerogative of the president.

As the man responsible for deciding what our foreign policies are, Bush has the final word on who we fight, where we fight and when, not Ted Kennedy. If Democrats want to debate his authority and the wisdom of funding our troops then we Republicans welcome that debate.

Mark Overholser
Woodbury, MN

A few thoughts on war and violence:

-As a Christian I can imagine circumstances where I might be called upon to lay down my life for another person or even in martyrdom for my faith. But I find it nearly impossible to imagine the circumstances which would justify me in taking another life. Jesus chose not to and I hope to follow His example.

-It seems to me that until Constantine any discussion of Christians and war would have been meaningless. When Christianity was declared the official religion of the Roman Empire things changed dramatically. As a friend of mine likes to say “there’s a lot of information in that statement if you care to look”. Wars are not fought about religion, nor can they be justified by religion. Wars are fought to achieve political aims by other means. Can governments act morally? Perhaps in a relative sense, but when governments begin talking in moral absolutes it makes me very suspicious indeed.

If the Old and New Testaments are in agreement about anything, it is in their consistent focus on issues of justice. In any claim to a “just war”, one might anticipate that such a justification would be made in the cause of justice itself. How concerned are we as a nation with a just distribution of the earth’s resources? How concerned are we with a just distribution of wealth and power? These are for me the questions we ought to be wrestling with.

A.J. MUSTE said: “There is no way to peace — peace is the way”

I believe this to be a profound statement of truth. We mostly live in a world of abstract ideas, ideals and ideologies. We stay “in our heads” dissociated and detached from ourselves, our families, our neighbors, and most obviously from our adversaries, opponents and enemies. We somehow believe that we can attain peace, that peace is a goal that can be secured for some future time through effort and struggle. But I believe, peace is only achieved by living peacefully now, in the midst of all the confusion, grief and violence that we face in this present moment. Peace is not an end to be achieved; it must be our way of life. Peace, like love, is its own reward

We are in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and every airport and dock in the USA and beyond for one simple reason, Bill Clinton chose to chase women and not terrorists.

Our government generated a rationale for invading Iraq.There is a difference between a rationale and a justification.The fact that there were no biolgical,nuclear, or other weapons as such should have been sufficient evidence to tell us that this was not inspired by God.Most Americans acquiesced to this invasion because the administration convinced the country the war could be done on the cheap.The President has been said to have read the Bible twice.I would like to ask him what these motives have to do with Christianity.

I have great respect for the troops but not so much for the leaders who put them there.

I wrote this poem from A Personal Tao book towards the beginning of the war when Bush declared God was on his side:

------------------------------

Humanity was given free choice

While gods and devils
never turned away
how could they
never having freedom
always chained
to choices made in the rolling of the bones
our bones
which we toss down
every day

The only gods, the only devils
are those found in mirrors
dogged to our own whims

In prayer
An Iraqi woman cries
as her son is dead
under the stones of bombs
"Where is God!"

Where is God?

God is the dice of our very own bones
being rolled over everyone's graves

We roll the bones of each other
in games of free choice
Which tumble the fates about
with each and every life,
thrown away,
every day

What choices have you made
Who's grave have you rolled over today?

---------------------------------------

War is never just, it's from our humanity it springs and it's from our humanity we must rise and be strong enough to stop it.

This is not an issue of God, it's an issue of a failed leader. The trouble is , no matter how bad Bush is: he is still currently the leader of America. This means many people will take his failed war to be a sign they failed personally. Because of this it will be hard to convince America of its own part of the war by following Bush, as it means American public would have to confess to it's own support of the war by being silent during the war. The road to healing will not be simple and it will be long.

Mr Bush has done more harm to the American people than any terrorist in his continued plunging into this War.

Its up to us to make the difference

It's up to us to live in peace. The first step is to live in peace in your life and work from there. We need to stand united for peace now. Its up to us to not be silent, and it's up to us when we speak to speak out in peace. Only then will it start to end.

peace and acceptance in your journeys
http://www.personaltao.com/

the contended gemini
truth and false,justice and injustice,the fact of life is that ,human being is ignorant by nature,being ignorant sequentialy lead him to be oppresor,sequentialy lead him to war and blood shed.what is the criteria betwen justice and injustice its not in the capacity of human being,its in the capacity of the all mercifull creator lord to decide ,unfourtunatly human beings leave the justice of the creator lord and they go to ignorant heads human beings and vote for and submit to and follow commands.ignorance is much way dangerous than war.my god is real while his god is false is a human being monologue ,need to be put on the all just scale of the creator lord who created all people.

Its not a war at all. The original invasion might have been one once, but the government you destroyed no longer exists, and neither does Saddam. What you have is peace, with insurrection.

Matthew 5:38-48. Grab your bible. It doesn't get any easier than this. I know what your thinking, what does this bible banger have to say. blah blah.....yeah but check this. Just war is a joke, especially because just war is definatly NOT in the bible. If your a follower of Jesus. Just war was created by the Church many moons ago in the days of Augustine of Hippo and the great Constantine (excuse my spelling). Nothing more than a mere 7 steps of rules that justified him killing in the name of God. Which was crap and somehow has been carried over into modern day Catholism and obviously main stream Christianity. "Just War" should mean nothing to a deciple of Jesus. Jesus teaches us two new things. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. The other is Love your neighbor as yourself. This passage from Matt 22:34-40 purges what how we interpret the old testament. Love will fix what is happening, its not our job to worry about everything thats going on. Its our job to spread the word, make deciples, and love everyone.

Justin K. Aller...a Jesus Freak

I don't know if there is such a thing as a "just" war, but I think there is such a thing as an inevitable one. A country forced to fight for its survival will do so. But necessity didn't drive us to invade Iraq. The idea that "We fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" is total crap, a revisionist's justification for a bogus war.

Of course there is also the fact that an incumbent president has never been voted out of office while the nation was at war. Since Bush the dad was one of the first memebers of the newly developed CIA that helped keep Mossedegh out of public office and continued the flow of oil money into british petroleums pockets for decades- i have the feeling that george w was well advised and pretty alert abou t what he was doing.

Im sure hell claim cluelessness at his war crime trial.

I think this debate should have been raised at the time US was preparing to poke its nose in Iraq. Calling experts opinion at this juncture just seems shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. While it is true that there were always two schools of thought, but the voice "not to venture into Iraq" was never as strong as it is now. The clear reason is that Americans were never able to gauge "at what cost" factor.

Policy makers always take a decision based on certain factors and indicators. But there are other unknown and unseen elements which affect the turn of events. It is only after an operation comes full circle, you have a better sight of pros and cons, which help to look at things in proper perspective.

I am sure all the experts who are coming now with their definite views on Iraq war, were as clue less at the beginning as President Bush and most Americans were.

The conclusion I can make is that American adeventure into Iraq was a case a misplaced priority. They just left Bin Laden off the hook and starting chasing Saddam Hussein. No wonder we find USA not in control of either.

What's the use of sending a $2 million missile
into a $10 tent to hit a camel in the butt?
- George W. Bush

When will Bush realize that whatever he does, will never change things in Iraq. How many more American and Iraqi lives does he need to quench his thirst ? When will he be judged and maybe punished for his lies and bad judgements on this illegal war. Bring back the "boys" and give them a chance to reach retirement.

You can no more win a war than you can win an
earthquake.
- Jeannette Rankin

A just war is a war in which YOU don't have to fight. Only a fool would believe war is justified. I fought in the first Gulf War and can tell you that it is a total waste of human and material resources. I believed all that God-Country-Mom-And Apple Pie nonsense until I saw firsthand what really goes on in a war. Everyone loses in a war, even the supposed victors. All this talk about "freedom", "liberty", "democracy", "defending your country", etc. is pure garbage. America needs to learn to mind its own business. We are not the new Israel commissioned by God to spread the gospel of Americanism to all the nations of the world via the military or Wal-Mart. If we want peace we need to quit meddling in other countries' affairs and stop policing everyone.

There is a "Just War"...WWII stopping the Holocaust...that is a just war. An unprovoked invasion of a country with blatantly false intentions is not a just war, a war lead by a blind man who pays no attention to the men on the ground is a joke. We have lost the respect of the world, we have lost our way, so badly I fear that we may not find it again for awhile.
As an aside keep posting your thoughts Buckland.....3 times isnt enough. And calm your vitriol long enough to see that any perspective belonging to another individual is their own. In between your rants you offered no thoughts or ideas of your own, only assaulting others....keep watching FOX

The term "a just war" is a riduclous statement. Wars maybe necessary but are never just. The Iraq war is an injustice. I don't believe Iraq was a threat to the U.S. and now we have dead and injured soldiers because we have a power hungry administration in the White House.

There were so many lies told to the Congress and the American public that no one will probably know for years what was and was not true. I do fault Congress for not doing a better job of oversight before we went in there. People voted Bush in for the second term and they share the responsibility also.

We are there now. I believe what Colin Powell said was "we break it we fix it". Someone is going to have to fix it and most likely it will be the the United States.

Just wars are possible but rare. The North was justified in stopping the South from attempting to secede from the union and to continue slavery. Stopping Hitler was right too. A war against Al Quaeda and Osama Bin Laden in 2001 was right.

The Iraq war, however, was not justified. It was a so-called "pre-emptive war." The rulers of Iraq were immoral and unjust, but the threat to the U. S. from them was nil. Even if Bush believed that Iraq was harboring nuclear weapons, the war was wrong. The U. N. sanctions were the way to proceed.

Had we been attacked directly by Iraq, we would have had the right to go to war. We were not; we didn't. This was and is a wrong war. Every day it continues we compound the injustice.

NO.
This has never been a just war. John Kerry said it best, "America shouldn't go to war because we want to but because we need to. The "need" for this war was trumped up charges of WMD's threats to the U.S. that Iraq never posed. Fear was and is the guiding principle of this administration and to the extent Bush & Cheney can get away with exploiting the fears of human beings they will do so until their very last breath. Why? Because both of them are cowards and fear is all they know.

P.Habib

Victory in wars has determined our path toward justice;--toward introduction of any element of justice.

However, a "just war" is a misnomer. Justice is a personal conscious state of emotional satisfaction. Within each person exists an emotional need for 'well-being';---for peace! When a physical action, as disease or climatic changes,--or human action as murder or war;---overpowers the natural state;and causes harm and destruction---a personal sense of injustice emerges.

To consider our conscious anatomy we can see that conflict is always effected by a 'feeling' of injustice. And that this 'feeling' is effected when one person or group overpowers another in a manner that interferes with basic need satisfaction. All of the major determining battles moved us toward freedom from power control,--or oppression. The energy of our ascent toward escape from environmental harm,--or injustice,--did not come down from human authority;--but flowed from the inside-out;--from within personal consciousness,--from the heart of the people.

At the end of the day, our happiness is determined by our sense of justice;---which is determined by the way one person treats another;---which extends to more than individual encounters;--but to community, state, national and international relationships.

Thought moves the body. As peace and justice are conscious states,---then education and diplomacy would be the means to this end. The idea that war is the way to justice seems adaptation to the opinion of mankind. Where the way to justice would seem to demand an escape from oppressive mentality in its entirety. And this would seem dependent not on physical instruction; but personal character maturation. Then, war could be moved to the museum,--to the place where animal sacrificial ceremonies to please gods now reside!

The Iraq war is based on lies (no WMDs), therefore it is unjust, and "victory" is not possible. Those who talk about "cut and run" are sloganeering, promoting death and destruction with no peaceful resolution in sight.
It's time to say 'no' to a vindictive President - (I believe) he went to war to eliminate Saddam as payback for the alleged 1993 plot kill President Bush Sr. during their visit to Kuwait - and to his war profiteering supporters.
Only a comprehensive political solution - one that fairly recognizes the political and economic interests of the Kurds, Shia and Sunni people - will bring a peaceful resolution to this war.

Almost four years into the war, it is pointless to consider whether it is "just" or not. We should instead focus on what we can do to achieve peace and minimize loss of life.

Rightly or wrongly, America invaded Iraq. We supported the establishment of many institutions not the least of which is a democratic government. We are morally obligated to take responsiblity for our past actions, including standing behind the elected government that we helped to establish.

The U.S. military is the only force that can provide any measure of security in Iraq. The U.S. owes the average Iraqi citizen the level of security that only we can provide. To withdraw that force would be to unleash a bloodbath. The first to be killed would be the "collaborators" who presumed to assist the U.S. in its democratic vision.

To say that an American life is worth more than an Iraqi one is simply wrong. To give up simply because we are not winning is selfish. We need to stay in Iraq until some form of stability is achieved.

The situation is dire but not hopeless. If we leave, then we leave the Iraqi people in a hopeless position.

With all respect to Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, and others, there is no "just" war. There may be necessary wars, eg, World war II, but war can never be just. No matter how smart the weapons and how careful the warriors, the innocent will ALWAYS suffer and die: that's not "just".

As for the Iraq invasion, it certainly isn't just, neither is it necessary. It is a war based on outright lies, and for which the rationale keeps shifting -- free the Iraqi people, democratise the Middle East, fight terrorists "over there so we won't have to fight them here, etc -- as the lies became obvious. The United States is shamed by it.

The Iraq war is not a WAR! It is the result of one man with power (ie: President) to show up his daddy. Even thought his dad was a WWII war hero, sonny-boy felt that he would be better if he had his own war. So he lied, (and continues to do so to this day) and in an abuse of power, Invaded another soverign country under false pretenses.
I have been in real WARS, and tactically knew that Iraq would be a looser. Not only militarily but diplomaticly turned the free world against us.
As to the phrase: A JUST WAR.Only when you respond to an actual attack on you can you call a military response JUST. SEMPER FI

The Iraq war is not a just war. The U.S. invasion was a criminal act with fraudulent motives. The invasion was not even necessary because Iraq was on its knees already. It was a war of Bush's "own choosing" as he said it at the time. The invasion is the worst decision any American president has ever made.

Daniel Buckland:

Here, here. You, sir, have exposed the truly bogus claims of a sicofant trying to tell us what to think and how to be moral. Her story was wildly fraudulent, but few in today's American society will ever have a clue. For all the good things that can be said of having a volunteer military, the one huge downside is that so few ever serve. The result is a country that is so out of touch with the real sacrifices our troops willingly make every day that they can be duped by the kind of hogwash that passes for editorial opinion in the WP. As you say, that 'opinion' piece was nothing but a fairy tale, but who will ever wake up and smell the coffee? Can anyone go back 50 years and check these 'facts'? I doubt it. So the story passes for truth, but the poison continues to spread.

Anyway, thanks for serving and keep the faith (since that is what this section is supposed to be about.)

Another who served

I find it ludicrous that over 3 years after we began this war that a major U.S. Newspaper even has to pose the question: 'Is the Iraq War Just?' It seemed obvious to anyone reading the papers prior to our invasion, that our arguments about Yellow Cake, and, Nuclear shells were being rejected by clear thinking people as fast as our leaders could skew the intelligence to make us think we had something to fear. It was also obvious to the whole world that we did not have U.N. or Nato support. We had regained access to Inspection, and, Russia and France were committing to helping us in wider inspections. What was the need?
And, we had wise men in our government and goverments all over the world telling us we would win the war but not the peace. A more pertinent question might be, "Why didn't we impeach Cheney and Bush for leading us into this foolhardy war?" Or "How morally depraved had our country become that congress voted to allow a man who is arguably one of the least intelligent presidents to ever serve in the United States, the power to wage war without U.N. Support, without Nato Support and without a clear and present danger?" There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a tyrannical dictator; the world is full of them. We cannot be the police and government of the world, and, our action against Iraq puts us to shame in front of the thinking world.

This war was never justified - each and every justification given was spurious. So how can it be a just war?

I am also constantly surprised the moral highground claimed by the very 'leaders' who have had no compunctions in creating monstors, arming them and encouraging them to do what Monstors do best and then shouting wolf. Is it moral to overlook brutality of these monstors while they serve shortsighted and shortlived gains?

Madam Albright says that some wars can be just. Can they be? Most common example given is the 2nd world war. The war was declared by that monstor Hitler. It was not a just war. Rest of the world took action to stop the war and the criminals. The world reaction was a just REACTION which involved defeating the invading armies.

Croocked Coocumber says - Afganistan - good move. Is it? First address the creation of Osama - a mujahideen to fight the evil empire oc Russia. Then address the dethroning of that monstor, But the last step that would make the Afganistan invasion a just action would be the reconstruction of the country. Where is it at? Why the ball was dropped? If you are going to leave a vaccum behing, it would make it a un-just war.

Where is the morality when the reaction to Israel's (recently leaked) plans has been - "Can they pull it off?" or "what can we do to ensure that Israel can oull it off?". Morality would demand that such harebrained plans are quashed before they take root in some sick minds.

After all this rambling - no the war in Iraq was never a just war.

For a brief moment, now a few years ago, Pres. Bush could have attempted an argument for his ends justifying the means of this war, but I think that point has past. I just believe that I am a rational and honest human being who cannot find the justification anymore.

No war can be considered just when the people running it are fools and idiots and lack key critical reasoning skills. Without reason how can one determine what is just? Therefore Iraq is not a "just war" and never was in any danger of being one.

To ask the question about a "just war" implies that the only relevant concern over whether to go to war is morality. It isn't. A nation should go to war only if all three of the following criteria are met:

(1) There is a national interest at stake.
(2) The war is winnable.
(3) The war is moral.

Thus, for example, a war to expand a nation's living space, may satisfy (1) and (2), but not (3). A war merely to right wrongs, criteria (3), is not prudent.

As for the war in Iraq, Bush sold the war on all three criteria, but criterion (1) was based on faulty and inadequate intelligence deliberately oversold by Bush, citerion (2) was never thought out or discussed, and criterion (3) was assumed to start and end with the perfidity of Hussein. The limits of a "just war" or moral analysis that is not centered on consequences is shown by the civilian death toll in Iraq. Was the moral result worth the cost for the Iraqis?

Today, criteria (1) and (2) are absent and criterion (3) is highly questionable. With no weapons of mass destruction to find and Hussein dead, why can't we declare a victory and go home?

Bush has a different solution. When you have lost all rational basis for doing what you are doing, then do it some more even harder. Arguing for a rational basis is "quitting."

War is a failure of civilization.

War, as a political tool, is NEVER an option for the United States. (first impeachment fact)

War is NEVER "just". Organized religion has tried to push this as a fact since all those alpha-males got together in one room.

"JUST" war is an absolute oxymoron.

Ms Quinn

I was glad I heard your reading of your column on Air America. It was very moving and your voice contained the tone of truth that was totally lacking in Colin Powell’s UN Speech on Feb 5, 2003. After all, Sec. Powell gave speeches for a living before returning to government, and every American knew what he sounded like when he spoke with
conviction, Instead, that fateful morning he was droning like a POW being coached and
coerced as he recited Scooter Libby’s talking points. That wasn’;t the first indication that perhaps something was amiss, Remember how for about a year, someone would ask the President a question say about the economy, and he responded “Saddam Hussein must disarm or he will be disarmed.”

So no war so totally based on deception can be measured as moral.
But even if it was justified, at some point after several weeks ( after Mission Accomplished and before Bremer,) we ceased conflict and began an occupation.
Compare this say with Operation Just Cause, also in pursuit of a renegade dictator, which was planned by General Powell and concluded in a matter of weeks. Jefferson says
in the Declaration that at a certain point it becomes the duty of an occupied people to
throw off oppression, and perhaps that’s where the moral center of gravity is today.

Practically, I think we crossed a point of no return early in 2003, when Bremer
De-Baathisized, and guaranteed disaster and created infinite armed enemies.
(Does anyone in this administration read history?) To be fair, the departure of the UN was also cowardly and a turning point. Finally the exodus of hundreds of thousands
of educated refugees has dimmed hope for any reconstruction soon.

You’re right Sally, We can leave now, under more or less our own terms. Or we can
be chased out again, The most moral thing we must do now is stop the deception.
There is no victory. Only choices.

I am against any war only because it destroys families and nations. We must try to solve problems by using non-violent methods. Iraq war - we should have tried to capture Sadaam Hussein only and not invade the whole country and suffer losses of innocent lives on both sides

No. When we realized there were no weapons of mass destruction we knew there were actually only two reasons for this war: Vindication for a father’s inability to complete a mission, and the worst one—my God is better than your God—in which the hard right and this administration had twisted the tenets of Christianity (and now our Constitution) to such an extreme that the invasion of Iraq looked reasonable. The spread of Democracy and freedom is admirable, and in our nature, but the reasons must be just, or the cause will be lost as the foundation breaks apart, and the walls come crashing down.
Jeff

I believe that there can be a just war, but this is absolutely not one.
And I must admit I had to go back and look up the word "just" because after so much rhetoric, I wasn't sure if I remembered what that meant anymore.
To do battle to save the lives of innocents is just. To do battle to stop one government from viciously asserting itself on another may be just. There is nothing just about planning a war with corporate executives, manufacturing evidence, lying to citizens and
sending kids to die based on that lie. That isn’t even close to being just.
There’s also nothing just about marching into a country uninvited, destroying it from top to bottom and then announcing that it’s up to the citizens of that country to fix the mess.
But the biggest injustice is forcing the American people to make an immoral decision – our kids or theirs.
Make no mistake, our kids need to get out of there, but when they do, Iraqi kids will die and suffer. If our kids are made to stay there and we send more, our kids will die and suffer and Iraqi kids will continue to do the same. So whose kids are the priority? Which kids are to be sacrificed? There’s nothing just about having to make that choice.

There can be just wars; the problem comes in applying the principle.

People (and nations) have the right of self defense. In addition, if I see, for example, a woman being attacked by a rapist/murderer, it's just for me to stop the perp - including using lethal force if necessary. Similarly a nation can go to war to stop an aggressor nation which is attacking others.

But attacking because some day they might attack us? Or attacking in grey areas where two nations are both guilty of bad behavior? Or selectively deciding to attack one evil dictator but not others who are equally if not more evil? That's a different kettle of fish.

The Washington Post has now proven to the world that it is a place for nothing but fiction, and it’s most despicable author is none other than the one claiming to know something about God. Sally Quinn, who do you think you are kidding? Have you no shame? Have you no overriding sense of decency? Do you like to evoke passion and or pain in others with your fictional lies? Do you even have a soul?
The most disgusting article I ever read was penned by Ms Quinn and is said to be on page 15 of the January 9th Washington Post titled “The Least Immoral Choice”. It starts out, “I am an Army brat. I have seen the effects of war firsthand…..I lived on Army posts and saw or heard about the human devastation of war each day.” Everyday? Please, I have lived on or near military bases for a long time, and when I am not on or near one I have been in Iraq and have yet to see the human devastation of war “each day”.
Here is the best attempt to pull at someone’s heart strings though. Sally Quinn writes, “I fell ill because of the emotional stress of having him at war, and at age 10 I ended up in Tokyo General Hospital. The hospital was filled with severely wounded soldiers who had been airlifted from Korea. It was decided that having parents visit their sick children would be too disruptive, so my mother wasn't allowed to see me for months at a time.” Mommy could not come see you at Tokyo General for months at a time? Must be a Japanese cultural thing, or an outrageous lie! Wounded US soldiers would NEVER BE at Tokyo General! End of story!
The lies in her op-ed article soon get really sick and perverted. She described a trip she took on a transport plan from Japan to Hawaii with wounded soldiers. Pure fiction, but the mere fact she passes it off as truth, much as she tried to pass off the months of separation from her mother and father because it would be too stressful for her, makes it disgusting. Quinn writes, “The thing I remember most vividly is the soldiers screaming in pain and crying out for their mothers. My mother went up and down the aisles holding their hands, stroking their brows, giving them sips of water. My sister helped light their cigarettes. Many of them were amputees. Some had no stomachs, some had no faces. The soldiers in the litters above and below me both died, blood dripping from their wounds. Many other soldiers died while we were in the air. We had to stop in Hawaii overnight to refuel and to leave the bodies.”
Screaming in pain, blood dripping from the litters, no stomachs, no faces and crying out for their mothers? Did this plane fly into a “hot” CASEVAC LZ and pick up men just shot and or injured by explosions? Makes for great heart wrenching fiction but would never have been the way she described it. Did she and her family light the cigarette for the man with no face, or simply hold it for the man with no hands? Blood dripping from their wounds huh? I guess medics and doctors in the 50s did not understand the benefits of bandages, or it is a figment of her imagination.
I am sure that Army doctors would realize that a little girl with anxiety from her father being at war would not be helped by transferring her stateside with those critically wounded amputees. Flights with those types of wounded personnel from Tokyo would likely fly the northern route via Alaska to the mainland US due to very few planes having the ability to fly the distance from Japan to Hawaii.
Sally Quinn is a sick and perverted woman. She must enjoy the sympathetic hugs and wishes of condolence from strangers and friends alike when she tells these tall tales of horror. She really must need attention and it is sad and also immoral that she uses others suffering as her own. I can only say, “shame on her and the editors of the Washington Post”. They allowed such dribble to make it into a newspaper.

Daniel M Buckland
USMC

The real purpose of the war had been televised around the world. Everybody with access to free media had been able to draw his own conclusions without having to consider the propaganda of the war parties.

The "coalition troops" allowed hospitals, infrastructure, museums and weapon depots to be plundered and destroyed for days without any effort to intervene, while the oil ministry and everthing connected with oil was immediately occupied and meticiously guarded.
I can still recall those pictures very vividly.

The real purpose of the war had been televised around the world. Everybody with access to free media had been able to draw his own conclusions with having to consider the propaganda of the war parties.

The "coalition troops" allowed hospitals, infrastructure, museums and weapon depots to be plundered and destroyed for days without any effort to intervene, while the oil ministry and everthing connected with oil was immediately occupied and meticiously guarded.
I can still recall those pictures very vividly.

The Washington Post has now proven to the world that it is a place for nothing but fiction, and it’s most despicable author is none other than the one claiming to know something about God. Sally Quinn, who do you think you are kidding? Have you no shame? Have you no overriding sense of decency? Do you like to evoke passion and or pain in others with your fictional lies? Do you even have a soul?
The most disgusting article I ever read was penned by Ms Quinn and is said to be on page 15 of the January 9th Washington Post titled “The Least Immoral Choice”. It starts out, “I am an Army brat. I have seen the effects of war firsthand…..I lived on Army posts and saw or heard about the human devastation of war each day.” Everyday? Please, I have lived on or near military bases for a long time, and when I am not on or near one I have been in Iraq and have yet to see the human devastation of war “each day”.
Here is the best attempt to pull at someone’s heart strings though. Sally Quinn writes, “I fell ill because of the emotional stress of having him at war, and at age 10 I ended up in Tokyo General Hospital. The hospital was filled with severely wounded soldiers who had been airlifted from Korea. It was decided that having parents visit their sick children would be too disruptive, so my mother wasn't allowed to see me for months at a time.” Mommy could not come see you at Tokyo General for months at a time? Must be a Japanese cultural thing, or an outrageous lie! Wounded US soldiers would NEVER BE at Tokyo General! End of story!
The lies in her op-ed article soon get really sick and perverted. She described a trip she took on a transport plan from Japan to Hawaii with wounded soldiers. Pure fiction, but the mere fact she passes it off as truth, much as she tried to pass off the months of separation from her mother and father because it would be too stressful for her, makes it disgusting. Quinn writes, “The thing I remember most vividly is the soldiers screaming in pain and crying out for their mothers. My mother went up and down the aisles holding their hands, stroking their brows, giving them sips of water. My sister helped light their cigarettes. Many of them were amputees. Some had no stomachs, some had no faces. The soldiers in the litters above and below me both died, blood dripping from their wounds. Many other soldiers died while we were in the air. We had to stop in Hawaii overnight to refuel and to leave the bodies.”
Screaming in pain, blood dripping from the litters, no stomachs, no faces and crying out for their mothers? Did this plane fly into a “hot” CASEVAC LZ and pick up men just shot and or injured by explosions? Makes for great heart wrenching fiction but would never have been the way she described it. Did she and her family light the cigarette for the man with no face, or simply hold it for the man with no hands? Blood dripping from their wounds huh? I guess medics and doctors in the 50s did not understand the benefits of bandages, or it is a figment of her imagination.
I am sure that Army doctors would realize that a little girl with anxiety from her father being at war would not be helped by transferring her stateside with those critically wounded amputees. Flights with those types of wounded personnel from Tokyo would likely fly the northern route via Alaska to the mainland US due to very few planes having the ability to fly the distance from Japan to Hawaii.
Sally Quinn is a sick and perverted woman. She must enjoy the sympathetic hugs and wishes of condolence from strangers and friends alike when she tells these tall tales of horror. She really must need attention and it is sad and also immoral that she uses others suffering as her own. I can only say, “shame on her and the editors of the Washington Post”. They allowed such dribble to make it into a newspaper.

Daniel M Buckland
USMC

The Washington Post has now proven to the world that it is a place for nothing but fiction, and it’s most despicable author is none other than the one claiming to know something about God. Sally Quinn, who do you think you are kidding? Have you no shame? Have you no overriding sense of decency? Do you like to evoke passion and or pain in others with your fictional lies? Do you even have a soul?
The most disgusting article I ever read was penned by Ms Quinn and is said to be on page 15 of the January 9th Washington Post titled “The Least Immoral Choice”. It starts out, “I am an Army brat. I have seen the effects of war firsthand…..I lived on Army posts and saw or heard about the human devastation of war each day.” Everyday? Please, I have lived on or near military bases for a long time, and when I am not on or near one I have been in Iraq and have yet to see the human devastation of war “each day”.
Here is the best attempt to pull at someone’s heart strings though. Sally Quinn writes, “I fell ill because of the emotional stress of having him at war, and at age 10 I ended up in Tokyo General Hospital. The hospital was filled with severely wounded soldiers who had been airlifted from Korea. It was decided that having parents visit their sick children would be too disruptive, so my mother wasn't allowed to see me for months at a time.” Mommy could not come see you at Tokyo General for months at a time? Must be a Japanese cultural thing, or an outrageous lie! Wounded US soldiers would NEVER BE at Tokyo General! End of story!
The lies in her op-ed article soon get really sick and perverted. She described a trip she took on a transport plan from Japan to Hawaii with wounded soldiers. Pure fiction, but the mere fact she passes it off as truth, much as she tried to pass off the months of separation from her mother and father because it would be too stressful for her, makes it disgusting. Quinn writes, “The thing I remember most vividly is the soldiers screaming in pain and crying out for their mothers. My mother went up and down the aisles holding their hands, stroking their brows, giving them sips of water. My sister helped light their cigarettes. Many of them were amputees. Some had no stomachs, some had no faces. The soldiers in the litters above and below me both died, blood dripping from their wounds. Many other soldiers died while we were in the air. We had to stop in Hawaii overnight to refuel and to leave the bodies.”
Screaming in pain, blood dripping from the litters, no stomachs, no faces and crying out for their mothers? Did this plane fly into a “hot” CASEVAC LZ and pick up men just shot and or injured by explosions? Makes for great heart wrenching fiction but would never have been the way she described it. Did she and her family light the cigarette for the man with no face, or simply hold it for the man with no hands? Blood dripping from their wounds huh? I guess medics and doctors in the 50s did not understand the benefits of bandages, or it is a figment of her imagination.
I am sure that Army doctors would realize that a little girl with anxiety from her father being at war would not be helped by transferring her stateside with those critically wounded amputees. Flights with those types of wounded personnel from Tokyo would likely fly the northern route via Alaska to the mainland US due to very few planes having the ability to fly the distance from Japan to Hawaii.
Sally Quinn is a sick and perverted woman. She must enjoy the sympathetic hugs and wishes of condolence from strangers and friends alike when she tells these tall tales of horror. She really must need attention and it is sad and also immoral that she uses others suffering as her own. I can only say, “shame on her and the editors of the Washington Post”. They allowed such dribble to make it into a newspaper.

Daniel M Buckland
USMC

Doug,

If it is ALWAYS just, as you put it, then why didn't we do the same for the politcal refugees in HAITI, of so many parts of Africa...NO...there can be no double standard if that is true...We have no business there...it is complete- injustice.

Doug,

If it is ALWAYS just, as you put it, then why didn't we do the same for the politcal refugees in HAITI, of so many parts of Africa...NO...there can be no double standard if that is true...We have no business there...it is complete- injustice.

Doug,

If it is ALWAYS just, as you put it, then why didn't we do the same for the politcal refugees in HAITI, of so many parts of Africa...NO...there can be no double standard if that is true...We have no business there...it is complete- injustice.

Doug,

If it is ALWAYS just, as you put it, then why didn't we do the same for the politcal refugees in HAITI, of so many parts of Africa...NO...there can be no double standard if that is true...We have no business there...it is complete- injustice.

World War II is proof that some wars are justified.

The Iraq war, borderline justified, but as someone said Saddam was himself a weapon of mass destruction. We destroyed this WMD and it might be time to leave. Unfortunately the crazy guy in Iran will not make that an easy undertaking but our presence in the area keeps him somewhat under control.

A just war is a travesty of words.Ample opportunity for some wordplay:

How about this:
In every war unjustice occurs. Therefor there is no just war.

Could lead to:
There is no just war. Therefor we don`t go to war. Nazi-Germany wins, fascim prevails.

Thrown together:
Go only to war if the benefits exceed the cost.
However:
You better try to avoid predictions. Especially if they concern the future.
(Unfortunatly I don't remember the author of this quote. (Mark Twain, maybe?))

In the end:
War is not just. It`s the breakdown of civilization.
If you want to ease human suffering and restore civilization a war may become justified.
The war may stay justified, even if you have failed miserably.
War itself will never be just. It`s against it`s nature.

Finaly:
No nation in history has ever taken up arms with the battlecry: It`s an unjust war.
A just war is a sales pitch.

As to Iraq: The amount of human suffering renders any point moot.

Ecclesiastes 3
1To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

2A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

3A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

4A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

5A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

6A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

7A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

8A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

Hi Sally. Brian Michener here. I completely agree with your comments on the war in your op-ed piece in the Post. he older I get the more I'm against old men sending young men off to die just to spill some blood. A quote from Walter Lippmann. My inspiration for this is Wilfrid Owens poem that to die for one's country may be the biggest lie of all.

The US invasion of Iraq -- and it's important to note that no matter how much spin you put on it, it is an invasion -- was not based on truth, reason, justice, and fairness. Hence, it is not what one would call a "just war."

What I also find interesting about your question is how you feel it falls under the subject of faith. As if only people of faith would have a handle on what is "just" and what is not. Or are you attempting to determine which way those with certain beliefs lean?

I'm a Western Buddhist practioner and work moment by moment on the practice of compassion. But not "idiot compassion" (http://www.shambhala.org/teachers/pema/qa5.php).

Afghanistan: good move. Iraq: bad move.

The Just War doctrine, like all theological propositions, is fraudulent. You can always dress up an argument for or against war based on Christian principles. Christian principles are so flexible that almost anything goes.

It is ALWAYS, in pricipal, just to rid millions of people from the totalitarianism of a dictator like Saddam Hussein.

What was unjust was turning a nation into an anarchy because we aren't willing to commit to stabilizing it; and lying about the reasons for going to war.

No. Not even close.