Carter: Iraq not ‘just war’

Carter: Iraq not ‘just war’

Carter could have drifted into obscurity. Instead, he has embroiled himself in partisan bickering and trying to prove that he has never met a dictator he didn’t like.

These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.

We have international support, James. We just don’t have French support. Big difference.

In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options — previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations — were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday.

Twelve years. 14 resolutions. No compliance. The inspectors aren’t there to play Sherlock Holmes and ferret out the weapons. Iraq is supposed to present the weapons to them while they sit around and drink Pina Coladas. Inspections have failed. Hussain had a deadline: 15 days. That passed around 4,000 days ago.

But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations.

Note the weasel word “civilized.” He added this because he knows that this sort of thing happens all the time in history, but allows him to claim that everyone from Caesar to Bismark were “uncivilized.”

Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in “collateral damage.” Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.

Not quite, James. He expressed concern that Hussain was moving his military targets into proximity with non-combatant areas. Think about that one until you grok it and get back to me.

Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home.

We have heard this before: Afghanistan. In fact, the war stabilized the region and weakened the terrorists to the point that we have had no successful attacks on American soil.

I’m as surprised as you are; I thought that we would have to nuke someone and that the terrorists couldn’t be policed. I was wrong; I’ll readily admit that I prefer this resolution (as long as we don’t have another attack slip through.)

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

No: By tilting at the American windmill, the UN will undermine itself. All they are proving is that they don’t matter. They could have supported thier own resolutions and at least hid that nasty fact for another decade.

What about America’s world standing if we don’t go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the terrorists attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory.

I don’t think our policy has anything to do with that. The world had forgotten 9/11/01 by 11/11/01.

Comments are closed.