St. Francis of Assisi, Patron of Peace
Does the military action the U.S. is contemplating against Iraq meet the standards of a just war?
|Date: 4/3/2003 10:27:43 AM|
Name or Pseudonym: TomH
Subject: re: CP
CP, allow me to answer your fundamental question:
"So where did US get the Right to go to Iraq?"
The US is a sovereign nation, tasked with the responsibility of protecting its citizens, from enemies both foreign and domestic. Iraq certainly does pose a threat to the US, as it has indeed provided training and funding, and most probably weapons, to terrorist organizations who have attacked the US.
As a sovereign nation, the US has the right to wage war in order to fulfill its responsibility to protect its citizens.
"Did the Iraqi people vote to give US the right?" [to send US troops to Iraq]
Well, no, the Iraqi people are denied the right to vote by the very government that we are trying to remove. Ignorant people will attempt to argue that iraqis vote in presidential elections, but we know for certain that the elections have no merit, because those who oppose Saddam Hussein are imprisoned, tortured and/or executed. The bottom line is, they have no voice. You are using some of the same illogic as the pro-abortion crowd, who argue that a fetus is not a human person because a fetus is incapable of having a say in its own fate. The idea of "No voice, no rights" is a liberal and evil concept, but all too often, the ignorant are misled.
As our troops have moved deeper into Iraq, more and more Iraqi citizens are cheering them on. Defectors from iraq, and there are many, also thank the US for finally taking the steps necessary to remove Saddam from power.
"Did Iraqi people vote to give Halliburton the contract?"
This question indicates that you havent the slightest understanding of what is going to be needed in the near future to build up Iraq. The decisions as to what needs to happen, have to be made now, in order to ensure immediate progress once Saddam is out of power. Oil field fires, need to be extinguished, oil production needs to be implemented, because the changes necessary in Iraq are going to require funding. You cant build a new Iraqi government without the necessary funding, but once the new government is in place, Iraq will maintain control of its own resources.
You made this statement:
"UN can vote, and voted against US."
Irrelevent. The UN is not a sovereign power, nor is the US beholden to what the UN dictates. The UN has been an anti-US organization for some time now. No one, who places Libya on the human rights commission, or iraq on the commission for ensuring the containment of weapons of mass destruction, should be taken seriously. No organization that calls for a world-wide income tax (which would affect primarily US citizens), globalized funding for abortion on demand, and treaties that endanger the infrastructure of the US under the guise of environmental protection, should be taken seriously. However, the bottom line is, when it comes to determining the necessity of protecting the US and its citizens, the UN has no authority, nor will it ever. Your premise is moot.
"Even the Pope speaks against US."
Again, this is irrelevent. The popes comments regarding the war are his own private opinion. Catholics are not bound to agree with the Popes private judgment. The Pope also has no sovereign authority over the US. So, once again, your point is moot.