[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Full Disclosure:

I am a Christian, and a Libertarian. As the War Fervor grew last year, I never supported the War against Iraq.

• Foreign Dictatorship and Foreign Evildoings against a Dictator's own people do not, in the Augustinian religious tradition, constitute a Casus Belli justification for War. If they did, we'd be morally-bound to invade Red China.
• Foreign Possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (if any existed, which apparently they don't) does not, in the Augustinian religious tradition, constitute a Casus Belli justification for War either. If it did, we'd be morally-bound to invade Red China... and maybe Russia... and for that matter, maybe France.

For the longest time, I never supported the War against Iraq... until I read of the "Salman Pak" Terrorist Training Camp south of Baghdad. "Muslim fundamentalist recruits from throughout the Arab world were taught to hijack planes using small knives."

• Foreign Dictatorship, Oppression of Foreigners in Foreign Lands, Possession of WMD... none of these are a "Casus Belli" under Christian "Just War" theory. None of them. But a Mass-Casualty 9/11 Terrorist Attack against one's own Country? Now THAT'S a Casus Belli.

A strongly-circumstantial, and potentially-concrete, "Just War" Casus Belli existed on the basis of "Salman Pak" ALONE. And apparently, Bush's advisors have basically put this on the hindmost of back-burners, and essentially forgotten it. It's all about the WMDs... and there ARE NO WMDs.

Considering that this was the only direct link to 9/11 which could justify the War in my own mind, I do confess some personal disappointment that this has been shoved under the carpet.

Moreover, I consider it to be an abject Political Disappointment... "Bush should fire the officials whose advice to ignore the Salman Pak connection could conceivably cost him his re-election next year."

(/End of Rant)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

A strongly-circumstantial, and potentially-concrete, "Just War" Casus Belli existed on the basis of "Salman Pak" ALONE. And apparently, Bush's advisors have basically put this on the hindmost of back-burners, and essentially forgotten it. It's all about the WMDs... and there ARE NO WMDs. I consider this to be an abject Political Disappointment... "Bush should fire the officials whose advice to ignore the Salman Pak connection could conceivably cost him his re-election next year."

This article sums up my feelings on the matter quite accurately.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

A strongly-circumstantial, and potentially-concrete, "Just War" Casus Belli existed on the basis of "Salman Pak" ALONE. And apparently, Bush's advisors have basically put this on the hindmost of back-burners, and essentially forgotten it. It's all about the WMDs... and there ARE NO WMDs. I consider this to be an abject Political Disappointment... "Bush should fire the officials whose advice to ignore the Salman Pak connection could conceivably cost him his re-election next year."

This article sums up my feelings on the matter quite accurately.

[CyberAnt]

Hmmmm? I see we have another of the usual "hit" pieces on the Bush admin from NewsMax.

[AAABEST]

This is what I pray:

If GWB really felt that he was doing right by God and was honest in his actions, then I hope he's not being unfairly maligned. Although mistakes of such magnitude are unacceptable, at least it can be called a blunder.

If however, he had an agenda and was anything less than 100% honest in regard to such grave matters, I hope he's impeached and then burns in hell where he belongs.

[MJY1288]

What proof do you have besides they havn't been found yet, that the WMD's DO NOT EXIST?

My goodness you sound like a liberal

[HiTech RedNeck]

This was not a question of WMD in the hands of a mere "enemy." This was a question of WMD in the hands of a madman. You don't wait for the rabid dog to approach somebody to bite before shooting it.

[boris]

This entire debate is sterile. The events of 9/11/01 form sufficient cause to nuke every terrorist nation into dust; indeed that is what we should have done on 9/12/01.

If there is a crime, it is dereliction of duty to protect the citizens of the United States by eliminating the clear and present danger posed by those nations.

--Boris

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Instead of relying on evidence that would have dispelled all doubts about making war on Iraq, the as-yet-unidentified presidential adviser counseled Bush to hinge his Iraq war rationale on the threat of weapons of mass destruction, evidence that - so far, at least - has yet to materialize.

i quite agree that the posession of WMD does not constitute Causus Beli. Were this the case, the rest of the world would be quite justified in attacking the United States as well as other such nations that posess them. That said, it was the motive given by the Administration. The American People should have...right motives or no...seen the evidence of the WMD. They should have had a chance to see what American boys (and at least one woman) were going to be sent to die for.

The Administration claimed to have the evidence, i am still irritated that it was not presented. Reasons have been given for this action, and i am afraid that they do not stand up to the test.

1) WE CANNOT COMPROMISE INTELLIGENCE SOURCES INSIDE IRAQ:

i contend that the life of one Iraqi intelligence source and/or his/her family does not equal the value of the lives of 169 American Soldiers and Marines to the American people. This is especially true in a regime that would Cease to exist shortly after commencement of hostilities.

2) THIS EVIDENCE MUST BE PRESENTED TO THE UN:

So then, the United Nations over rides the legitimate concerns of the United States? The United Nations has access to information gathered by US and allied intelligence services that the American People cannot have? What is wrong with that picture?

3) THE PRESENTATION OF THE EVIDENCE MUST BE TIMED SO AS TO HAVE MAXIMUM POLITICAL EFFECT AGAINST THE ENEMIES OF THE ADMINISTRATION:

So, once again, Political expediency is placed at a greater premium than the lives of American Forces? This smacks of the same motives that lead Churchill to sacrifice a perfectly good Highlands Division, in a vain attempt to keep France in the war in 1940. It smacks of the same motives that prevented an all out effort to end the Korean situation, leading us to the problems we have today in that region. It smacks of the same motives that handcuffed the American effort in Vietnam, with an American President involved in the minutia of determining bomb loads and targets for political effect. While i firmly support civillian control of the military, i do not approve of political control of the military. The Military is to be used as a result of failed political policy, not as an instrument of political policy.

My Majour concern is that this appears to be a repetition of the Tonkin Gulf Situation, which history has proven to be a fraud. i rather hope that the events of the Iraq situation do not turn out to be as disasterous for GWB as they did for LBJ in the previous generation. If they do, i believe that history will show that we have again reaped what we have sown.

[Sparta]

BTTT

[CCWoody]

Here, Bob, for your reading.

[js1138]

I always assumed the possibility we would have trouble finding WMDs. I must have posted my fears a dozen times in the weeks leading up to the war. I never had any doubts about the need for the war, and neither do most Americans.

There is an intuitive understanding that a mass murderer, once out from under the thumb of U.N. inspections, will spend the rest of his days making trouble for the U.S. It takes no great brainpower to see that Saddam would have the means and the motive to support terrorism against Israel directly, and against the U.S. indirectly. Fortunately, 60% of Americans agree with me.

Anyway, genocide was the reason for bombing Serbia and we haven't in five years found nearly the number of mass graves we have found in Iraq in five weeks.