Replies

I've been lurking for over a year, but Jimmah put me over the edge! I had to register and post this!

Here's my rebuttal to Jimmah, (My comments in parentheses).

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
NY Slimes
Just War — or a Just War?
(What a title! --- or What? A title?)

By JIMMY CARTER
March 9 2003

ATLANTA — Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support

(aside from the over 30 nations offering support),
is a violation of these premises.

As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked

(make that thoroughly humiliated and discredited)

by international crises , I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.
(this is the blame Israel and blame the US for being their ally gambit).

For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.

(He never cites his source for these, did he make them up, or adapt and collect them from various sources?)

The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist.

(What? Another 12 years of Iraqi stalling and non-compliance? Maybe we should just wait for Saddam to die, but then we'd have to deal with his psychopathic sons!)

These options — previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations — were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened

(you may consider possible transfer of chem/bio weapons to terrorists indirect, but it doesn't make the results less threatening)

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. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.

(This is the most outrageous statement of the article. A former President of the US takes as gospel truth one of the many leaked "war plans", then twists it to say our target is the civilian population of Iraq. Is he that stupid, or is this deliberate and malicious deception? The "Shock and Awe" plan to which he refers, said that the target is Saddam's security and command forces, even his "cannon fodder" regular army will be allowed to surrender. They're trying to already!)

The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants.

(Sorry Jimmy, no one on earth has weapons that can discriminate between military and civilian targets, that takes people. Was this sloppy writing, sloppy logic, was he rushed or is this his natural state of mind?)

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

( A US military analyst recently said that a military asset would have to be extremely important for us to target if it was right next to a hospital mosque or other civilian building. He also noted that for most military assets (tanks, planes missiles), hiding or parking them in such a way would render them unusable.)

Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered.

(Even if it is insufficient to achive our objective, i.e. Saddam disarmed? Using this logic, most wars would end in a long and bloody stalemate! This directly contradicts the Powell "overwhelming force" doctrine. Was our violence against Germany and Japan proportional to the injuries we suffered from them?)

Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.

(Another perhaps deliberate misinterpretation of the administration's position. From the very beginning, President Bush has stated that this war on terrorism is not just against Al Qaeda, or even all global terrorist networks, but also against the nations that support and harbor them. Many people asked why our government didn't connect the dots before 9/11 and do something, who cares that we didn't have conclusive proof. Now the same people are saying we can't attack Iraq, we don't have conclusive proof, you're just connecting dots!)

The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent.

(He goes on to cite the UN Security Council, but is that the society that President Bush professes to represent? I believe President Bush professes to represent the United State of America!)

The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change (snip, for blah blah blah)

The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists.

(What currently exists is the threat of a dictator with WMD who has used terrorists to do his dirty work in the past.)

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.

(And if we do nothing, Saddam will end his WMD programs and AL Qaeda and other terrorist groups will consider a truce with the US... NOT!!!)

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

(FINE BY ME!!!! After years of anti-Americanism,the UN needs to be discredited!)

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 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory.

(The sympathy and friendship after 9/11 was compassion for a victim. Once we stopped acting like a victim, the sympathy ended!)

American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all United Nations resolutions — with war as a final option — will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.

(What the...? So threat of force decried last year as sabre-rattling and bullying, is now a good thing!? Jimmah is just admitting the obvious: without the presence and threat of our military power, there would be no weapons inspectors in Iraq today. Jimmy says the threat of force is fine, as long as everyone knows that we don't really mean it! Can you say "paper tiger", how about "no credibility"?)

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta and winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.

GeorgiaYankee had the good sense to vote against Mr. Carter in 1980. He was joined by millions of Americans in a landslide that elected Ronald Reagan, who lifted the nation out of the Carter "malaise", restored America's ecomonic and military greatness and brought down the evil empire of the Soviet Union.

Only UN-Americans put the U.N. before the U.S.