Should Christians always oppose war?

By "legitimate," I think we are obligated to use the standards articulated in the Declaration of Independence in assessing a regime's legitimacy. By this standard, Saddam falls well short of legitimate.

As to our support for Saddam in the early 1980s, it's frequently been said that the "enemy of our enemy is our friend." Back then, Saddam didn't seem to be the fiend he's turned out to be. But we also supported Iraq as a way to "balance" the Iranian regime. 9/11 seems to have changed a lot of conventional wisdom in regard to diplomatic strategy. Now, "balance" and "stability" are synonomous with "status quo." Why should the US as the leader of the free world decide to accept the "status quo," either in the Middle East, or anywhere else? "Status quo" means more killings, terrorism, more opporession in the Middle East. Saddam encourages and sponsors Palestinian terrorism, which is the greatest destablizing factor in the world.

For those Hollywood and garden variety leftists types who do not think we should take out Saddam, I have to ask, "Why not? What is it about Saddam you particularly like?" The old arguments don't work any more.

"Back then, Saddam didn't seem to be the fiend he's turned out to be."

Not so. The U.S. government knew exactly what Saddam was doing and what kind of weapons he was using against Iran. It wasn't until the late '80s that we officially condemned his use of chemical weapons.

"Now, 'balance' and 'stability' are synonomous with 'status quo.' Why should the US as the leader of the free world decide to accept the 'status quo,' either in the Middle East, or anywhere else?"

From a constitutional standpoint, the U.S. should not be considered the "leader of the free world." Perhaps that term should be further defined. The federal government exists for one purpose and one purpose only: to defend the rights of the people of the United States. "Leader of the free world" seems to suggest the role of global policeman, dabbling in areas where we clearly don't belong (e.g., Bosnia).

The balance and stability of the U.S.--not to mention the world--has on many occasions been disrupted by the notion that we should take on a more global role. World War I is the perfect example of how that disruption can directly lead to even greater and more deadly consequences. Case in point, World War II.

"Saddam encourages and sponsors Palestinian terrorism, which is the greatest destablizing factor in the world."

Even if Saddam does sponsor Palestinian terrorism, one could make the argument that allowing nations like North Korea to continue to develop and test nuclear missiles is a much greater factor in the destabilization of the world.

The biggest issue I have with Bush's war on Iraq is this: it will do NOTHING to prevent the kind of terrorist attacks we saw on 9/11. However, the attacks of 9/11 are exactly why most conservatives are calling for war.

Here are the two main reasons cited for taking out Saddam:

Saddam is developing weapons of mass destruction and may soon have the capability to hit the U.S. with a nuclear/chemical/biological weapon.
Saddam is linked to terrorist organizations that have launched or will launch attacks on the U.S.

Here are the problems with those reasons:

Saddam is not a suicidal Islamic fundamentalist. He knows that any attempt to launch a WMD at the U.S. would result in his own immediate destruction. He may be evil, but he isn't stupid.
Terrorist groups like al-Qaida exist all over the world. Taking out Iraq will no more eliminate the threat they pose than if we attacked Iceland.

We will most likely see an increase in terrorist activity if we attack Iraq. Terrorist groups will most certainly use it as an excuse to step up their holy war against the "Great Satan," whether they have any official ties to Hussein or not.

If the federal government really wanted to protect the American people from terrorist attacks, then it would take some real steps toward guarding our borders and repeal the unconstitutional gun laws that only serve to keep law-abiding citizens unarmed and defenseless. I will continue to stand by my belief that one or two armed passengers could have prevented the 9/11 hijackings.

We should be very careful about hanging all our hopes on what our government does on foreign soil. My fear is that a victory in the Middle East might just lull us into a false sense of security.

I don't think that we deserved 9/11. The terrorists are completely responsible for their actions. I do, however, think that it is foolish and short-sighted to think that the direction our foreign policy has taken the last few decades hasn't created more enemies than we otherwise would have.

It's kind of like walking down a dark, deserted street at midnight and getting mugged. You know that you may have been able to avoid the mugger had you chosen a different path, but that does not make the mugger any less guilty of his crime. Learning from such an experience, a normal person would either avoid dark streets in the future, or at least make sure he was able to protect himself from another mugger. I don't see our government learning that lesson.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.