Editorial by Jimmy Carter in NY Times

[wmw999 2,589]

This was also good. And scary.

Why am I posting these long articles? Just wanting to add a little meat.

I'm sure there are people who disagree with Jimmy Carter. But read the words, not just who wrote them. That doesn't mean you'll agree with them, but it's better than just rejecting it outright.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Just War - or a Just War?"
By JIMMY CARTER

TLANTA - 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, is a violation of these premises.

As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked 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.

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

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. 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 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.

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

Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.

The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent. 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 and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority. Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.

The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. 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. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.

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. 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.

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,

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

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.

This is something we all could agree on. We've got all this "persuasion" poised at the borders. Now is the time to let it work.

On a side note, I was in a bar last night talking to some guy there. I expressed my disappointment with our country's policy re. trying to push for war as soon as possible. And he said "Oh, then you must be a Democrat."

I've talked to my father about this. And he points out how the Republicans used to be. The Republicans used to complain that the Democrats were the "war party". After all, it was Democrat presidents who got us into WWI, WWII, Korea, AND Vietnam. Hell, it was Truman that dropped the Bomb on Japan. Now granted, we had military advisors in Vietnam under Eisenhower, but we didn't scale up our involvment until the Kennedy administration.

My Dad is a Democrat & was a reporter & is old enough to remember this time. He has a lot of right-wing friends, and often asks them "Whatever happened to Republican isolationism?"

The only old-school Republican isolationist that I see now is Pat Buchanan, of all people. It used to be that Republicans would stand against spending the American taxpayer's money for ill-advised wars that don't directly involve our interests. The Republicans used to say, "If it doesn't involve us, we should not get involved!" The Republicans used to RESIST U.S. involvment in foreign wars.


And don't try to shovel me this "Iraq may have been backing the 9/11 attacks" crapola. Even Dubya is now toning down that line, now that it's become clear that most people aren't buying it. What are they saying, that Saddam's contribution was to go to the hardware store & spring for some box cutters??

In Bush's last speech he started saying re. Iraq that they "would like to back Al Quaeda - like organizations" for attacks against us. Get out your shovels and hip-waders, folks.


But fuck it, Dubya has pushed things so far now, we may already be past the point of no return.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 3,120]

>And he points out how the Republicans used to be.

Yep. They also used to be the party pushing for smaller, less intrusive government, with much of the governing left up to the states. Nowadays it's the democrats who are saying "whoah! Let's not spend all that money until we figure out how we can pay it back."

Of course, in 1860, the republicans were fighting for the end of slavery and the democrats were the laissez-faire, leave-big-industry-alone party. They were also staunchly anti-immigrant. Things change. With the Bush administration we are seeing the start of another change - the big government, interventionist version of the GOP. Look for the democrats to pick up the slack and lobby for a leaner, more efficient government, fiscal responsibility and an end to government waste.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

...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.

I'm not sure I agree with President Carter here.
He is correct that the use of presence and threat may enhance our image in some places--mostly the fairly nice, civilized ones where our friends live.
I am not convinced that backing down at this point will enhance our status with some of the less than friendly folks in the world. I can't help but wonder what the strategists in Pyongyang are thinking, as they watch. Remember, these are the guys who test fire missiles during inauguration ceremonies, to demonstrate their strength and defiance.
Backing down will only encourage trouble in other places.
Being nice is all well and good. But there are places in the world (and quite a few of them), where "nice" will always be interpreted as "weak". Being seen as weak in those places is an open invitation to more attacks--not less.
From where we are now (I wish we weren't here, but we are), I think the lowest cost to America, in the long term, will be had by pressing forward. I actually also think that this will be the best thing for international peace and stability, in the long run.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Look for the democrats to pick up the slack and lobby for a leaner, more efficient government, fiscal responsibility and an end to government waste.

We can always hope. But until I actually see that, I think I'll continue voting Libertarian.
My trust in both the Democrats and the Republicans is pretty much non-existent. It seems to me they're both headed in the wrong (i.e. Statism is the solution to all problems) direction.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,120]

>I am not convinced that backing down at this point will enhance
>our status with some of the less than friendly folks in the world.

I would not call disarming Hussein backing down. We said what we wanted and we got it. The message that sends is "you can't evade the UN." Although I agree that the use of force is most likely going to be required, the important issue is disarmament, not showing that we can beat up smaller countries. Everyone in the world already knows we can do that; we do it regularly.

> I can't help but wonder what the strategists in Pyongyang are
>thinking, as they watch.

Betcha dollars to donuts they're thinking "if we can get our nuclear weapons and ICBM's working in time, the US won't pull a preemptive invasion on us, too." Hence the frantic pace on weapons design and testing.

[skychic68 0]

I love Carter. He is so diplomatic and gracious. I think that if anyone could maintain talks with Hussein and try to come to a peaceful resolution with him, it would be Carter.

Let's put him back in the presidency

Que sera sera