A Political Rant

Okay, more of a question. I like to throw out some political stuff every now and then because I figure by doing so I can:
1) Learn more humility by revealing my inability to discuss such matters
2) Get some feedback from others to see where my thinking is off
3) Hopefully get at some essential issue to theology and its place in this matter
4) Learn more humility

I was listening to Anderson Cooper tonight as he interviewed a Republican from Georgia (not very articulate, but passionate) and Kucinich from Ohio. Kucinich made a pretty good point in the fact that Iraq made no attack on the United States. Therefore, according to international law, the USA should not have initiated war with Iraq.

With that said, my question has to do with the fact that don’t we (as an able-bodied people) have some obligation to right wrongs in other countries. That is, it is a known fact that Saddam Hussein was tyrannical and torturous to his own people. A horrible dictator. It reminds me of Nazi Germany in many ways. They were exterminating people within their own political boundaries. World governments were criticized for not doing something earlier than they had.

Does this not fit the same mold? Some may say: Why not go after North Korea? Why not a number of other countries? The United States just wants oil?

First, the third question delves into the area of motives. Who are you to judge a man’s motives. You have to deal with what is actually done and said. It is thin rationale, indeed, to say that you “know” that the reason for x is based on someone’s motive (when that has not been stated…ever). Second, who is to say that other countries will not be held accountable by the other world governments. Third, granted, I do not like the fact that the troops in the Middle East are predominantly from the USA. But does the fact that a few countries are pushing this ahead preclude the necessity of those with the means to do something about it?

Comments 6

  1. At the risk of simply stating a party line answer, it is noteable that we did not in fact declair war on Iraq, but on Terrorist cells in Iraq. Based on this distinction, this war is in fact self-defense

  2. That distinction is helpful. Is there a problem with saying that it is against terrorism generically? I mean, if that is the case, does that not give any country license to go after any group they believe is a terrorist group? After all, it was a specific group (al-Qaida) that had attacked us. Thoughts??

  3. Based on this logic, shouldn’t we declare war on Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? If just war is being expanded to individual terrorist cells, have we just given ourselves carte blanche to declare war anywhere that there are terrorist groups and then invade that country? Is it just me or is there something slippery on this slope?

  4. Well, in a way, oil does drive much of the reasons behind the decision to invade Iraq. That isn’t a bad thing. The US isn’t out to steal as much oil as we can; rather we are out to make sure that the world’s oil reserves aren’t concentrated in the hands of America’s enemies. Hussein had rattled the sabre in the past, and after the invasion of Kuwait, could easily have conquered defenseless Saudi Arabia. That would have put him in control of half the world’s oil, and the defense of our country depends on our ability to have plentiful energy. North Korea controls the worthless half of a peninsula, and is no threat to its neighbors. Iraq under Hussein was playing cat-and-mouse with IAEA inspectors and it is certain that Hussein thought he had an active WMD program, regarless of the reality on the ground.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *