5: UnBiblical, UnConstitutional War in Iraq

[TheGeneral]

Program five is devoted to several aspects of the war in Iraq: Is it a Godly, Biblical war? Is it Constitutional? We also discuss: women in the military; the lying attempt to link Iraq to the events of 9/11/01; why "terrorism" is a tactic and not something to make "war" against; how $793 million worth of your hard-earned tax dollars will go to pay for healthcare for all Iraqis; how Dr. James Dobson is wrong in his support of this war; and much more.

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=274

[CR Lewis]

Fellow Americans,

It saddens me that, while I agree with the Constitution Party (and disagree with the other two) on every issue but our right to defend ourselves from terrorists, I cannot support your movement because of the stand you take on that one crucial subject.

Sadder still, I cannot support the Republicans on it either, because I am convinced these traitors fell on their collective faces (again) on purpose in Iraq, in order to strengthen the UN's position against us.

Nonetheless, the position you take that it's wrong to defend ourselves from the nations that have attacked us (read The Third Terrorist, by Jayna Davis, a book the Bush Administration does not want you to read, and find out about Iraq's role in Ok City - or just consider the continuous attacks on our planes in the no-fly zone - both very valid justifications for invasion that the Bu****es ignore because - UN-based traitors that they are - they don't want it to appear really justified) makes its impossible for me to support an organization that I'd otherwise be delighted to support.

Doesn't it bother you at least a little that you find yourselves (most recently) applauding Phil Donahue and his customary America-hating rhetoric?

I could not live with myself if I joined in this evil chorus. I'd consider myself a traitor to my country. It grieves me that your Party has turned away 180 degrees from the pro-American stances of Howard Phillips.

Charles Lewis
Christian Exodus member

[TimV]

Hmmm. Within the time of about one 24 hour period, on this site we get Russian hurricane machines causing Katrina, the Catholic Church secretly knowing that Baal is the God praised in some of the Psalms and now proof that Iraq attacked us offered by an Ann Coulter wannabee who's evidence even she describes in these terms "Although there is no dead-bang connection to the nation of Iraq for sponsorship....".

Nonetheless, the position you take that it's wrong to defend ourselves from the nations that have attacked us (read The Third Terrorist, by Jayna Davis, a book the Bush Administration does not want you to read, and find out about Iraq's role in Ok City

Come on, guys. How are we going to be taken seriously? I have an idea. Let's discuss the Christian Theory of Just War, and apply it to Iraq.

[CR Lewis]

I thought that Christian constitutionalists would be pro-American, not fast to use phrases like, "take what was not ours." We didn't take anything - witness $3+ at the gas pumps.

We would have been very justified (and the Iraqi people still well served) if we'd taken half of the oil and reduced our dependence on terrorist states in the middle east and on communist Venezuela.

Or is butcher Hugo Chavez - like Phil Donahue - suddenly okay?

I wish there were a pro-American alternative to the Consitution Party, but, tragically, there is not - not comparable to the Party under Phillips.

I do ask that you read The Third Terrorist and then ask yourself why this administration - supposedly so gung-ho on trumping up evidence to support the invasion - has vigorously suppressed this info.

And ask yourself about all the apparent WMD finds in the early part of the invasion - all, strikingly, pooh-poohed (and then, supposedly, debunked) by the very administration which folks claim wanted to fool us into believing there WERE such WMDs - until the admin announced that no more first tests would be reported.

It appears there were plenty of WMDs and we covered them up. Think about it. Had we found, and then revealed, them, the UN (and Blix and El Baradei, and company) would have been blown out of the water for having told us they didn't exist. Instead, the apparent absence of them has put us in a UN death grip.

The answer is to question the veracity of the administration - which, as all constitutionalist knows - shills for the left all the time. The answer is not to start sounding like a bunch of Howard Deans, Noam Chomskys, Jimmy Carters, Al Gores, Al Frankens, Michael Moores, and Phil Donahues in a misguided movement to criticize the administration from the angle of the enemy.

What is lacking here is discernment.

[TimV]

What is lacking here is discernment.

That is true, and it takes the form of a conspiracy nut using guilt by association, which is the intellectual equivalent of picking your nose in public. It goes like this:

Phil Donahue is a liberal
Phil Donahue is against the war on Iraq
The Constitution Party is against the war on Iraq
Therefore the Constitution Party is Phil Donahue

[exmarine]

Fellow Americans,


Nonetheless, the position you take that it's wrong to defend ourselves from the nations that have attacked us (read The Third Terrorist, by Jayna Davis, a book the Bush Administration does not want you to read, and find out about Iraq's role in Ok City - or just consider the continuous attacks on our planes in the no-fly zone - both very valid justifications for invasion that the Bu****es ignore because - UN-based traitors that they are - they don't want it to appear really justified) makes its impossible for me to support an organization that I'd otherwise be delighted to support.

Mr. Lewis-
It seems to me that you mis-characterize the positions of the CP. I do not believe that the Constitution party believes it's "wrong to defend ourselves." What is your reference or quote for that statement?

Secondly, how is it that you equate fighting in Iraq with defending ourselves? Bush himself said the reason we are in Iraq is to "spread freedom." How does keeping our troops in Iraq interminably (to spread democracy) help us to DEFEND ourselves? Don't you think terrorists can chew gum and walk at the same time (fight in Iraq and send terrorists across our open borders)? While we are on the subject, how does a democracy in Iraq stop terrorism? I have yet to hear how that strategy is supposed to play out. I don't think it does.

When speaking of defense, the biggest priority is protecting the Homeland. Do you see any homeland defense? Any civil defense programs against nuke attack? Do you see the borders under control? Self-defense begins at Home and I know the CP supports that.

[DixieCol]

I have to agree with Ex-Marine's statement, "...how is it that you equate fighting in Iraq with defending ourselves?". It seems to me the logical action following the September 11, attack (since that was the first of many Islamist attacks against us that was considered "an act of war") would have been to secure our borders and other points of entry (airports, train stations, etc.), and then begin a comprehensive intelligence gathering and rounding up of "enemy" cells and agents within the U.S..

While that was going on, we could have done our little dance at the U.N., and prepared to take whatever foreign action we were going to adopt. I certainly cannot understand why, on the one hand, our President says we are "at war", and then he fails to take any definitive measures to prevent the "enemy" from infiltrating our national boundaries. It seems to me that John Wayne would first kill all the Indians INSIDE Fort Apache before he would send out the cavalry to subdue the rest of the tribe!

I must admit that I "swallowed the bait hook, line, and sinker" when we citizens were told that British intelligence provided the U.S. with reliable information that Iraq possessed WMDs, and was continuing to build their WMD stockpile, moving toward completion of nuclear weapons, and that Hussein was going to supply Bin Laden with WMDs. I knew that Hussein was crazy enough, and cocky enough, to offer support and protection for the Islamists, but I was unsure what made him any more of a threat than Iran and other rogue states.

Initially I supported the attack on Iraq, but that may also have something to do with my 28 year association with the U.S. military. The thing of it is, I have been unable to abide the idea of committing our troops to warfare without a declaration of war by the Congress. Ever since World War II, it seems that the Feds are totally disinterested in following the procedures set forth in the Constitution for involving our armed forces in international warfare. We got into the Korean War without a declaration of war, we got into Viet Nam without a declaration of war, and we got into all the little piddly wars in Grenada, Panama, Kosovo, etc., etc. without a declaration of war. Unless I am missing something, there is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to delegate a declaration of war to the President, such as they have done with the War Powers Act or the Tonkin Resolution.

It is for this reason that I believe the war in Iraq--among many other American wars--is an unconstitutional war. It is not a question of whether it is the right or wrong thing to do under the circumstances, the question is whether or not we are "following the rules" under which our nation is supposed to be operating. All of us who have been associated over the years with U.S. military service have taken an oath "....to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance thereto." We did not take an oath to support and defend the Congress, or the President, or the Republican Party--we took an oath to support and defend THE CONSTITUTION. If our own government does not attempt to follow the Constitution, then why are we following our government "up the wrong road"?

We strict Constitutional conservatives are at a wye in the road very similar to the one reached by the sovereign States of these united States back in 1861. The South decided to part ways with the North in an effort to avoid Northern attempts to consolidate the national government into an all-powerful leviathan. The Constitution lost that battle in 1865, and it isn't faring well today either.

[TimV]

Good post from DixieCol.

[antifederalist]

I thought that Christian constitutionalists would be pro-American ...
You speak as if "Christian" and "American" are synonymous. I won't pretend to speak for others on this forum, but I am a Christian first--and I have often found that American policies are in conflict with biblical principles.

[Jaime]

Amen, DixieCol and Antifederalist. Amen.

[Will]

What do the islamic terrorists want??? Why not listen to them??? They say that what they want is us out of the middle east. I say, "Give it to them." Let's bring all our troops home from the middle east and, while we're at it, bring our troops home from the rest of the world??? Then if they come over here and attack us we will be perfectly justified in going over there and using our might to destroy them. As it stands, we have no right going around the world and making other countries live by our standards. If they live under an Islamic theocracy it is not our business to change it. I find a certain amount of justification for what they did on 911/2001. We shouldn't have an army in their lands. We were over there before they came over here and attacked us.

[Will]

What do the islamic terrorists want??? Why not listen to them??? They say that what they want is us out of the middle east. I say, "Give it to them." Let's bring all our troops home from the middle east and, while we're at it, bring our troops home from the rest of the world??? Then if they come over here and attack us we will be perfectly justified in going over there and using our might to destroy them. As it stands, we have no right going around the world and making other countries live by our standards. If they live under an Islamic theocracy it is not our business to change it. I find a certain amount of justification for what they did on 911/2001. We shouldn't have an army in their lands. We were over there before they came over here and attacked us.

[antifederalist]

We shouldn't have an army in their lands. We were over there before they came over here and attacked us.Exactly. They hate us because of what we do, not who we are. The argument that Islamic terrorists attack us simply because we stand for freedom is a lie perpetuated by the Bush administration and its supporters.

[Will]

Antifederalist:

It is good to see that there are others like me who don't believe that we should be trying to police the world.

Good quote from General Robert E. Lee. The south could have continued the fight against the north and maybe even won but Lee saw the toll it was taking on both sides and surrendered. Those were the blackest days in the history of this country. Although I was born and raised in the north, the south prooved by ending the carnage that it held the moral high ground.

[exmarine]

Exactly. They hate us because of what we do, not who we are. The argument that Islamic terrorists attack us simply because we stand for freedom is a lie perpetuated by the Bush administration and its supporters.

I do not believe that is entirely the case. I believe the clash with Islam was inevitable because radical islam is totalitarian in nature, and it is driven by religious motivation. Islamists' hate stems from their religious motiviations and islamic worldivew. It is spiritual at its core. Islamists were attacking people and countries long before the USA had troops in the middle east. They have been trying to destroy Israel since 1948, and they have started wars in numerous locales around the world - Sudan (25 year war against Christians and animists in the south); Algeria, Nigeria, Kashmir, Indonesia, Philippines, Chechnya, Kosovo (a war in which the USA stupidly and wrongly sided with muslim radicals who are now systematically destroying churches in Kosovo), and we see that they even kill each other as is evident in age-old the Sunni vs. Shia struggle. They are now starting to cause problems in Europe. That's the pattern. Muslims settle in a non-muslim area, and when their numbers grow large enough, they start killing people. Islam is simply totalitarian in its nature. It is a satanic religion of hatred.

We can avoid foreign entanglements, but in an age of the internet and high speed travel and business, isolationism is not possible.

[antifederalist]

I believe the clash with Islam was inevitable because radical islam is totalitarian in nature, and it is driven by religious motivation.
I personally believe that the truly radical Muslims--those who wish to either convert or kill the rest of the world--are fewer in number than our leaders would have us believe. In that respect, we were much better off leaving Saddam in power. His secular Muslim government may have been brutal, but it kept violent Islamic terrorism in check.

Now, radical Islam is trying to fill the vaccuum we created in Iraq. And our actions are serving to boost the opposition's numbers. One could argue that our invasion of Iraq was radical Islam's most successful recruiting campaign.