Two years ago tonight, I delivered a speech to 400 students at St. John's University in Collegeville, Minnesota. Following my remarks, I learned that the campaign in Iraq had begun. I watched President Bush's speech from a Days Inn in rural Minnesota, and hoped with everyone else that the targeted bombs had hit an alleged meeting between Hussein and his top henchmen. They didn't, and nine months passed before Americans caught up to the Iraqi dictator.

"Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly--yet, our purpose is sure," President George W. Bush announced that night. "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities." The war's "purpose," removing the "weapons of mass murder" that threatened our nation, turned out to be based on a false premise.

The administration played the "Music Man" in selling the war. Officials advertised stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, Hussein's pursuit uranium from Niger in the work-up to conflict, and Iraqi "connections" to 9/11. When the Music Man sales pitch fell apart, the White House went into Obi-Wan Kenobi mode. "These are not the droids you are looking for," administration figures intoned. The war wasn't about WMD. It was really about spreading democracy, Hussein's abuse of the UN's Oil for Food program, and cleverly drawing terrorists into an Iraq-sized mousetrap.

If winning a war were a justification for war, then we should invade every country on the face of the earth. What country, after all, could defeat us? But neither winning a war, nor making life better for foreigners satisfies the traditional litmus test: does the action promote the just interests of the United States? Iraq fails this test. There are many reasons why the war wasn't in the just interests of the United States. Here are a few:

1. The United States is not a means to some other country's end.
2. The Iraq war diverted men and resources from fighting al Qaeda to fighting a dictator who brutalized his own people but lacked the capability to do much else. Killing and capturing the perpetrators of 9/11 should play second fiddle to no venture.
3. President Bush's axis of evil has become more of an axis, if less evil, in bringing former enemies--Iraq and Iran--closer as a result of the war.
4. The central rationale for invading Iraq was a falsehood. The Bush administration, although not its fanatical backers, has admitted that U.S. intelligence was wrong about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The war has produced benefits--Saddam Hussein in jail, Iraqi elections--but the war was neither sold as an act of law enforcement, nor as a nation-building exercise. It was sold as a war to remove the threat of weapons of mass destruction posed to American cities. No weapons, no threat.
5. America has lost more than 1,500 of its best and brightest. Thousands more have been maimed.
6. America will have expended hundreds of billions of dollars on a country that Paul Wolfowitz explained would "finance its own reconstruction" and Ari Fleischer assured us would "shoulder much of the burden" for reconstruction. Aren't conservatives supposed to be against big-government--at home and abroad?
7. Despite dismissing Iraq war opponents as "isolationists," the war's proponents within the administration have isolated the United States from the world. Never in our history have we been more hated or had fewer friends than now. Who are the real isolationists?
8. By preempting a non-existent threat, the U.S. damaged its credibility. When a real threat emerges, the Iraq intelligence debacle may propel American lawmakers and foreign friends to see the situation through a boy-who-cried-wolf lens, thus impeding necessary action.
9. Estimates of Iraqi dead vary. Whether it's 16,000 or 100,000, the human toll of war (just like the human toll of not going to war) should be considered when evaluating the justice of a campaign.
10. Iraq creates a dangerous precedent. Up until this point, America's major foreign wars--the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Mexican American War, the Spanish American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam, and the Gulf War--all featured the U.S. spurred to war because of some act (real or perceived) of aggression by the enemy nation. Have we crossed the Rubicon?

What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War? I don't see much of one, other than the location of the theater. Both wars were waged in order to make the world safe for democracy; one against fascism, the other against communism.

War is a messy thing.
1.) Wouldn't al Qaeda have mustered all its resources in Afganistan had we only invaded them. It seems that by going to Iraq we have accomplished two important missions. Democracy in Iraq may or may not work but the hope has changed the dynamic. Our first mission is national security.

2.)Saddam was subsidizing terror against Israel and with Oil for Food, Saddam was flush with cash. Money is easy to send around the world. He is not fond of the U.S.

3.) Hatred of the U.S. is common ground in Islamic countries. It goes much deeper than our invasion of Iraq. You can blame our support for Israel for only so much.

4.) Stating that there were no weapons of mass destruction even with all that has been printed may still be premature. Are weapons strapped around an individual and detonated in a night spot or at a wedding - killing masses - a weapon of mass destruction? What about individuals flying airplanes? The U.S. is killing weapons of mass destruction every day. Saying that by killing individuals who want to kill us only creates more people who want to kill us is a meaningless statement.

5.) Counting dead and maimed bodies trivializes their sacrifice when the Iraqi war is portrayed as a bad move by bad people for bad motives.

6.)The fact that wars cost money and are unpredictable is not up for debate. Many people probably felt the same way about WW1,2, Korean, Viet Nam.

7.) The hatred of the U.S. has been orchestrated by those who would be happy with our demise. Islamists consider us Satan - that will not change - and much of the rest of the world don't think we are socialistic enough. Doing the right thing sometimes will isolate you.

8.) There is no good evidence that we have damaged our image - whatever that means. The U.S. has always done what is the right thing to do. There is a righteous, collective motive.

9.) Someday we may be able to fight a war (or maybe wars will become obsolete) and only kill the perpetrators.

10.) Many scholars have been at odds over whether all those wars were justified - perceived or not. That seems to be the case no matter what you do. If this is a struggle for survival and since the jets flew into the buildings it would seem that it could be, then all options are on the table.

There are many advantages to democratizing Iraq, and the middle east in general.

-In invading Iraq, we have put ourselves in position to surround our main enemy in this fight, Iran, with friendly, democratic shield states.
-In invading Iraq, we have opened up a new oil market to compete with Iran's almost total domination of the European energy market, in the face of OPEC rapidly losing control of the oil market. Thus, we can now battle Iran financially instead of just militarily
-In democratizing the Middle East we create an environment where the common man has a voice and the money from oil goes into the pockets of the people instead of the corrupt government. This removes much of general dissastifaction that breeds terror.(For example, according to the latest polls, 63% of Iraqis are optimistic about their nation's future.)
-Our actions in the Middle East have done much to promote a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Such a resolution would remove almost all the credibility behind the radical, militant Islam that has risen in the Mideast since the '79 Iranian revolution.

In light of all this, I must humbly disagree with Mr. Flynn's view on this issue. Oh, and since I am sure this will be asked, no, I never belied there were WMDs in Iraq.

Just two quick points I wanted to raise.

"2. The Iraq war diverted men and resources from fighting al Qaeda to fighting a dictator who brutalized his own people but lacked the capability to do much else. Killing and capturing the perpetrators of 9/11 should play second fiddle to no venture."

The attacks of 9/11 are the culmination of a series of events that have been going on in the Middle East since 1979, and were triggered by the Islamic revolution in Iran. It is the Iranian mullahs that propegated militant Islam as the status quo in the middle east, replacing the decidedly secular Pan-Arab nationalism after it was defeated by Israel in the Suez war, the Yom Kippur war, and the Six Day War. Iran has been able to one up the USA at every turn since teh '79 revolution, and the Iranian ayatollah is the face, and the cause of, greater middle east Islamic militance. Osama Bin Laden is an extremely intelligent, and dangerous, rogue agent that must, I repeat, must, be captured and brought to justice. But the war we are fighting in the Middle East began in 1979, not 2001, and our ultimate enemy is Iran, not Al Qaeda.

"3. President Bush's axis of evil has become more of an axis, if less evil, in bringing former enemies--Iraq and Iran--closer as a result of the war."

This is simply opinion that hasn't been proven as of yet. The United Iraqi Alliance has stressed multiple times its willingness to work towards a democracy that respects the human rights of all, the UIA carried only 41% of the Iraqi vote, Iraq's national assembly is well divided among many parties. Coupled with the fact that the western world will play a major role in the writing of the Iraqi constitution and the growth of Iraqi democracy, and that the United Iraqi Alliance would face fierce oppisition from the Sunnis and Kurds of Iraq in attempting to make Iraq more like Iran, there just isn't enough evidence there to say that democratizing Iraq has brought it closer to Iran in any truly significant respect.

I don't take issue with any of the other points you raised, except of course I believe that the parts add up to a much different sum.

Yes, Saddam was subsidizing terror against Israel. But how was that our problem?

I provided multiple points for why Democratizing the Middle East benefits the United States of America. Where did I reference protecting Israel? The only time I mentioned Israel was when I referenced the Pan-Arab nationalist wars, and the purpose of that was to provide background on why Iran is a problem, not argue that protecting Israel is a reason for war with Iraq. I also talked about why a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would remove the credibility of Islamist militants that breed hatred and terror against Israel, and subsequently the United States.

Neither of those talking points says that the war in Iraq is justified by the protection of Israel. Throughout my argument I put the interests and the security of The United States, and the security of the American people, as my only priority.

Ben, I was referring to b holly's post.

2.)Saddam was subsidizing terror against Israel and with Oil for Food, Saddam was flush with cash. Money is easy to send around the world. He is not fond of the U.S.

Oh, I see. Since you did not provide a quote I simply assumed you would be referring to the post directly above your own. My mistake.

"Yes, Saddam was subsidizing terror against Israel. But how was that our problem?"

Some of the victims of Palestinian terrorism have been Americans. (I believe there is some more in-depth description here).

"Killing and capturing the perpetrators of 9/11 should play second fiddle to no venture."

The perpetrators killed themselves. However, not to take your point literally, we've killed and captured many al-Qaeda operatives.

"It was sold as a war to remove the threat of weapons of mass destruction posed to American cities."

Bush stated a few primary reasons for going to war. Two that I distinctly remember were the disarming of WMD and liberating the Iraqi people. This is an indisputable fact -- he said this on national television.

"5. America has lost more than 1,500 of its best and brightest."

Yes, and that's absolutely terrible. War is an awful thing, and those men and women are heroes. But in the context of history, this casualty level for such a venture is, to my knowledge, at an unprecedented low.

"6. America will have expended hundreds of billions of dollars on a country that Paul Wolfowitz explained would "finance its own reconstruction" and Ari Fleischer assured us would "shoulder much of the burden" for reconstruction."

Who's to say that they won't pay some debts back to us in the future, in one way or another?

"7. Despite dismissing Iraq war opponents as "isolationists," the war's proponents within the administration have isolated the United States from the world. Never in our history have we been more hated or had fewer friends than now. Who are the real isolationists?"

You are the real isolationists. I don't care whether Europeans like us or not. I care about doing what's right.

"Whether it's 16,000 or 100,000, the human toll of war (just like the human toll of not going to war) should be considered when evaluating the justice of a campaign."

Absolutely. Don't forget the hundreds of thousands of Americans who died fighting in World War II. Also: Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

"does the action promote the just interests on the United States? Iraq fails this test."

This is where you're fundamentally mistaken. But if Sharansky didn't convince you, I don't know what will.

I'm sure half of all Israelis are "Americans" and vote in our elections, but their deaths still don't qualify invading Iraq for me.

Nor did Mr Litchman imply that the protection of Israel justifies an invasion of Iraq. We have already provided our justification for the Iraq war, see my two posts above.

Thank you, Mr. T

Dan,

You can add to the injustice of the Iraq War the fact that it failed to pass any of the traditional guidelines of Christian just war theory (just cause, competent authority, competent authority, comparative justice, last resort, improbability of success, proportionality).

Brian,

How is the liberation of millions of human beings from a tyrannical regime not a "just cause"? You may not think it is a prudent move, but we're talking about morality here, since you brought up religion.

Ben L: "Just cause" in just war theory does not mean a "worthy goal," as it would in normal English (e.g., "recycling is a just cause").

Rather, it refers to an _event_ that makes the subsequent use of violence just. Thus "just cause" usually means an antecedent (or immanent) act of war.

Is that right, Brian?

I find it very convenient that, instead of arguing against the points raised in my posts above, which constitute our argument for the war in Iraq, you have instead chosen to construct convenient strawman. Totally ignoring any of the actual points raised, you are attempting to focus the discussion only on the protection of Israel, and the liberation of the Iraqi people. So instead of spouting some unrelated information about Christian Just War Theory, why don't we discuss the actual justification for the war?

"So instead of spouting some unrelated information about Christian Just War Theory, why don't we discuss the actual justification for the war?"

This is a remarkable question.

For Christians, there can be no discussion of the "actual justification for the war" without a discussion of Just War Theory as handed down by men like Aquinas and Augustine. A theory that, for believers, is ultimately grounded in the highest moral authority - Scripture and the words of Jesus Christ.

Ben-T,

As Travis Bickle would say, "You talkin' to me?" In your last comment above you write ". . . instead of spouting some unrelated information about Christian Just War Theory . . .," since I was the only one who mentioned JWT you must be talkin' to me. The problem, Ben-T, is that you seem to be having trouble in this thread determining when someone is talking to you. My comment was addressed to Dan (maybe that is why it begins "Dan,") not to you. I wasn't engaging you in argument at all just as Obi Juan was referring above to b holly's comments. When I want to argue with you I will make it clear that I am doing so.

Short,

I think you are correct and brilliant as usual but maybe leaving out a necessary point which Ben L is actually touching upon in his comment. To quote Augustine: "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly." The important point that neither Ben L's or your comments specify but that is essential to JWT is that a state must have been wronged (and seriously enough) by another in order to declare war on that other state.

Modern security treaties and other alliances make this facet of deciding to go to war more complex but, still, in the specific case at hand the freedom of Iraqi civilians was not a cause that justified war on Iraq by the U.S. At most such tyrrany *may* have justified revolution by Iraqis (civil war), it is not cause for a war of aggression from another state.

Of course this is why the freedom of Iraqis was never the declared justification for the war, Bush understood that rationale would constitute a prima facie unjust cause for war and instead tried to justify it in terms of actual (at least the claim was that they were actual) attacks and dangers visited upon us by Iraq.

"Of course this is why the freedom of Iraqis was never the declared justification for the war"

Incorrect, as I stated above. Here are some quotes from the link Dan himself provides. I'll underline everything to make it as clear as possible.

My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

...

And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.

We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.

...

We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.

I guess the underline HTML tag didn't work.

Ben L.,

The justification of a war doesn't take place when tanks are rolling into town, or even when an army is deployed. The argument over whether or not to go to war took place long before those quotes you cite and the freedom of the Iraqi people was not the ultimate justification as given to us. I already mentioned above that even if it were the real justification given that it still fails to justify a war with Iraq, it is an unjust cause from which to start a war with another nation.

Hey Short,
Isn't this attempt to obfuscate how the Iraq War was justified exactly a-nalogous to the neocon interpretation of the so-called American Civil War? It just occurred to me reading Ben L.'s claims how exactly the neocon misinterpretation of the Iraq War mirrors their misinterpretation of Lincoln's War. In both cases they attempt to perpetrate historical revisionism in order to hide the real motives for a war under a patina of idealism. "No sane and decent person can disagree that slavery is bad, no sane and decent person can disagree that tyranny is bad and that freedom as an alternative to both is good [which is of course quite true], therefore, you must be insane or indecent to oppose wars to end slavery or tyranny."

"Ben-T,

As Travis Bickle would say, "You talkin' to me?" In your last comment above you write ". . . instead of spouting some unrelated information about Christian Just War Theory . . .," since I was the only one who mentioned JWT you must be talkin' to me. The problem, Ben-T, is that you seem to be having trouble in this thread determining when someone is talking to you. My comment was addressed to Dan (maybe that is why it begins "Dan,") not to you. I wasn't engaging you in argument at all just as Obi Juan was referring above to b holly's comments. When I want to argue with you I will make it clear that I am doing so."

It was less a specific rebuke against you Brian, than a general rebuttal of what I find to be the very deliberate attempt of the anti-war side of this argument, to shift the focus of the argument from what our ACTUAL justification for the war is, to their own tailor made justification: Protect Israel and charitably free the Iraqi people. My post was not a specific response to any one person.

"the freedom of the Iraqi people was not the ultimate justification as given to us"

As I said numerous times, there was more than one justification. One of them -- WMD -- turned out to be based on false or misused intelligence. The others still stand.

"I already mentioned above that even if it were the real justification given that it still fails to justify a war with Iraq, it is an unjust cause from which to start a war with another nation."

That is based on your interpretation of the Christian "Just War" theory. I don't care about the Christian Just War theory. Common sense tells me that liberating people from tyranny is not unjust.

"they attempt to perpetrate historical revisionism"

You are a loon. No historical revisionism is taking place. Just as the freeing of slaves was not the sole purpose of the Civil War, it is clear that the freeing of Arabs was not the sole purpose of the Iraq war. Even if neither were the primary goals, they are, at least, outcomes that are so desirable as to outweigh the other motives.

Brian: 'patina' -- good word, never seen it before... I don't think there is a "real reason for the war." In general, I kind of agree with Ben L here (!): "the freeing of Arabs was not the sole purpose of the Iraq war."

I think that the admin and the neos had several insufficient motives for the war, but mixed together this heap seemed enough to them. They emphasized whatever motive was appropriate to their rhetorical situation at the time. Before the war, that meant emphasizing the WMD threat and some geographical proximity to our terrorist enemies. After the WMD case disintegrated, this meant emphasizing all the others goods that might come.

I think the heap-o-motives failed traditional just war standards beforehand anyway. The case is even worse now that we know they were no threat at all, and the hawks have shifted to emphatic benevolent imperialism talk. The war set a dangerous precedent anyway, but this neo-imperialism talk is even more dangerous in the long run than the war -- it might screw up our entire vision of our role in the world.

Short,

I don't disagree with you at all and to the extent that Ben is making the claim that there were a number of reasons, sure I agree with him too. That boils down to a question of the scope of players involved that we are considering in the decision process. Some people had one motive others had a different one. Causality, motivation, "reason," is always historically complex when dealing with an action of a government.

I do think, however, that it is fair to say that the justification for the war was most squarely placed on the issue of our national security being threatened by Saddam's WMD's and pursuit of nukes. For just one example, this was the case Colin Powell made to the UN, it is why he went along at all, and what he staked his reputation on.

Definitely the heap-o-motives (I like the phrase) always failed JWT, that was all I was adding to Dan's list of reasons the war was not in the nation's interest. My claim was just a means of summarizing his list.

As the Ben's ably demonstrate the neocons are completely incapable of sound moral reasoning (they are power-mad utilitarians), their claims of "moral clarity" are complete b.s. and they are a huge threat to the commune bonum.

"and they are a huge threat to the commune bonum."

lol You really are crazy.

Again Brian why is Christian Justified War Theory at all relevant? Common sense theory tells us that isolating Iran ( I dont't think I need to put any more emphasis on the fact that Iran is a more dangerous enemy than Osama Bin Laden could ever be on his own.) , opening up a new oil market to combat OPEC's continued loss of market control and Iran's domination of the European (and emerging Chinese) energy market, and promoting democracy throughout the middle east, for the very practicle reason that democratic governments don't breed terrorist attacks, are all perfectly justifiable reasons for war with Iraq.

As for comments such as this one:

"Before the war, that meant emphasizing the WMD threat and some geographical proximity to our terrorist enemies. After the WMD case disintegrated, this meant emphasizing all the others goods that might come."

-Short

Although I myself never subscribed to the theory that there was enough evidence of Iraqi WMD programs to justify war on that pretense, we must be fair to the Bush administration. Before the Iraq War it was standard political lingua franca, under both the Bush I and Clinton administrations, that Iraq was developing WMDs. Russian, British, American, and even French intelligence all agreed that there were WMDs in Iraq. Secondly, according to the CIA comprehensive post-war report released on 9/30/04,(link: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/)the acquisition of chemical and nuclear arms was a top priority of the Hussein regime. So then, although the case did turn out to be a botch, it was not exactly a claim Bush pulled out of the air.

Opinion was not unanimous that Iraq was developing WMDs. If you remember, Scott Ritter was very adamant that they were not. Our best evidence that we showed to the UN was utterly pathetic. Water color paintings of trucks!?!? It was clear that the Office of Special Plans (that neocon think tank within the Pentagon) was cherry picking intelligence gotten from unreliable Iraqi dissidents and Israeli intelligence, each having an agenda.

Ben-T,

"Common sense theory"? What, pray tell, is that? And when you answer that question can I expect reference to the epistemology of G.E. Moore or Thomas Reid?

CJWT is relevant, for one, because I am Christian. Second, because it is in accordance with natural law. Third, because it is in accordance with divine law. Fourth, because it has been the standard theoretical "proving grounds" for making a case for war for 1500+ years in the civilized west. We dismiss such traditions at the risk of imprudence, rashness, or even barbarism (I think I am following the likes of Burke here).

O.k., the basic moral assertion that CJWT makes is that "war is an evil." Can we agree on that? Thus the presumption is always against war. Therefore, to engage in or allow for such an evil one must have made completely certain that one is engaging in a necessary and just war. This precludes almost all aggressive/preemptive wars and generally favors only strictly necessary defensive ones.

Thus, none of those things you call perfectly justifiable reasons to invade Iraq are just reasons at all.

The deaths of some 25-30,000 people (Americans, reporters, other westerners, and Iraqis) are not justified by any of the purported goods that you mention, let alone the ability of all the rest of the Iraqis to vote.

I don't expect you to get any of this, in fact it will sound like crazy-talk to you and the other Ben. That is b/c you both have skewed perspectives regarding the good and are quite rash and even casual when it comes to starting wars and killing people. Abstractions like "freedom," and "democracy," are enough to make you want to kill people, just as liberte, egalite, fraternite, served as reason enough to kill for the French revolutionaries. Have you ever heard of a war you didn't like?

Actually practicle reasons, such as isolating Iran, opening up a new and vital oil market in Iraq (if you have bothered to pay attention to the world energy market, which I am sure you have not, you will find that OPEC is rapidly losing control of the world energy market, and Iran is becoming the sole energy supplier of both the European and emerging Chinese energy markets.) And promoting democracy in the middle east (which will, in return, remove the very motivation for terror in the first place.) all work together to convince me the war in Iraq was the right thing to do.

You see, Brian, if you knew your middle east history, which your posts indicate you do not, you would know that modern Islamism has become the status quo of the Middle East ONLY SINCE the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran. You would also know that the credulity of radical Islamism in the Middle East is generated from Iran the same way the credibility of world communism was generated from the USSR during the Cold War. In the same way the fall of the Soviet Union led to the fall of the greater communist empire, the fall of Iran will lead to the fall of greater mideast Islamism.

It is ridiculous that you would make such a poor attempt to construct a strawman as this one:

"I don't expect you to get any of this, in fact it will sound like crazy-talk to you and the other Ben. That is b/c you both have skewed perspectives regarding the good and are quite rash and even casual when it comes to starting wars and killing people. Abstractions like "freedom," and "democracy," are enough to make you want to kill people, just as liberte, egalite, fraternite, served as reason enough to kill for the French revolutionaries. Have you ever heard of a war you didn't like?"

-Brian

I have already made two posts in this thread explaining the justification of the Iraq war, and you have seen fit to attempt to counter the points raised in neither of them. If you feel for some reason, that you need further justification, I can e-mail you a full paper I have written on the topic complete with graphs, figures, and a long list of credible sources in it's bibliography.

Or, if you like, you can continue to live in your own fantasy land where simply killing Osama Bin Laden will win the war on terror and we can simply wash our hands, hit the restart button, and continue on our merry way. It isn't going to happen.

Ben-T,

That paragraph of mine that you cite wasn't a construction of a strawman. It was actually an insulting description of your moral reasoning.

But if you are only referring to the sentence about you being motivated by abstractions, that could be a strawman. The only problem is that you repeatedly state above that democratizing the mid-east is your aim. Granted, Ben L. is the one who has been most driven by pretty abstractions on this thread, you have instead rationalized your faith in these abstractions by focusing on the benefits you claim will accrue from wars to spread democracy.

As for paying attention to world energy markets, who are you, Sam Bodman?

I am not responsible for anything Ben L. says, why do you think I am? Im not going to debate someone elses talking points, that never leads to anything good.

Secondly my main goal in the war on terror is the destruction of Iran as a growing regional power and the securing of American interests in the middle east. Democratization will follow naturally. With democracy comes free oil trade and economic growth. With economic growth comes happiness. With general happiness comes a lack of desperation. Terrorism relies on desperation to survive. I see no reason to apologize for YOUR lack of even the most basic sequencial understanding.

"O.k., the basic moral assertion that CJWT makes is that "war is an evil." Can we agree on that?"

Yes, of course. Everyone knows that. Everyone also knows that it has proven to be a necessary evil, when employed to counter greater evils.

"This precludes almost all aggressive/preemptive wars and generally favors only strictly necessary defensive ones."

Now, I know you have a childish habit of ignoring my questions and points (as well as an entertaining habit of inflating your rhetoric with cautionary notes of how "dangerous" those of us with different points of view are), but please answer this: Was the Civil War a just war? I ask this only to put your opinion in perspective for myself.

"Abstractions like "freedom," and "democracy," are enough to make you want to kill people, just as liberte, egalite, fraternite, served as reason enough to kill for the French revolutionaries."

Or how about those American revolutionaries? I must be re-writing history again. Damn. Yes, since our founding, America has been a driving force against such petty abstractions as "freedom" and "democracy".

No, the Civil War was an unjust war.

Actually, I should specify it was an unjust war for the North to start. It was not an unjust one for the South to prosecute in defense of themselves.

Asking if a war was just makes no sense if we aren't clear about for whom.

I appreciate the response. I'm willing to wager that you are one of a tiny minority of Christians (and Americans as a whole) who would suggest that. But, that aside, I'd like one last clarification...

Like most of us, you're willing to sacrifice certain dear principles temporarily, under extraordinary circumstnaces. An example of this is seen in your reaction to the Schiavo case. Since there are multiple principles at conflict, you, like anyone should, prioritized and established that preserving this woman's life was more important than the legal issues.

What's interesting to me is that this unusual concordium of folks here who actually oppose the American Civil War do not do the same prioritizing for that historical event. Yes, states' rights are important -- but there is no way in Hell that they take precedence over the enslavement of human beings. For this to be suggested by any decent, level-headed individual, one must be wrapped up in such a complex web of theoretical nonsense, having completely abandoned all common sense.

Brian, if I can get the state of Massachusetts to make it legal to enslave you, would it be okay for me to do it? I mean, after all, I need a slave, and it's states rights. It would be a total breach of state's right for the federal government to intervene and say slavery was illegal.

But that is an argument based on basic human morals, and I know that you and your ilk are totally devoid of those, looking down on such basic ideas as freedom and democracy. So, let's look at a copy of our very own, handy dandy, United States Constitution!

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

And if we look in here, we will clearly see that states have the right to secede at will...oh..oh wait it's not there! But where could it be? Where could we have a document that clearly sets the power of the state government over that of the federal! Oh look, he comes our savior, its the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION! Lets go back in time, and see our very own founding fathers debate the Articles!

And....the federalists won! Oh noes! Okay, so lets have four years of civil war about it! And...the federalists won! Oh noes....

Okay okay okay guys, don't worry, we still have one last hope. The founding fathers deliberately set up the United States Supreme Court as a check to the executive branch, and the ultimate interpreters of the constitution they recorded! But only putting it to the test of one supreme court would not be fair! So lets look at 150+ years of supreme courts! Oh...no, the federalists still won...

Sorry Brian, it looks like, by the standards of the United States constitution and the founding fathers of this nation, you are wrong!

"Actually, I should specify it was an unjust war for the North to start. It was not an unjust one for the South to prosecute in defense of themselves."
-Brian

At four o clock AM on April 12, 1861 the traitor general Beauregard ordered forty three guns from his traitor army to fire on the United States military outpost of Fort Sumter. So began the greatest act of High Treason in American history, the War of Southern Aggression.

Ben-T,

You are really not very bright. I can't waste anymore of my time responding to your inanities. I had already decided to stop being suckered into worthless arguments with you after your second to last comment above, your final one only settles the issue for good.

"I can't waste anymore of my time responding to your inanities."

I know you were referring to Mr. T, but hey, Brian: Here's the interesting thing about making controversial claims (e.g. The Civil War was not just, and if it was, it was only from the South's actions) ... you have the burden of proof as to why your ludicrous belief is correct.

Hey Ben L.,

I know I do. I actually wrote out a response for you but it came out to 3 pages. I swear I have to stop reading the comments section on this site as I actually have work to accomplish.

Anyway, I can't decide to post it b/c of the length, I don't want to annoy everyone (or risk "everybody" calling me a dork). Should I just email it to you? I will try to shorten it tomorrow.

Ben-T,

You are really not very bright. I can't waste anymore of my time responding to your inanities. I had already decided to stop being suckered into worthless arguments with you after your second to last comment above, your final one only settles the issue for good.

It's funny I would say the same thing about you. No, actually I would say you are remarkebly stupid. You apparently have never heard of the federalist/anti-federalist imbroglio of the founding fathers, or the Articles of Confederation, hmmm?

Ill not be talked down to by a historically ignorant dunce such as yourself Brian, so put up or shut up. Insead of responding with your classic ad hominem, ignoring everything that dispells your poorly slapped together excuse for an argument, why don't you at least make SOME ATTEMPT to come out of this looking like anything but a borderline down syndrome patient, and actually form some counter-point?

Hey, Ben T -- get a grip. Judging from posts past and present, if we say that Brian is an "historically ignorant dunce" than that would rank you, in relation, down to the level of a champanzee. Some informed people disagree with the standard HS history class version of civil war. That's all.

Besides, any sophomore who thinks that he's historically smart because he has heard of the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate or the existence of the Articles of Confederation... has serious self-image problems.

Here is a response for Ben L. so that my claim that the CW was unjustified isn’t just left hanging out in cyberspace.

First, you represent the issue above as one in which the good of states’ rights is weighed in a scale against the good of ending the bondage of 4 million slaves and you believe that I am thus claiming that states' rights wins the day. That isn’t the way the issue is framed for me at all. States' rights, nullification, secession, etc., all go into determining whether or not the South could rightly separate from the North and go its own way, which is a different question. The question I am answering is whether or not the North was justified in waging war against the seceded South, invading them and subjugating them by force to restore the Union and consequently abolish slavery.

Already at the outset your response to me makes a moot point since the North did not justify the war by a desire to free the southern slaves. However, for the sake of our argument I will let you maintain that the CW was fought by the North to put an end to slavery in the South or that it at least is a just war because of that goal. Even then I am still willing to say that the war was unjustified.

My point is the exact same point that northern Catholics and bishops made (and which caused Irish Catholics in New York to stage draft riots): “war is a greater evil than slavery and as such cannot be resorted to as a means to abolish the lesser evil.” That is the long and short of my claim. Southern slavery should have been abolished just as it was abolished in almost every other civilized nation in the west, through peaceful means. I consistently hear establishment historians maintain that “the South would NEVER have ended slavery,” but this is a historical subjunctive and suffers from the logical problems of all such claims. It is quite doubtful, that even if the South had been allowed to secede, chattel slavery would have continued even only beyond 1888 when it was abolished in the last slave country in the western hemisphere, Brazil.

***Note that this does NOT preclude uprisings by slaves, the issue of revolution by oppressed peoples is an entirely separate one from determining in a particular instance whether a state is justified in waging war upon another and I admit to a right of rebellion. The one slave nation that ended it through violent means was Haiti b/c the slaves of that island revolted, and justifiably so.***

Now please be clear about what I am doing and not doing with this argument. I am NOT employing either a consequentialist moral calculus or an idealist ethics where intentions is all that matters. Apparently you are arguing from one of those two perspectives. If you are being a consequentialist than you are maintaining that the war was justified by weighing on a scale the lives of the approximately 700,000 killed in battle or from wounds, plus however many civilian deaths, and the freedom of the 4 million slaves, concluding that such carnage is justified by the slaves’ freedom. One glaring problem is that such a moral calculus can only be applied ex post facto since the slaves were freed because the North won; if in fact the South had won slavery may well have even advanced in America rather than remain only in the South. Hence it is anachronistic to make use of such a calculus in determining the justice of the war.

If you are employing an ethics of intentions then you are saying that it is enough to intend a just goal, like the end of slavery (or democracy in the Mideast), to justify the means of war irregardless of whether you succeed in bringing about your desired end. Sort-of an "I meant well" justification. I suspect that it is such an ethic that inspired the fanatical John Brown in his attack on Harper’s Ferry. Such an ethic seems similar to Kant’s deontology since the justice of an act is judged solely by the justice of the motive which causes the act.

O.k., so I am being neither a consequentialist nor an “intentionalist.” What I am doing is claiming that evils, such as slavery or abortion, are always and everywhere truly evil and as such they should be opposed. Prudence, justice, and patience will dictate just how such evils should be opposed in any given situation. The last resort in opposition to an evil is making use of another great evil, namely war. It is this basic principle of just war theory that neither a pacifist nor a militarist gets. Sometimes wars are necessary (pacifist balks right here) but because war is itself a great evil states cannot engage in it to achieve their interests wherever and whenever and by any means necessary (this is what militants balk at).

To make clearer the principle I am employing lets look at some particular evil on the individual level, like rape. Rape is absolutely horrific, I don’t even like discussing it abstractly since I recoil viscerally from it. Now, is rape worse than murder? That is, is it objectively a greater evil to murder a woman than it is to rape her? Admittedly both evils are so very heinous that they are not that far apart in many ways (particularly when a possible lifetime of trauma from living as a rape victim is factored in). I am not even opposed to the same degree of punishment being meted out for both crimes. Clearly though, murder and the finality of causing death to someone is a greater evil to inflict on them than rape. Likewise, I am maintaining that war is objectively a greater evil than slavery.

And let’s take one final example, which will turn into a question for you. Abortion. Abortion has claimed the lives of over 30 million American babies and I believe occurs at a rate of 1.5-2 million a year. That isn’t 30 million people enslaved, that is 30 million people killed. How does one confront that evil (if you happen to be pro-choice then please treat abortion as an evil only for the purpose of understanding my argument)? If violence, if warfare, was justified to free those slaves than how much more so would you be justified in pushing for violent means of struggle against the evil of abortion. But, you don’t think going around murdering abortionists and blowing up clinics would be a just means of dealing with the evil of abortion, do you? I certainly don’t think it would be the right thing to do, in fact, I am totally opposed to it. Yet, if any means, including war, can be employed to secure a good end then how can you reconcile a war to end slavery being justified when one to end abortion would not be? A consequentialist or even an "intentionalist" (as I am using that word) ethics would seem to me unable to square that. I hope this response wasn’t too long and or “theoretical” for you.

"Hey, Ben T -- get a grip. Judging from posts past and present, if we say that Brian is an "historically ignorant dunce" than that would rank you, in relation, down to the level of a champanzee. Some informed people disagree with the standard HS history class version of civil war. That's all.

Besides, any sophomore who thinks that he's historically smart because he has heard of the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate or the existence of the Articles of Confederation... has serious self-image problems."

The federalist/anti-federalist debate resulted in the U.S constitution that clearly created a federal government that took power over the state governments. In the constitution, it gives all powers not clearly specified to the federal government to the state governments.As a check to the executive branch, and as the official intepreters of the US constituion, the judiciary was created. Therefore, what the judiciary says about the states rights of the confederacy, goes. Sorry, confederate-supporters, but your friendly neighborhood United States Judiciary takes precedence over any romantic interpretation of your traitor-heroes you may hold.

The civil war "not being about slavery" is one of my favirote myths that come from southern paleocons trying to justify the rampant human rights injustices of their ancestors.

The slavery issue was at the center of the real justification for the civil war, economics. The confederate states existed in an economic world fueled by agriculture, unlike the heavily industrialized north. The plantation-style agricultural economy they lived in relied on slave labor to fund it. Therefore, the rapidly growing abolitionist movement "Thar up north." threatened their way of life and their agricultural society. And so, given the choice between ending their injustices or comitting High Treason, they chose the latter. Don't give me this bulshit romantacized tripe about "rights." It was a war about economics, and thus about slavery.

Need more evidence? Look at any of the main political battles between the north and south states pretty much from Jackson right up to the war. They were about whether or not new territories becoming states would be pro or anti-slavery. The south knew their economy relied on slavery, and so was hellbent on not allowing more anti-slavery than pro-slavery states into the government, knowing that they would be outvoted.

Ben T: If you wanted to prove the sophomorism I accused you of, you succeeded grandly.

Not only is your version of the history rather hackneyed HS bs, but then you spit out this bit of wisdom: The constitution makes the SC "the official intepreters of the US constituion"? Wow. Maybe you should read Article III again and give me the quote.

Why but of course, we find it right here in Article III, section 2:

"Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

" To controversies between two or more states."

Judicial power shall extend to controversies between two or more states....yes, yes I do believe the Civil War rings a bell.

In reading Article III, it becomes blatantly obvious to anybody with the most basic of reading comprehension skills that the judiciary branch shall have, for all intents and purposes, the power of constitutional interpretation vested in them in matters of governance. If you feel you need it again here is a link to our very own constitution:

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

As for why my historical interpretation is hackneyed high school bs, you will need to provide some justification for that claim before I address it. Oh but I think I know why already, it doesn't fit with your romanticized version of history! Oh, of course, how silly of me.

Ben L.,

I forgot to reply to your mention of my views on the Shiavo case.

Maybe you think that the rule of law has been trumped by either Congress or the President? Is that right? You are suggesting that I am putting aside one deeply held principle in favor of another more important one here but I don't agree that that is the case. So since I am not sure what principles you see as in conflict in her case I am not sure what you mean.

My comments on Terri have gone towards the claim that no human being has the right to actively deprive another of nourishment. You are right to call that a dearly held principle, it accords with natural and divine law, and even common sense (as you prefer). This principle dictates that bedside nurses of Terri's, the doctors at the hospice, her husband, Florida state troopers, Judge Greer, etc., none of them have the right (natural here, not positive) to remove her feeding tube in order to cause her to starve to death. They are morally obligated to refrain from doing that and if they do remove it they will be complicit in murder. The principle I am invoking here is no different from claims often made that a soldier cannot be commanded to violate morality by intentionally killing noncombatant women and children, or some other such thing. So what other dearly held principle am I putting aside in this case?

Ben T: "In reading Article III, it becomes blatantly obvious to anybody with the most basic of reading comprehension skills that the *judiciary branch shall have*, for all intents and purposes, *the power* of constitutional interpretation *vested in them* in matters of governance. "

Wow, in that garbled attempt at a complex sentence you manage to make your position a tautology... But I suspect I must lack the most basic reading comprehension skills, because it's not said anywhere in article III that the SC is the ultimate and final arbitor of the meaning of the constitution. In fact, given that SC justice can be impeached, we might assume that Congress is.

I just think you mix arrogance and parochialism in your views here. Your views here are very common, but I get the sense that you haven't heard any of the arguments that oppose you on these points.

Ben T: I quote a source you might trust, Ann Coulter's column today: "There is nothing in the law, the Constitution or the concept of "federalism" that mandates giving courts the last word. Other public officials, including governors and presidents, are sworn to uphold the law, too."

"I just think you mix arrogance and parochialism in your views here. Your views here are very common, but I get the sense that you haven't heard any of the arguments that oppose you on these points."

Oooh these kinds of comments are so funny coming from you Short. It is nothing but almost constant now for me and Brian to debate something, him to flame me, stop talking to me, and then you to come along right behind him to pick up the constant stream of ad hominems, and the surprising lack of any real argument. You are a good little apprentice though.

"But I suspect I must lack the most basic reading comprehension skills, because it's not said anywhere in article III that the SC is the ultimate and final arbitor of the meaning of the constitution. In fact, given that SC justice can be impeached, we might assume that Congress is."

-Short

Really? There was controversy over the power of the judiciary to decide the problems at hand in the Civil War? No shit, sherlock, there was a four year war about it.

Congress yes, has the power to override the judiciary and interpret the constitution in it's place. Is this a regular occurance? Not it's a very rare one. Is this something relevant to the Civil War? No, of course not, the pro-emancipation union states outnumbered the traitor states anyways, so Congress would have come to the same conclusion.

"Ben T: I quote a source you might trust, Ann Coulter's column today: "There is nothing in the law, the Constitution or the concept of "federalism" that mandates giving courts the last word. Other public officials, including governors and presidents, are sworn to uphold the law, too.""

-Short

I don't read Ann Coulter, this is totally irrelevant to our discussion. What is the point of this, to say that Ann Coulter is prominant conservative, and has made a comment that would seem to be on your side of this debate? Okay, who cares?

If this is the other side of the argument I have never listened to, according to you, than this new secret side of it is as wholly unimpressive as the others.

As for this comment:

"I just think you mix arrogance and parochialism in your views here."

-Short

I have never responded to anyone on this blog who has done nothing to offend me in the past in anything but a kind and courteous manner. Nor am I somebody who is quick to forgive a grudge, so don't come to me whining about arrogance.

Brian,

Sincerely, thanks for the lengthy and thought-provoking response. You make some really great points, and now I understand where you're coming from. I guess I just believe that (in addition to the abolition of slavery), the preservation of the union was something worth fighting for. (Also, I don't share the view that war is a greater evil than slavery.)

The question of abortion really struck me. I would most certainly assent to your calling the act "evil" as well as your stance against violent opposition to it. The only defense I can muster is that 1) I believe abortion (having existed for only about 30 years in its current on-demand state and losing acceptance as time goes on) can be defeated soon enough through purely democratic means, and 2) I am inclined to consider slavery a greater evil than abortion, but perhaps that is simply evidence of our societal desensitization to it.

With regard to the Shiavo case, I shouldn't have assumed you agreed with those who yelped about Congress "usurping power in an unconstitutional manner!" I completely agree with you about that situation.

-ben

Hey Ben L.,

In an earlier post of yours above you wrote that war "has proven to be a necessary evil, when employed to counter greater evils," and I thought that implied you take slavery to be a greater evil than war. Thanks for making that claim explicit as that is clearly the specific point causing our disagreement. Maybe at some point we can debate that one more fully.

Thanks for the response as well. Now that we broke it down to fundamental starting points and know where we're respectively coming from maybe we can go back to being charitably opposed to each other on some issues and our arguments will be more patient and friendly in tone. That would be keeping with the spirit of the season as well, given Passover and Easter are here. My apologies for letting my Irish-Catholic temper get the best of my rhetoric and patience at times.

Now if I can just come to the same resolution with Ben-T . . . ;)

Well we're both Irish Catholics, so I guess thats a start.

You're both human, thats the only start that matters

lol Ben-T! I suppose Celtic pugnacity really explains alot.

We ought to unite against Ben L. He's one of them christ-kil...er, Jews.

DISCLAIMER: That was a joke, if it offends anybody, cry about it.

I'm glad the Iraqis think things will work out for them.

However, Bush is running for President of the United States, not Iraq. All this stuff about helping Iraqis is besides the point. Since when do Republicans go in for foreign aid?

The problem with the Kerry campaign is that they're too politically correct to really make this an issue. They've taken an occasional swipe at Bush over this, but fundamentally, they're too "decent" to push the sort of xenophobic buttons that a Jesse Helms or Pat Buchanan would.