I could easily have started earlier, but the scriptures state we only
need to wait through 4 attempts by the enemy, prior to having justified
war. I suppose I could have included the several Hi-Jackings of the
1970s, the Khobar Towers being brought down, I seem to recall a cruise
ship or two being hi-jacked and American civilians killed. Then there was
the Germany disco blown up, killing several American GIs. Am I missing
any others?

As for the USA being innocent, no we aren't. We shouldn't be sticking our
busy bodies so far into other nations' affairs. We have no reason to
remain in Saudi Arabia, and so should withdraw. As for the 1991 UN
resolutions against Iraq, it was the US that drafted them in the first
place and pushed them through the UN. Of course we should have a major
voice in how they are handled today. Secondly, enforcing these
resolutions will help to maintain stability in the region and the world.
Al Qaeda and other terrorists will have fewer abilities if Hussein is not
able to finance them or give them weapons of mass destruction.  This is
an issue of American self-interest. Giving Israeli lands over to
Palestine is not in our self-interest, nor does it threaten the US.

I am not a warmonger. I'm not saying we should attack Iraq. I AM saying
that the US is justified in so doing, if it chooses to do so. However, I
think there are worse offenders in the Arab world, that are directly
involved with Al Qaeda, and we should focus on those nations prior to
Iraq. We should enter Yemen and Syria and destroy Al Qaeda and terrorist
cells there, just as we are doing in the Phillippines.  Once the cells
are stopped, we leave the areas, promising to return if the problems
K'aya K'ama,
Gerald/gary  Smith    gszion1 @juno.com    http://www
"No one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free."  -
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Why do you start the sequenceof events at 1993? Was there no history
before then?
> We have been patient
> with the attacks. Are we totally innocent? Probably not. However, the
> difference is in the intended target. Wicked people target innocent
> peoples.
You *are* innocent. That has never been the question, as far as I'm
The question is to what extent did past actions bring backlash and
reaction back
upon yourself. Like my example of gravity, did you know of the law of
gravity and
yet step off the cliff, committing suicide (moral guilt) or did you walk
off the
cliff ignorant of the law (no moral guilt, but there are still
That analogy is over-simplified but I hope it adds something to the
> Even now with Iraq, we are patiently giving them the chance to start
> abiding by the UN resolutions they agreed to abide by over a decade
Which they have agreed to do, "unconditionally." But what the US wants
now, after
Bush's demand that Iraq agree to abide by the past conditions (to the
apparent surprise) is that Iraq agree, a priori, to as-yet-to-be
Security Council resolutions.
> We have given them several warnings over the years, more than four. So,
> is a war with Iraq justified?
Warnings to do what? And why is it up to you to enforce UN resolutions?
The UN
has passed a resolution that Israel give the occupied territories to the
Palestinians, too (the famous #242). Are you going to force Israel to do
I know some of you have yet to get over the shock of John (and probably
Mark) and
I agreeing on this, but this is just another war, and for the US to
initiate it
is wrong. Simply wrong, both morally, and in the chain of consequences
setting into force, just as past chains of cause and effect have led to
where you
are now.
Marc A. Schindler

Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///

This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to