Was Iraq a Just War?

Ergun Caner, "For men such as ourselves, Persians, Arabs...George Bush, more generally coalition forces, they are our Abraham Lincoln."

"ERGUN MEHMET CANER (Th.D., University of South Africa) is currently Professor of Theology and Church History at Criswell College, Dallas, Texas. During their years as pastors and now as professors, Ergun and Emir have lectured on apologetics, world religions, and theology across the world and have been interviewed on The John Ankerberg Show, NPR, CNN, The 700 Club, Billy Graham's Decision Today Radio, and the BBC, among many others."

http://www.johnankerberg.org/catalog/BMTP.html

Though how this war has been fought can be questioned I wanted to look at what is happening in Iraq now.

One would think that because thousands are dying in Iraq that what we have in that Nation is failure.

I beg to differ.

While the loss of innocent life, whether it be the unborn or children, is always heartbreaking, a closer look will reveal something very important.

With Iran's President, Chavez, Chomsky and Al Sadr of Iraq all trying to inflame and embolden people to fight against the United States, something has become very clear to me.

This is what these folks must do to get their own people to stop fighting each other.

This is what they must do so that their people don't see that it is their own system and selves that are the problem.

What stops infighting better than finding an enemy outside ones own dysfunctional group. Even if one has to create a wag the dog scenario.

What emboldens Radical Muslims and Liberals more than having a common enemy to make them unite and get along with each other.

Its unfortunate that many people, including Christians don't know how to live and converse in peace.

They must major on the minors outside themselves so that they don't have to major on the majors in their own lives.

What are the Arabs doing when they are not fighting Israel or the United States.

Well, the Palestinians are fighting each other i.e., Fatah fighting Hamas. The Iraqis are fighting each other with Sunni Fighting Shiite and Radical Muslim fighting Moderate Muslims.

We even have ethnic groups in the United States beginning to blame White Christians or Conservatives for their woes. The Black Muslim Cult now called 'The Nation of Islam' is now recruiting members and dysfunctionals by portraying White Christianity as the real enemy.

Since Islam is a reactionary movement reacting against Jews and Christians (really Catholics), even in the Quran, the resultant cult, i.e., 'Nation of Islam' is jumping on the bandwagon to fight the oppressors.

Losers blaming and murdering innocent children for their woes.

If someone or some group can blame someone other than themselves or their own warped worldview then they can focus outward rather than inward and upward to the True God of Heaven.

So when we see infighting and sectarian violence in other countries we should let them do it so they can hit rock bottom and see that they are the problem not Us, the U.S. or their Mommies or Daddies.

Also I go back to what my brilliant President Bush said at the very beginning of this war on Terror:

"If we fight them over there, we won't have to fight them over here."

This is simple but profound and the so called deeper thinkers just don't get it.

I would like to add, if they are 'fighting each other' over there, then they are less likely and able to come over here because really we are not their problem, they are.

If we want to choose the lesser of the evils to win, we should pick democratic and moderate Islam but since there will probably be no winner this side of heaven, it is best that they fight each other until Jesus comes back.

We help Muslim countries by helping them install democracy.

We can help them even more by showing that 'if one doesn't know and choose right over wrong, then it is not true freedom at all.'

This is how our United States is losing its freedom.

The ideal would be for Muslims to drop their Moon God altogether and serve the True and Living God and Saviour of us, Jesus Christ. (Titus 2)

Bj Maxwell 10/05/2006

The following critical article on the war in Iraq is so full of holes it may take a little while to thoroughly refute it.

Here is the link to the article:

http://pastorsb.com/Iraqwar.htm

Now for my critique of this article:

This article is so full of holes and lies that it is really hypocritical for the author to try to explain what a just war is according to Christian (really conventional) standards but use unjust arguments and deception to do it.

For example:

Article states:

1) Bush persuaded Congress to declare war with false propaganda and we have murdered Iraq's people and captured its ruler.

bj responds:

First, there is no evidence that the President's intelligence was any different than that which was presented to the Senate or Congress.

So many claim that they were duped into voting to act in this war but no one provides one shred of evidence that their intelligence was in any war inferior to what the President had.

We have not murdered Iraq's people, the Terrorists have. Zarquawi murders women and children and even people getting married. His own countrymen have disowned him.

Why does this article point the finger in the wrong direction.

This article rather than punishing the criminal condemns Law enforcement for being so mean to the criminal. Sounds just like the ACLU.

Next, declaring Sadaam Iraq's ruler is like saying a Kidnapper has claims on anyone he kidnaps because he got away with it.

In other words, Might makes right.

Though this author has stated that, 'The end (to destroy terrorists) does not justify the means (using evil ways to do it).', he doesn't mind justifying his deceptive means.

One major problem with this article is that it has no scripture to back up its 'Just War' claim, though it does refer to a Catholic point of view. (Augustine)

Surveys have shown that Catholics are more divided on this question than Christians are.

Catholics tend to go to other nonbiblical sources to come to their conclusions.

Article states:

"The biggest and most important question that the Iraq War forces people to ask is: was the war a just or unjust war? America is divided on the question."

bj responds:

Actually, unbelievers are much more divided on the question than Christians are.

As I referred to in my previous article, Church goers and Christians back the Iraq war 2 to 1.

Links:

http://www.moralgroup.com/NewsItems/Islam/p8.htm#1

http://www.moralgroup.com/NewsItems/Islam/p8.htm#3

According to Gallup, Americans who attend church at least once a week support war to depose the Iraqi dictator by an almost two to one margin. Americans who never attend church or say religion is not important to them are more evenly divided about the possibility of war.

But there also might be deeper spiritual reasons for the religious divide over war. Traditional religious people understand that the world is fallen and sinful. War therefore is lamentable but sometimes unavoidable if evil is to be resisted.

Secular people, who are less influenced by biblical notions of human sin, are often more idealistic and utopian. In their view, war can be avoided through greater human efforts at good-will and humanitarian outreach. "

It is unsaved people which have more of a problem with it.

"Secular people, who are less influenced by biblical notions of human sin, are often more idealistic and utopian. In their view, war can be avoided through greater human efforts at good-will and humanitarian outreach. "

Then this author tips his hand when he says, 'We did not have the right before God to destroy Saddam Hussein and kill his people just because we suspected he might eventually attack the U.S.'

No one destroyed Saddam, he is being tried in an Iraqi court for his crimes.

Since when do we identify a people by the self appointed dictator that terrorizes and murders them.

Obviously, this author thinks that these people belong to Saddam and that we were wrong in contesting that.

It was Saddam that killed innocents, it is the U.S. that makes distinctions between Saddam and the Iraqi people.

Article states:

"It was a new type of warfare with a new type of enemy -- terrorists. Because the enemy was hard to identify and even harder to strike back, it caused even greater frustration than if a nation had attacked us. Unlike Japan, who attacked Pearl Harbor, Bin Laden and his organization were elusive and hard to find. We attacked Afghanistan to find Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, but with very slow results. The Nation was frustrated and wanted a real war and a real country to attack, someone to pay for our loss. We were vulnerable and emotionally stressed when President Bush declared Saddam Hussein a terrorist, equal to Bin Laden and who even conspired with Bin Laden to attack us. Some questioned why we should declare war on Iraq. But too many of us were more than willing to support the war because of the frustration of 9/11."

bj responds:

Funny, this author refers to Pearl Harbor because though it was the Japanese that bombed us in World War II, we got into the war and started fighting against the Germans as well.

If we follow this authors logic all the way through, we should have just fought the Japanese and let Hitler do what he wanted.

President Bush recognized that Terrorists need states to back them up with resources, especially since one of their goals is nuclear capability.

We are still using conventional thinking to fight this new war on Terrorism. Terrorists don't always wear uniforms or first tell you that they are about to Nuke your city.

That makes sense, lets let them Nuke Us and then we will do something about it.

To define the Just War Argument as let them destroy you first, is what many Non Christian nations are using, so it is not a Christian argument.

Article says:

"Augustine taught it could only defend itself against violent aggression, that is, physical attack against the people and its country or empire. If a State defends itself and its innocent people from harm by going to war, then killing the enemy was self-defense and not murder. This was a just war. Christians could even serve in the army and fight and kill to defend the Christian State and their people and families. But if the State attacked another country or people without first being physically attacked and harmed, then the act was an unjust war and, in God's eyes, is just another form of murder and is evil."

bj:

Again: this reasoning is about as non Christian as it comes. To assume that we should not help other nations unless they are our allies or we have been attacked personally sounds like the parable of the good Samaritan.

This is like the Priest and Levite passing on the other side because because they had not been personally attacked and this man wasn't a Jew (ally).

Article states:

"Saddam Hussein was not responsible for 9/11. He and Iraq did not physically attack or harm America or its people. Bush told us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and he and Iraq were an imminent threat to America's security. Yet Iraq had shown no hostile intent, not fired a missile or a gun at America, nor had any troops even come near our shore. Even if Saddam Hussein had mass destruction weapons, he had never made a hostile move in recent years toward America, nor had he even threatened us. According to true Christian theology of a just war we did not have a just reason to attack and go to war with Iraq."

bj responds:

Terrorists want Nuclear capability and obviously would use it against us if they had it.

Saddam Hussein (a murderer and dictator) was seeking Nuclear weapons, and thinking that we should wait for him to get them and use them on us is about as Naive as one can get and sounds like someone who wouldn't have a problem with having a Sexual offender taking care of his children.

Of course according to this author's logic we should wait for this offender to do it again before we take action.

Article states:

"In its history, America has never attacked another country or people unless an enemy first attacked either its people or an ally. Then and only then did we declare war on the enemy. All of our wars up until Vietnam have been just wars."

bj responds: Oh really, Vietnam didn't attack us personally. Then to think that we should only help our already established allies is not Christian.

Article States:

"It is important that we do fight against terrorists that would destroy and kill innocent people. But we must not try to cut corners of righteousness to strike and kill and stop them. We must be guided by righteous principles in the way we stop them. We do not want to stop terrorists at all cost, not caring about the way we do it. The end (to destroy terrorists) does not justify the means (using evil ways to do it)."

bj responds: If we weren't concerned about Killing innocents we would have just bombed Iraq and the war would have been over in a matter of minutes.

Osama Been Hiding, murdered innocent people at the World Trade Center. He didn't make any distinction between military and civilians and neither does Al Zarquawi, who doesn't mind bombing weddings of fellow Arabs.

Not only is Al Zarquawi, from Al Quaeda (those responsible for the World Trade Center), he has been in Iraq a long time and has received safe harbor in Iraq.

Saddam even had helped the families of Palestinian terrorist families.

As far as the WMD's, if we hadn't been constrained in time by the United Nations who had ties to the Oil For Food Scandal, we might have discovered WMD's before they were given to Syria.

To compare Bush to these guys is irresponsible, deceptive and there is nothing Christian about this article.

Article States:

"The preemptive strike policy of Bush is an evil short cut to fight and destroy terrorists. I am sure Bin laden had the same preemptive strike policy that Bush has. He believed America was an imminent threat to the security of the Moslem States. That is why he attacked us first. Bin Laden is an evil man. If we continue to follow this preemptive strike policy of Bush, we will become as evil as the terrorists we fight."

bj responds: Now this author presupposes to know the mind of Osama Been Hiding.

He sounds like he may have had a conversation with him or something.

Article states:

"In the end of this war on terrorism, with this policy, it will be very difficult to decide who are the good guys -- both sides will be evil. This policy will definitely sink America into a new evil in foreign policy that will have dire consequences for us all."

"The Iraq War is evil and makes us no better than Saddam Hussein or Bin Laden."

bj responds: It might be that one that writes such dribble may not be no better than Saddam or Been Hiding and that this author cannot distinguish between the good guys and the bad guys but I don't have a problem making this distinction.

Once one accepts the facts that:

1) We are not to be just concerned with our own borders. To think otherwise is not compassionate and is quite self centered.

2) That waiting for the Sadaams and Terrorists to hit us or others first is like waiting for a man intent on violence to hit me with a baseball bat before I protect my wife by preemptively disabling the man.

Saddam was intent on violence and said so.

We are dealing justice out to those that were in cohoots with him and he is being tried for it.

We are not intentionally killing innocents.

Truth is that if someone hits me with the bat first I wouldn't be able to protect my wife.

3) That we should be on the offensive not just on the defensive. Fighting the terrorists where terrorism lives and thrives, is better than inviting them over to our house for dinner first.

4) The same people that complained that President Bush #1 should have continued to Baghdad the first time (When Saddam attacked Kuwait) now complain that President Bush #2 went too far.

Some people are never happy.

5) Once these Christians that argue against the war realize that they are standing side by side with Hollywood, Democrats, Terrorists, Militant Muslims and the ACLU in opposing this war they might realize that they are only reinforcing the worlds humanistic and atheistic philosophies that naively suppose that if we would have just had a reasonable discussion with Hitler and Saddam everything would have worked out.

6) We are seeing that many that opposed the war often were in cohoots with Saddam through the Oil for Food Scandal and other means.

This article without evidence wants to say this war was motivated by greed for Oil but doesn't take into account the ones that sided with Saddam because of Oil.

BJ Maxwell 11/29/2005

Revised 10/05/2006

Revised 10/22/2006