What Is The Real Purpose Of This
As the "war" on Iraq has begun, is it actually a "war?" Did un-elected President George W. Bush actually ask Congress for formal approval of a declaration of war?
No. He is simply using United Nations sanctions that are useful to him, while ignoring those that are not useful to him, to wage hostilities with the most tenuous of authority at most.
Yes, Congress passed a resolution supporting action against Iraq, but it was not a formal declaration of war.
Yet, it has begun.
Mr. Bush has prepared the nation for American casualties. Do those who will die actually know why they do what they do, or are they simply following their call to duty, their love of country, their service to their countrymen, that has placed them in the unfortunate position of fighting what some think is "Bush War II -- Finishing Daddy's Business?"
We must pray for and support those men and women who will serve the nation and die, while, at the same time, exercising our right to disagree with the policy and policy makers that have put them in harm's way.
Mr. Bush had not made a significant enough case to demonstrate why, at this moment in time, it is necessary to "take out" Saddam Hussein.
His rationale has shifted from stating that Hussein funds al Qaida to "its all about the weapons of mass destruction," to attempting to link them altogether.
None of this has been definitively proven.
If so, George II would have been as fortunate as his dad was to build a global coalition of support for the actions underway, instead of going it virtually alone.
By not having done so, and the going it alone, he only heightens the point of those who theorize that Bush II is only finishing Bush I's uncompleted task.
It is true that Saddam Hussein is a madman. He has tortured and killed his own people. He more than likely has weapons of mass destruction. He should go.
Yet, why now is it time to take him out?
Yes, he has not disarmed as he was supposed to do under U. N. sanctions.
But what does that have to do with "The War on Terrorism?"
Yet, one can ask why we are not in hostilities with Yemen, when it is clear that it supports terrorism. Only last week several western nationals, including a U.S. citizen, were killed, and, not all that long ago, American missionaries were slaughtered there.
Why isn't Yemen a part of the "Axis of Evil?"
I was told that it was because "Yemen doesn't posses weapons of mass destruction."
So, it is only about weapons of mass destruction then?
Yet, by going it alone, we (the U.S. and Great Britain) will be the only real targets of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, no matter the delivery system -- as we are the only ones out there on the battlefields at whom the bombs can be aimed.
However, if we are truly fighting a "War on Terrorism," isn't it in our interest to fight those we actually know support terrorists?
Oh, and have we caught Osama bin Laden yet?
Additionally, North Korea, a declared member of Mr. Bush's "Axis of Evil," has nuclear weapons that can allegedly hit the U. S. west coast.
Yet, this administration is trying every diplomatic effort -- except the one that may seem to work, and that is direct talks with the North Koreans -- to solve the potential nuclear crisis there.
What seems interesting is that before Mr. Bush started making demands of Saddam Hussein, it was not he who was rattling his so-called sabers (or was that nuclear capability) - it was Kim Jong II of North Korea.
Why is Mr. Bush giving Kim Jong an opportunity for an "out" and not Saddam Hussein?
Some might say it is another possible case for the "it's personal" theory.
Has anyone wondered where this will all end?
Is Mr. Bush really serious about ending terrorism?
If so, does that not mean that Iran, another identified member of the "Axis of Evil," is the next country Mr. Bush and company will go after?
Also, it has been said that groups in as far-flung countries as Thailand, with Buddhist extremists even, may plan terrorist attacks against the U.S. Will we go there as well?
Is there a clear specific plan laid out by this administration that will actually combat terrorism, or is it going to be simply a hit or miss proposition?
Will we ever actually catch the culprit who seems to have precipitated the events that have led us to this current situation, Osama Bin Laden?
Will we topple every government Mr. Bush believes needs toppled, or simply those with which he has a personal grudge?
What happened to the George W. Bush, who throughout his campaign for president was quoted as saying things such as, "it is not the responsibility of the United States to directly interfere with the governments of other nations," " nor is it our responsibility to impose our way of governing on other nations," and so forth and so on?
The answer seems to be things changed after "September 11th."
Okay, yes, but what has Saddam Hussein done specifically to the United States since then that moved him to the top of the list of terrorists we must remove when there are others who may be potentially, if not equally as dangerous as Hussein?
At our mid-week Lenten service, we focused on the forgiveness of God. We were to focus on what God did, giving us his son, Jesus Christ, to die for our sins.
We were also called on to remember Christ's commandment, called the "11th Commandment," where he told us to treat others as he has treated us and, through that, we would show the world what Christians are and what Christianity is about.
We were called on to focus on our sins, and pray for the forgiveness of those sins, and to focus on those we perceive to have wronged us, and asked to forgive them.
Curiously, we were asked that we should do that as individuals, as a congregation, as a nation.
If George Bush, who actually had the arrogance to say that by waging war on Iraq he was fulfilling "God's will," would possibly focus prayerfully on forgiveness and objectivity, maybe, just maybe, he would have found that war was not necessarily the only option available to him at this juncture.
Let us just pray that God gives good guidance to those who will execute the war plans, so that our casualties and Iraqi civilian casualties will be minimal and pray that God gives Mr. Bush the insight and foresight he needs, but has not yet seemingly been able to understand.
In thinking of the Pledge of Allegiance, it would be really interesting to know what Mr. Bush thinks it means when he says, "one nation under God?"