HomeWho Are We?Articles & TractsConfession BoothPhoto AlbumContact Dr. J

News & ViewsProLifeGunsScience & MedTheologyFamily & Homeschooling
Rebuttal of Bush's War on Iraq By Constitutionalist and Conservative Christian
1  2  NEXT

Rebuttal to Bush's War on Iraq by Constitutionalist and Conservative Christian

I hate agreeing with liberals.  Most of the time, when you find yourself agreeing with leftists, that’s hard evidence that you’re dead wrong.  But with increasing frequency I have noticed hardline conservatives like Patrick Buchanan, Joe Sobran, Howard Phillips with the Constitution Party, the John Birch Society, and others, articulating their discontent with Bush’s war on terrorism, and I’ve been emboldened.  I’m going to be so bold as to say that Bush has been more effective in advancing the aims of the New World Order liberals than even Clinton was!  This is primarily because so-called conservatives have forsaken their principles in order to hold “the party line”.  Their opposition to the left is more important than their allegiance of the principles of liberty.
 
In his State of the Union address, Bush accused Iraq of not disarming as they were told.  "He has shown utter contempt for the United Nations and the opinion of the world," Bush said.  The President requested that the U.N. Security Council convene Feb. 5 to "consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world."  He sent Secretary of State Colin Powell to make a firm case that Iraq must be dealt with promptly.  Although Bush welcomes assistance from American allies, he made it plain that he was willing to act unilaterally to disarm Iraq by violent force.

Though Iraq does not threaten us, has not attacked us, cannot defeat us, and does not want war with us, the U.S. is preparing to invade and occupy that country.  If we do, it will be "the first purely imperial war in our history, a war launched to manipulate a foreign country to our will" to quote Pat Buchanan.  President Bush is using the 9/11 terrorist attacks as an excuse for this invasion, but this invasion is unjustified on that basis, as we shall see.  There very well may be good reasons for the US to go to war against Iraq, but we’re not hearing them. 
 
Recent large polls show public support for a unilateral invasion is dwindling.  Many in Congress are realizing that the number of their constituents who are not supportive of this war is growing.  If we make war on Iraq, it should be because Congress has declared war on Iraq.  That’s the only constitutional recourse for war.  This, Congress has not done.  Instead, they’ve voted to give Bush the right to use military force to make war against whomever he wants to in this war on terrorism, and not adhering to the Constitutional limitations of making and declaring war, they have demonstrated for us all why the founders designed the legislature to be the political body that declares war, not the executive branch.  Congress doesn’t have the constitutional right to give up its constitutional powers to the executive branch.  They are authorized to make a declaration of war, and giving Bush the right to use military force on his own whim is a cop-out of their constitutional obligations.  If Congress doesn’t like the means the Constitution provides for declaring war, the same Constitution also provides a means to amend it.  Short of an amendment, they are bound to it and intentional violation of it is usurpation and betrayal.  Now that Congress has voted away its obligations to declare and make war, it has little right to complain if Bush makes a war that they no longer want. 
 
Here are the Administration’s reasons for war against Iraq, followed by rebuttals:
 
Argument #1 for invading Iraq: Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, with the ability to kill thousands upon thousands of innocent people.  He’s made these weapons of mass destruction, he’s lied about his weapons of mass destruction, he’s not unveiled evidence that he’s destroyed these weapons of mass destruction  Did I mention that he has weapons of mass destruction? 
 
Rebuttal: So does China, N. Korea, and Russia.  So do we!  Could Saddam justify a preemptive attack upon the United States because, indeed, we have weapons of mass destruction?  Using Bush’s reasoning, he could!  The key effectiveness of this argument is to mention those ominous words, weapons of mass destruction, with enough repetitiveness that all common sense goes out the proverbial window in hopes to drive us to violence against anybody our government says has them.  But owning weapons of mass destruction do not by themselves justify a preemptive violent invasion of a sovereign nation.  Intrinsic within a nation’s right to exist is it’s right to obtain the means for their self-defense.  Even tyrants have the right to self-defense.  The same God-given, inalienable right to personal self-defense that our forefathers acknowledged in the second amendment also belongs to nations of persons.
 
Argument #2 for invading Iraq: Saddam has used those weapons on his own people!  He has used biological and chemical weapons on his own.  Destroying Saddam’s government would be a favor to the Iraqi people who have suffered terribly under his tyranny.
 
Rebuttal: N. Korea and the Soviet Union have each used biological and chemical weapons on their own people!  N. Korea, China, and the Soviet Union have abused and slaughtered their own people to a much greater degree than Saddam.  Furthermore, the U.S. government has used biological and chemical weapons on its own people! 
            A. Recall the Civil War, when Abraham Lincoln invaded a Confederacy who had seceded democratically
            and peacefully, and made war on them. 
B. Recall the Federal-government backed Tuskegee Syphilis Study that began in 1932. Two hundred poor black men with syphilis began an experiment in which those men were to be studied long-term and kept from life-saving therapy.  As many as one hundred of the original two hundred victims died as a direct or indirect result of the illness. The wives and children of the subjects also suffered as a result of the disease. 
C. From 1946-1974, the Atomic Energy Commission authorized a series of experiments in which radioactive materials uranium and plutonium were given to individuals in many cases without being informed they were the subjects of an experiment, and in some cases without any expectation of a positive benefit to them.  The victims were from vulnerable populations: the poor, the elderly, U.C.-San Francisco college students, and mentally retarded children.  In those experiments, the children were fed radioactive oatmeal without the consent of their parents!  In 1993, the experiments were uncovered and publicized.  In 1996, the United States settled with the survivors for 4.9 million dollars.   In that suit, the court claimed 20,000 other Americans were used for biochemical experiments in the 1940s, '50s and '60s.
D. Remember the Branch Davidians at Waco, where the F.B.I. used CS gas on the religious compound – a biochemical warfare agent banned by hundreds of nations by international treaty.  That’s a weapon of mass destruction, and our government used it on our own people.  The award-winning film, “Waco Rules of Engagement”, which you can rent at most video-rental businesses, established in my mind that the Feds murdered those 86 men, women, and children - executed them without so much as a trial by jury.  They did not die by suicide, as the media proclaimed.
E. Last but certainly not least, let us not forget the American Holocaust of the unborn.  It has been estimated that Saddam has slaughtered 200,000 of his own citizens, many whom were armed political opponents who resisted his rule.  By contrast, America has slaughtered 225 times that many unborn Americans who did not even have the ability to defend themselves!!!  If Saddam killing his own justifies our invasion of his land, then the American Holocaust to a much greater degree justifies Saddam's invasion of our land!  As Matthew 7:1-5 says, as we judge, we shall be judged.  With what measure we condemn others, we ourselves will be condemned.

There are many more examples, but this is adequate to prove that the United States has employed weapons of mass destruction and tools of slaughter on its own people throughout its history.  If Saddam’s use of weapons of mass destruction against his own people justifies our invasion of his country, then Saddam - or anybody for that matter - using Bush’s reasoning, could justify launching a preemptive invasion of our country! 
 
Argument # 3 for invasion of Iraq: Saddam justifies and finances terrorist activities.  On March 12, 2002, Saddam Hussein’s deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz said Iraq would double the cash he awards to the estate of Palestinian suicide bombers, to $21,000, as reported by the London Mirror.  He has provided safe haven to terrorists in the past. 
 
Rebuttal: If there was evidence that Iraq played a role in the 9/11 attacks or the anthrax attacks against us, or that he provided safe haven to terrorists he knew were involved in the 9/11 attacks, then this would be a powerful justification of a unilateral invasion of Iraq.  But our government has claimed that the 9/11 terrorists did not operate under the auspices of any nation, but were madmen on the edge of a society.  Our government has claimed that anthrax attacks were probably the work of a domestic lunatic.  Unlike Afghanistan in their harboring of bin Laden, there has been no evidence that Iraq has harbored terrorists that he knew were responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  There very well may be evidence that Saddam was involved in 9/11, and we may be being kept ignorant of the connections between Saddam and 9/11 for whatever reason, but we can only judge based upon what our government tells us.  Based upon our government’s public statements, there’s no evidence that Saddam engaged in terrorism against us.
 
Saddam’s endorsement of terrorism against other nations is immaterial to our war against our terrorists just as it is negligible our nation’s interests.  There are many Muslim nations that endorse or finance terrorism in order to build Islamic states ruled by the law of the Koran.  The Muslim government in Sudan has slaughtered over two million Christians in the southern part of the nation for nothing more than refusing to convert to Islam.  Many Arab countries endorse terrorism on behalf of the Palestinians – even Saudi Arabia, home to most of the nineteen terrorists that struck us on 9/11 and largest financier of terrorism in the world.  The new bestseller out called "Hatred's Kingdom" proves that Saudi Arabia's leaders have given large sums of money to terrorist groups, including Hamas and al Qaeda.  An American healthcare worker in Saudi Arabia was quoted as saying that Saudi Arabians joyfully cheered when the terrorist attacks took place on 9/11.  Yet we have called Saudi Arabia an “ally” on the war on terrorism.  How can we attack and invade Iraq because they justify terrorism against other nations all the while we declare to be allies nations such as Saudi Arabia who do the same thing? 
 
Argument #4 for Iraqi invasion: Saddam hates Israel and is a threat to Israel, our ally.  He has justified and financed terrorism against our ally in the Middle East.
 
Rebuttal: So have our allies in the war on terrorism! 
 
Christians have used this argument most frequently.  Just because Israel was once "God's chosen people" that does not mean that they are now.  In order to be a child of God in the new covenant, one must come by faith in Christ - He is the only way for Jew or Gentile to be saved from sin and to enter the Kingdom of God (John 14:6).  Jews who reject Christ are "children of their father the devil" according to Jesus in John 8.  We should not grant unconditional allegiance to Israel in every one of their conflicts, because God doesn't.  Christians certainly cannot justify Israel's torture of innocent civilians, something in which they have boasted expertise in order to coerce information from them.  Christians certainly cannot justify their killing of innocent people in their attempts to punish those who terrorize them.  God may have at one time order Israel to kill all those in their Promised Land, as an act of judgment upon the wicked people in that land.  But now a Christless Israel is wicked and the promises of blessing and victory being conditioned on obedience no longer apply, whereas the curses do (Deuteronomy 27-30).

The U.S. needs to let Israel handle their own squabbles – they have shown themselves more than qualified to defend themselves.  We need to stop tying Israel’s hands with promises of money for peace with the Palestinians.  If it becomes necessary for their security that they "occupy" the parts of their own nation where those who terrorize them take refuge, then we should encourage that, discouraging their excesses when we can.  Whatever we do, we need to keep our military out of entangling conflicts where our national interests are not at stake.  Allies should be means, not ends.  Israel is more likely, not less likely, but more likely to be attacked if we preemptively invade Iraq.  Concern for our ally, Israel, should keep us from attacking Iraq.  Saddam’s contained and does not threaten the stability of the region, unless we invade.  None of Iraq’s neighbor’s fear him or want us to invade. 
 
Might does not make right.  Just because we can play policeman of the world, doesn’t mean we should.  I am a patriot of God-given liberties first, then secondly, my country.  No freedom-loving person should devote unconditional allegiance to any government or governor but King Jesus.  No agenda is worth our supreme devotion but His.  If our country continues to play the bully of the world, threatening the sovereignty of other nations and endorsing population control programs around the world, America will find her best God-fearing patriots more and more frequently sympathizing with the foreign freedom-fighters who slay her soldiers in self-defense on the battlefield.  The constitutional obligation of our leaders is serving the U.S. citizenry and providing for our safety and security, and we need to get our military out of other nations where our interests are not directly involved. 
 
Argument #5 for Iraqi invasion: Saddam has violated a dozen or so U.N. resolutions.  How long do we let him spurn the opinion of the civilized world before we put teeth to those resolutions with violent vengeance?
 
Rebuttal: That’s the business of the United Nations.  They were not U.S. resolutions, but U.N. resolutions, and so it’s the U.N.’s business to enforce that.  The United States has no business in the U.N. at all!  At a U.N. summit in South Africa last year, the U.N. voted to include Israel and the United States as nations that sponsor terrorism!  Our delegates walked out of the conference in protest, but we need to keep on walking, right out of the U.N. altogether!  We need to get our money and our noses out of the socialistic sovereignty-threatening United Nations.  We need to stop forcing our Americans soldiers put on baby-blue U.N. helmets and serve under foreign commanders who haven’t taken the same oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.  The U.N. doesn’t respect our God-given rights, our Christian God, our nation’s Christian foundations, our 2nd Amendment, or our constitutional limitations on centralized power, and so we shouldn’t respect them or their sovereignty-threatening resolutions. 

Furthermore, it is hypocritical to cite Iraq's violations of U.N. resolutions as a justification to make war on Iraq while we spurn the U.N.'s security council decision not to launch a pre-emptive attack.  I do not defend the wisdom of the Security Council's decisions nor the authority of the United Nations to begin with, but if the U.S. wants to cite repeated Iraqi violations of U.N. resolutions as a justification for a violent forced disarmament of Iraq, then we shouldn't ignore the U.N.'s vote when it comes to how they prefer to enforce those resolutions.  It's hypocritical.  We can't have it both ways.
 
If the United Nations had their way and democratically passed a “U.N. resolution” to disarm America and march in our streets, then their baby-blue helmet wearing soldiers would find out first hand what my .308 caliber hollow-points feel like in the sternum at 3000 feet per second!  (Not to mention the arsenal my wife and family would be shooting at them from inside my compound.  :-))  Seriously, we need to get the U.S. out of the U.N., and if we do that, then we’ll see just how irrelevant and powerless the U.N. is to enforce its own resolutions.
 
Argument # 6 justifying an invasion of Iraq: Saddam’s been firing at our jets with anti-aircraft weaponry ever since we have been patrolling the “no-fly zone” since the end of the first Gulf War.  This places the lives of our soldiers at peril.  An invasion to neutralize the threat to our armed forces is therefore critical to our nation’s interests.
 
Rebuttal: This argument is one of the better arguments for an invasion of Iraq.  Certainly, the protection of our armed forces is in our national interests.  Nevertheless, the whole argument is based upon the legitimacy of the U.N. resolution that dictated the “no-fly zones” in the first place!  Has it ever occurred to us that the “no-fly zone” is in Iraq?!?  The U.N. has declared that Iraq can’t fly their own jets over their own nation and that the U.N. jets can. 
 
What if Iraq, with the vote of some Arab national congress, declared north of the Kentucky and south of Georgia a “no-fly zone” and wanted to fly Iraqi jets over the “no-fly zone” on a regular basis?  They could even cite the U.N. vote that the U.S. is a state sponsors of terrorism in order to give their decision broad international appeal.  Should the United States respect that?  Would we not try to blow his jets out of our sky for violating our sovereign space?  Even if we had agreed to those terms as a condition of surrender in a previous conflict, we would not be eternally bound to them.  Nations and their leaders can change their minds, as Bush demonstrated for us last year by his much-publicized, unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.  The United States and Iraq have every right to defend themselves from foreign enemies who threaten their sovereign airspace. 
 
I submit unto you that the democratic vote of other nations hold no sway over the sovereignty of an individual nation.  If England, Canada, Australia, Cuba, Russia, China, and the E.U. voted that we should trash our constitution and give up our guns like they have, we would not be obligated to do it!  The U.N. has no right to force its will upon other sovereign nations.  Thanks to the United States’ military backing, the U.N. has the power to enforce its dictates, but might does not equal right. 
 
Argument #7 for Iraqi invasion: Saddam could give his weapons of mass destruction to people who hate the U.S. and who might use those weapons against us in terrorist acts.
 
Rebuttal: So could China, N. Korea, or Russia!  We don’t invade nations because they could or might do something. 
 
It is much, much more likely that the U.S. will attack or invade Iraq than it is that Iraq will attack or invade the U.S.  If Saddam followed Bush’s rules of engagement, he’d be saying that since Bush could give weapons of mass destruction to those who might use those weapons against him, then a preemptive invasion of the U.S. is justified!  See how poisonous this reasoning is?  We don’t attack and invade other nations because they might do something to us.  I think that America is much more likely to be attacked by Saddam if we attack and invade him. 
 
In conclusion, there is no promise of victory over terrorism apart from repentance and faith in God.  There’s no assurance of victory over those who terrorize us so long as we continue to legalize the terrorism of our own babies in the womb.  God actually promises to send military defeat and economic depravity to nations that depart from Him.  Do not forsake His longsuffering for complacency, America.  He is a just God, and He will avenge the innocent blood shed in our land; namely, the 45 million slaughtered in the Abortion Holocaust.  We need to return to the Holy Bible and to the principles of our founders in the way we govern ourselves.  This requires humble repentance our personal and national sins.  This requires justice for the preborn.  I fear that if we do not forsake our sins soon, then coming generations will ask themselves, “Whence cometh the destruction of this once-great nation?”  And the answer will come: “Because they have forsaken the God of their forefathers and the covenant they made with Him, and they have shed innocent blood and followed after idols.” 
 
Patrick Johnston

(On next page, read rebuttal of this article by military reservist and former Defense Intelligence Agent, and my response).


1  2  NEXT



© 2003 WhereTheTruthHurts.org - All Rights Reserved.