President Bush's address to the UN this morning served as a reminder to peace-seeking nations that the preservation of peace sometimes warrants the selective use of massive military force. The President outlined a convincing prosecution against Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein. This rouge regime has systematically ignored UN resolutions as a prerequisite for the lifting of international sanctions. War can be averted, if and only if, UN inspectors are able to independently verify that Hussein is not stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and wanton murder. Exhausting all diplomatic options, failing to comply with UN resolutions and flagrantly violating international law, mean quite simply that Hussein is unfit to serve and war is imminent.

I strongly believe that the removal of Hussein, even if by military force, is the correct option. Many detractors and dissenters of the use of military force to eliminate the current Iraqi menace have adopted the multilateralist approach for dealing with foreign policy conundrums. The prevailing 21st century view is understood in the context that international cooperation must be attained prior to decisive action. But this view appears to be somewhat selective in its usage. Between August 1998 - March 2000 the US engaged in 9 military bombing campaings in foreign countries, rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, liberated Kosovo and prosecuted the Slavic tryant Slobodan Milosovic. These actions during the Clinton Administration were unilateral yet the current President is routinely criticized for taking a unilateral course of action. I am weary of listening to many of our AME clergy pontificating about the "wrongheaded direction " of Bush's foreign policy agenda. I am often a political minority on these issues and don't mind the critical comments. I am more than capable of holding my own view, I just happen to think that the House of God is not the right place to have a meaninful debate about international politics (that's why we have colleges, libraries and other non-sectarian public establishments). The problem I see in our churches however is one of balanced criticism.

Few, if any, of our black clergy criticized President Clinton's foreign policy agenda even though he presided over: 1. the horrific civil wars in Burundi & Rawanda, 2. Serbian ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, 3. the bombing of US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzaniaand 4. the arial bombing campaign in Yugoslavia.

The reticent response by many of our clergy leaders and members was nothing more than political appeasement to the Democratic Party even though the objective was the same as the current GOP administration. I suppose it is ok for a Democratic President to deploy force (which I supported then) but "unethical" for Mr. Bush to do the same thing. Personally speaking, unilateral actions when well thought out represent leadership not cowboy interventionism. The evidence about Iraqui non-compliance is unimpeachable. The point of brinkmanship we now find ourselves leave us with no choice but to exercise appropriate enforcement. Why must innocent lives be paraded (lost through indiscriminant Iraqui aggression) across the media for us to realize the impending threat? If not now when? If not us who? QED

-- Anonymous, September 12, 2002

Answers

This is a difficult issue. While Proffessor QED's position is well thought out and as usual, well articulated, I find myself in strong disagreement.

The concept that the United States would and should act by itself in launching a military preemptive strike against another country is deeply troubling to me.

The argument that Hussein is evil is truly beside the point. If that is so (and it very well might be so), he is surely not the only one of such ilk in the world. Do we begin a crusade to elininate all such goverments? Who died and made us in charge of such matters? Our friend from Nambia has an excellent point. Once that door is open where does it stop? If Hussein is indeed a ruthless` cruel dictator that is hated and despised by his people then it is his people that must rise up against and overthrow him. If such an effort begins and clearly has the overwhelming support of the masses in his country, then and ONLY then would we have the moral authority to step in and interfere with any form of military assistance.

To argue the fact that Hussein is stockpiling weapons of mass destruction that might be used against us is, in and of itself, somehow a justification for invasion, is equally crazy. Using that reasoning why did we not invade Russia back in the 50's? or any number of the dozen or so countries that have such capabilities (many of them with political leanings and agendas that are at odds with our own). If in fact Saddam Hussein ever decides to use such weapons in an act of aggression against the US or any other soverign country then the response of the international community would be, and should be, swift and and sure... even as it was with his prior invasion that led to the Gulf war.

In short, I do not believe there can EVER be a political (important) or moral (even more important)case made that justfies the United States,acting by itself without the authority of UN Resolution, lauching a preemptive military attack against another Country that has not first attacked us,

Having said all of that let me hasten to add that the situation changes dramatically , IMHO, when we talk about the US acting ibn concert as a part of a UN enforcement action. Hussien agreed to terms of peace in response to getting his butt whipped by an international collabrative at the point that he decided to invade another country. If he is failing to live up to those terms, then in fact, he must face the consequences...consquences and enforcement action taken by the same international community that initiated the original action, NOT by any Country deciding to act as judge and jury by itself To that end, I applaud Mr. Bush's and Colin Powell's (thank God for Collin Powell)actions at the UN.

The primary differnce in the Clinton cases you cited Bill is thay were actions taken in concert WITH and as a PART of UN sponsred and sanctioned enforcement actions That is VASTLY differnt from what was being proposed by those in the Bush Adminitratiuon and even by Bush himself in suggesting a preemptive military attack by the United States alone.

Tours in the Joy of Jesus,

Mike Barta

-- Anonymous, September 16, 2002

Bill is my true friend so we can disagree, respect each other and still be friends. So Bill you know I disagree.

Pax Americana, The Peace of America, reminds me of Pax Romana, The Peace of Rome.

As our Lord was about to ascend He appeared to His disciples--who were at that time mostly Jews--and said to them, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world."

History records that seventy years later they were still dragging their feet and God allowed the government of Rome to come in and literally take them (the Jews) throughout the world so His purpose, will and mission would be done. It is also interesting to note that the only ancient church, which survived and still exists today, was the Church at Rome where this peace began.

Last Christmas I spoke to my Sunday School class and asked, Why, 2000 years later, there is still no peace on earth? Even though I hate clichés, the Lord spoke to me in an old cliché--"No Christ--No Peace, Know Christ--Know Peace.

America has no monopoly on God but we are blessed to know His will. And we are blessed to know the Prince of Peace.

Our peace lies not in war but in the Prince of Peace, even Jesus Christ our Lord. As I have said before I believe this impending threat of war is solely based on our own ego of power and greed.-- who controls the oil and riches of this world.

The time is well nigh past that we do as Our Lord Commands. "Go into all the world and tell the News."

God looks on America and calls us to His will. As the time draws ever near to the time of his decent, it is only when we do what He has commanded us to do that me may avoid the fate of the Jews who long ago faced the Pax Romana - The Peace of Rome.

Remember God has said, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, Hear ye Him."

Peace Only comes when we know the Mighty God, The Everlasting Father and the Prince of Peace.

I don't know who contols the peace of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but I know who controls my peace and Therefore I will not fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea; Though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof. "

NO Christ--NO Peace, Know christ--Know Peace!

-- Anonymous, September 16, 2002

Pastor Barta & Robert:

Gentleman, now I know how King Agrippa II felt when he was cross- examining St. Paul in the Book Acts chapters 25-26. Your well- reasoned positions almost maketh me to reconsider my position. I wouldn't expect nothing less than your customary intelligent, spirited and spiritual dissent about my position. Thankfully, this forum can provide a vehicle for civil exchange without partisan sniping. Pastor Mike when I visit your congregation please make sure my introduction is focused not on my borderline war-mongering propensities but instead my preference for the finer things in life like studying the Book of II Chronicles or enforcing hem-line regulations for our saintly female parishoners :-) QED

-- Anonymous, September 17, 2002

The Word of God says, that we are living in the Last Days, where there shall wars and rumors of wars, nations raising against nations, etc. So this normal according to the Word. However for us as the Body of the Lord Jesus Christ, we are reminded that, when we see and hear of these things take place for us to look up for our redemption draws nigh. We should expect conflicts to occur, but it is up to us to be in the position of prayer, on our faces before the Lord to intervene in all of this. We must admit we are living a time that tries men's souls, and the position of the world everything from politics to relgion is NOT getting any better but worse. We are living in the Pre- Antichrist age, his spirit is here as we can clearly see lurking in our goverments, economy and YES our churches. The only way issues like this will be addressed is through total submission and prayer.Issue such as this NEED to be addressed in our churches, because it is not a flesh issue it is a spirit issue. I feel the Church as a whole need to come under a solem assembly and seek God's mind on this situation. For too long we have sought the mind of man spiritual issues such as this. (Yes this war is a spiritual issue, we not fighting against flesh and blood, but against wickness in hight places) And when we seek the mind of man to straight out a spiritual issue, we fall in rebellion. How can the mind of a man replace the mind of God?

-- Anonymous, September 19, 2002