Why this Black Christian Liberationist, Pacifist, and Libertarian Opposes A War-Mongering Nobel-Peace Prize Winning President
All of these names for our classy operations overseas (and not the one including going on in Pakistan). I mean, seriously, these names sound like action films starring Wesley Snipes and Jean-Claude Van Damme.
Craig had his say, claiming this is a “just war [whatever the heck just means], Joel claims to be conflicted but he may as well just end up supporting the President on this one, as he normally does being a partisan Democrat, and Adam comes out in opposition to this military action.
Let me make this abundantly clear: whenever the United States of America intervenes in another country in the “name of altruism” or justice or freedom or whatever abstract concept seems to be popular at that time, it is always a no-win situation. Whether or not Qaddaffi will be relieved of his “duties” is not the question. Yes, I know that same bull-crap question ask to us “so-called naive” pacifists, “What about Hitler?” and other nice dictators in history. Well, what about them? Most of them are dead, and the dictators who are alive, you know what, we played a part in sustaining their tyrranical regimes. The fact is is that there has never been, in the history of the world, a “JUST-WAR,” for the definition of justice has become so subjective at this point, it is whatever is in the eye of the beholder. If dictators are so bad, why did Clinton choose to not intervene in the Sudan or why did he leave Rwanda? Why didn’t George W. Bush go after Qaddafi during his time in office? Simply put, the reasoning to go to war is so arbitrary is that Christians will defend America’s crusades in the name of Just War theory AFTER the fact, and not before hand.
I will go through Craig’s list, since he is using JWT to support invasion:
1. Legitimate Authority: Uh, no sorry. The authorization for military action has no legitimacy. The U.S. constitution states that only Congress has the power to declare war, not the President under the advice of the United Nations. ILLEGITIMATE. And yes, I side with the Liberty movement: the War Powers Act of 1973 is unconstitutional, it has just never been challenged. One day it will.
2. Just Cause: So yeah, Qaddafi is a evil person, but you know, we do not go into every country with a repressive ruler. What about North Korea? Oh that’s right, whatever is deemed just is subjective.
3. Right Intent: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We do not know what the rebels are fighting for, and so tied with just cause, which at this point is chosen at random without any sort of discernment, the right intent is an excuse after the decision to go to war is made.
4. Last Resort: Last resort? Um, hail no! Military action, ever since Lyndon Baines Johnson, is the first option, always. Diplomacy is always put on the back burner, while the State Department is viewed as an extension of the Department of Defense.
5. Reasonable Chance of Success: Please define success for me, will you? If success is the removal of a dictator, that definition is quite short sited. The path to victory is the dead bodies of innocent civilians, like in Afghanistan, like in Iraq, like in Pakistan.
Fighting FOUR wars is pure insanity. Strength through peace looks more like hell on earth for people of color living in the Two-Thirds world. Missing from equations to go to war is the humanity of the civilians. It is actually much easier to make the case for war if the casualties are seen as non-white and non-human. Thus, the Male Stream Media seems extremely more mournful when discussing the loss of lives of U.S. Americans, but when it comes to civilian casualties overseas, they are nothing but numbers. That is how the MSM feeds into the Military-Industrial Complex, the Strength Through Peace, and the War on Terror.
For these very reasons, I oppose the Four Wars by U.S. American forces on Christian, anti-racist, anti-imperialist, libertarian, and constitutional grounds.