THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE
THE LAST CRUSADES

By: Novakeo

The question of whether or not a truly Christian nation should go to war 
has in the past been measured in its justification and morality by its 
citizens and their leaders in the Christian church. There was never any 
question that the oligarchy and its supporters went to war for their own 
interests independent of the people. The elites of nations who needed to 
go to war for one reason or another always had to deceive its citizenry 
on the moral imperative and justification for going to war. So called 
western civilized nations of free people such as the United States, were 
theoretically to go to war based on the principles within the "just war 
theory" by historical contemporaries such as St. Augustine, Saint 
Thomas Aquinas, Hugo Grotius, among others. Regrettably, most of the 
wars America has fought since the revolutionary war were outside the 
parameters of "just war theory". Indeed, historically, many wars fought 
by western nations did not fall within the parameters of just war 
principles, which basically is, that in free societies, nations went 
to war under a strict adherence to the rule of law, or in the action of 
self-defense against hostile invasions, or under the conditions where 
it was obvious that a nation was massing its military forces on the 
borders of another nation for an imminent attack. Naturally, there are 
always opponents to the restrictive concepts of just war principles by 
men and women of war. The fundamental question today is, does the United 
States have the moral authority and just cause to initiate an aggressive 
war on Iraq and beyond, and can the Bush regime claim that its war 
with Iraq is an act of self-defense.  

The assertion by the wizards of Bush, that the policy of preemption is 
a form of self-defense is hysterical and extremely dubious at best. 
Common sense dictates that the impoverished Iraqis do not pose a 
direct threat to the security of the United States. While the despot 
in Baghdad is without a doubt megalomaniacal, that Saddam in the end 
is a survivor is without question, and it would absolutely be suicidal 
for him to initiate hostile intent towards the United States by arming 
terrorists with WMDs. His war with Iran was initiated only under the 
tacit support of the United States. His use of WMDs against Iran and 
the Kurds, again, was only done with the tacit approval of the United 
States. His invasion of Kuwait was also done with the understanding 
that Washington had no interest in Iraqi - Kuwaiti disputes. These 
actions clearly reveal a calculating mind and a determination in the 
past to go to war only with the explicit approval or acquiesce by his 
former friends. Obviously Saddam is a very bad man, but his history 
reveals that he is not a stupid man.  

The truth of the matter is that Iraq has never attacked the United 
States, and that it has never threatened to do so have fallen on deaf 
ears with many Americans. Inconclusive evidence presented by the Secretary 
of State Colin Powell to the United Nations as a justification for war 
has proved to be plagiaristic and duplicitous. An impoverished nation 
weakened by twelve years of low intensity warfare under U.S. led 
sanctions is now about to be invaded by the mightiest military humanity 
has ever produced, and we are to believe that it is an act of self-defense 
by the United States therefore morally justified? The Bush clique can 
fallaciously make that claim, and it only serves to distract from the 
obvious contradictory and erroneous arguments for this aggression. If 
anyone has a legitimate moral justification to claim self-defense it is 
the Iraqis not the United States, the United States is over there invading 
their country; Iraq is not over here attacking or invading America. The 
grand masters of subterfuge have not been able to legitimately link Iraq 
with Al Qaida and have not been able to present a clear case using 
truthful evidence that Iraq has been proliferating WMDs. So, why this 
illegitimate invasion which also happens to be constitutionally illegal, 
which also fails the just war principle of the "rule of law", making 
the initiators of this illegal war, criminals worthy of impeachment and 
incarceration?  

The policy of unilateralism and preemption is a geo-strategic strategy 
defined in the Bush administrations release of its "National Security 
Strategy of the United States of America", has its roots in then 
undersecretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz's 1992 paper "Defense 
Planning Guidance". This strategy was further augmented for Middle 
East use by the 1996 collaborative paper titled "A Clean Break: A New 
Strategy for Securing the Realm" by neocons Richard Perle and 
undersecretary of defense Douglas Feith among others. All these men 
are now in the higher echelons of the Bush government. Wolfowitz's 
paper basically calls for American military power to be used to establish 
American hegemony across the globe suppressing potential rivals who 
have the resources to become a global power. The military encirclement 
of Russia is part of that strategy. It also calls for an American led 
new order based on military power and American virtues which happens to 
be at the moment globalization for its various conglomerates. Together 
with Perle's collaboration, which calls for a convergence of Israeli and 
American interests in the region, and to establish a greater Israel, the 
unilateral policy of imperial preponderance by the Bush administration is 
the direct result of these works. As far as the Middle East is concerned, 
the infallible President Bush has allowed the United States to become 
Israel's proxy in establishing security for Israel alone, which has 
absolutely nothing to do with legitimate American interests. This 
perverse policy is anathema to a constitutional republic, where the 
interests of a favored country becomes its own, which in the end will 
result in the loss of freedom for Americans and consequently the loss of 
a free republic to the dictates of a criminal oligarchy.  

This foreign policy is not, as William Kristol defined Wolfowitz's 1992 
paper as "ahead of his time", rather, it is extremely short sighted and 
dangerous which impugns political realities of other nations for an all 
encompassing American pseudo-strategic-political reality. Of course, 
chickenhawks such as Kristol are permanently engrossed in their own 
megalomania where all they see is wars of conquest for American 
hegemony, for our security of course, not to mention for the benefit of 
the world. This policy that Bush has chosen to implement guarantees 
that nations that are opposed to the imperial designs of the evangelical 
Judeo-Christian master race, are forced to pursue a nuclear program 
and to produce weapons of mass destruction as quickly as possible. It 
really is the smart and prudent thing for these small nations to do 
because they very well know that neocons are cowards at heart and will 
not attack a nuclear armed nation. Nuclear proliferation worldwide will be 
the inevitable result of unilateralism. This is exactly what is happening; 
countries like Iran, Libya, Egypt and North Korea have nuclear 
programs. In North Korea's and Pakistan's case, they are proliferating 
and helping other countries achieve nuclear capability. This geo-
strategic reality clarifies the absolute absurdity in invading Iraq. 
There is no justification for an escalation of hostilities on the 
grounds that we must disarm Iraq of their last remaining bows and 
arrows.  

If anyone is predisposed to use WMD's in the invasion, it is not Iraq, 
but the United States that would do so. The neanderthalian warlord 
Secretary of Defense Donald "boom-boom" Rumsfeld, revealed earlier 
this month that American forces are planning to use "non-lethal" 
biochemical weapons such as anti-riot gases and crowd control agents 
when they invade Iraq such as used by Russian security forces in 
Moscow which resulted in the "not so lethal" massive deaths. 
Supposedly non-lethal, or not, it would be a matter of inconvenience to 
point out to the modern day crusaders that the use of these weapons 
against people in wartime is forbidden and a war crime. But, we all know 
that the Bush government are righteous freedom fighters who are above 
the law consequently not restricted by these informalities, its all ok as 
long as the other guy don't use them because that would just plain be 
evil. The United States is a signatory to the Chemical Weapons 
Convention (CWC) and the 1928 Geneva Protocol, which ban the use of 
chemical agents against people in wartime. How about all the talk about 
"bunker busters" or affectionately called by the war makers "little 
nukes"? Are those WMDs or are they classified as "non lethal" for 
American use only? Ah! this is hypocrisy at its finest.  

This policy that George Bush has deliberately chosen for this country 
is not part of some righteous manifest destiny that our vehement leader 
tries to project. No matter how much his eminence tries to bring a 
fervent religious attitude into public discourse and policy, not seen 
since the zealotry of the crusades, truth and common sense will prevail 
exposing the utter stupidity in boy George's immature attitudes towards 
Americans and the world. Unfortunately many will probably die before 
Americans wake up and see that this country has religious fanatics of 
its own to deal with. As far as Christians are concerned, the wake up 
call should have been the moment Bush declared his war on evil and 
that America was destined to rid the world of evil doers who hate 
freedom. It was the will of "the Almighty" to liberate the oppressed 
people of Iraq, said the boy wonder recently. This Hegelian dialect with 
Gnostic overtones has nothing to do with Christianity and is extremely 
unscriptural. What we are hearing from the gates of power within this 
country is stunningly familiar rhetoric in which Germans who were alive 
in the 1930s can relate to quite well.  

This whole thing is becoming quite pathetic, American diplomats scouring 
around the world in a bid to bribe strategic countries to support what 
the world sees as nothing less than naked aggression against a country 
that does not have the capacity to defend itself. And if billions of 
dollars in bribes aren't enough then outright threats will do just fine.  

These little Caesars that occupy the corridors of power today in 
Washington are men and women of violence, this is what they are 
sowing for themselves and for this nation, and that is what they 
will reap, inescapably, that will be their end. Sadly, they could 
very well take down an entire nation with them.  

"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this  
notice and hyperlink intact."

Novakeo is editor and writer for America First on Foreign Policy (AFFP). 
He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.

Published in the February 28, 2003 issue of Ether Zone.
Copyright (c) 1997 - 2003 Ether Zone.

                            -==-

Source: Ether Zone - http://etherzone.com/2003/nova022803.shtml


Cheers, Steve..

---