While going back and forth with posters to this site on the topic of the morality or immorality of war with Iraq, I noted that many people had other ideas or feelings as to the moral legitimacy and mission or purpose of the West in general or America in particular.

I would like to see what you all feel is the a) likely outcome of a war and American occupation of Iraq, b) what the world would be like if the US does not invade and c) looking down the road a bit, what you think the world will look like in 2023.

Topics include: the war on terrorism, the world and domestic economy, the next US elections, domestic moral policy (*aka Court nominees), and national survival prospects long term (a mix between economic strength and security).

Me first.

I think that war is highly likely. By June it'll be over. Iraqis will dance in the streets. The WMD and their hidden facilities will be revealed by gleeful Iraqis to reluctant UN inspectors and a livid "world community" who will sniff that "this would have been found anyway without war".

The US Central Command will remain in Iraq for the next 20 years... displaced from Germany where it will no longer be needed anyway.

Having such a solid physical and economic presence in the Middle East the US will be that much more immediately involved in peace talks and peace plans. Israel will feel more secure having a regional supporter and will pull out of the West Bank, close down its settlements there, and continue building its West Wall - along the 1967 border.

The Palestinians, bereft of the $25,000 per family donation from Saddam for suicide bombers will look around for new sponsors but will eventually concede that peaceful co-existance is better than losing sons.

Iraq's people will re-establish democracy and the $20 billion a year income from UN supervised Oil sales will pay for Iraqi reconstruction, humanitarian relief, and infrastructure development. Not needing to spend on their own defense, the Iraq economy will take off like never before.

Bush will win reelection by a huge margin and with dropping oil prices the world economy (led by the US) will jump forward. In his next term 2 or 3 new Supreme Court Justices will be nominated, Roe v Wade will be overturned, sweeping reforms in the Public School system will take place - and the Democratic part will split into 3 factions.

(One totally Socialist, one so-called Moderate' led by Clintons and one fused with some pro-abortion Republicans).

China will continue to grow into the Asian Colossus and a jittery Japan will expand its Self Defense Force, but its population will continue to age and economy will continue to stagnate. China will form the second global pole opposite the US. Europe and Eurasia will play each off against the other.

There will be democratic reforms in many Middle Eastern countries. Terrorism will decline as young men find jobs and hope for social advancement - and the hotheads are rounded up.

b) If the US does not invade... several things will happen IMHO. The first thing is more of the status quo... meaning the war on terrorism will truly be unending as terrorists will always find safe haven in Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan, and N Korea.

The economy will continue to sputter as people don't tend to invest (risk) money when the future looks bleak.

The US will suffer several terrorist attacks. The UN won't care. The Democrats will claim this as evidence that their ideas (as yet unmentioned) would have been better. They will win the next election. Upon victory their first move will be to confirm 300 liberal judges to all courts and 3 more to the US Supreme Court upon the retirement of the oldest Supremes'. Polarization of the nation will continue along ideological lines. The US and European economies will stagnate. And government will only continue to grow along with crushing taxation.

China will receive more ultrasecret documents in exchange for months of peace. The US will unilaterally pull out of the Middle East and reduce its presence in Europe. The Democrats will reduce the size of the US armed forces by 1/3rd. China will establish forward bases in Africa and the Carribbean.

The economy will continue to sputter, but we'll be told why: all blame will be laid on Bush. A new generation of children will be taught as much in school.

Prostitution will be legalized, and taxed. As will certain currently illegal drugs. This to much fanfare about "social progress" and "freedom" from all the sophisticated sectors (LA/NY).

c) By 2023, if a) happens we will again have a Catholic president and the American society will witness not only a reduction of taxation and government control, but a flowering of economic freedom and public civility. Abortion will be a horror of the past, and new generations of children will grow up without fear of terror or national calamity.

If b) happens we will see America reduced to a second rate power while Communist China rises supreme economically and militarily, and Christians and their ideals everywhere laid under seige morally, politically, and economically.

Israel will be given an ultimatum: unconditional surrender with peaceful withdrawl to the US or Latin America or UN sanctioned occupation.

The UN with US democrat acquiescence will instate the Kyoto treaty and others, as world economic conditions turn sour. But a chorus of voices will proclaim "progress" "peace" and prosperity. No one will hear of homeless people - or Africans again.

I may be all wrong. This is all pure conjecture. I'm really interested in what you all have to think about this.

Should I move my family to some foreign country, head for the hills, or look forward to a peaceful and long life here in the US?

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), February 28, 2003

Answers

Joe, you have a very fertile mind. I enjoy reading your messages.
By putting this "to the top," I think I'll get a response or two for you.

God bless you.
John.
PS: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed bites the dust today, making the world a safer place. Tomorrow: Saddam joins Kim in Pyongyang?

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 02, 2003.

Hi, Joe

I think you should stay put in our great Country. This great president of ours is making he world a safer place. Take out a second mortgage on your house and dump it all in the Nasdaq. Buy CSCO,INTC, ORCL, EMC, SEBL. In four years you will triple your money. Never again in your life-time will you see great companies like this beaten down this bad. This is a once in a lifetime oppurtunity.

God bless our God fearing president. We are blessed to have this God fearing president. I think he's the greatest president since Ronald Reagan. :-) The price of oil will drop right after we crush Iraq. This is just all emotion with this oil climbing everyday.

I also predict that Mr. Ed Richards will come back to the holy Catholic Church in the year 2005. God bless you Mr. Richards.

David S

-- David (David@excite.com), March 02, 2003.

Hi Joe, Im real busy at work this week, so I will add my two cents when I get a chance to this

> I would like to see what you all feel is the a) likely outcome of a war and American occupation of Iraq, b) what the world would be like if the US does not invade and c) looking down the road a bit, what you think the world will look like in 2023.

I would like to address your question from the dangers of approaching this from a utilitarian(outcome) based approach and not Catholic natural law, and get a few more pointers from you all on moral philosophy. Until then Blessings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 03, 2003.

Hi Kiwi.

I respect your point. I disagree with moral utilitarianism as well. However not every discussion involving consequences is the same thing as moral utilitarianism. Nor is this a matter of the ends justifying the means.

I agree that the US needs constant moral conversion and improvement.

My question is broader... not "is this war OK" or "what else should we do?" but... what do you guys think will be the likely outcomes from war or continued status quo?

After all, the US is not the only power on earth that makes things happen. Nor are we the only country that seeks "national security". There is such a phenomenon of "Power vaccuums" - in that once a strong country pulls out of a region, other powers will flow in...

So if we unilaterally disarm, leave the Middle East, reduce our military by 1/3rd, double our support for the UN... some other nation will take our place.

Now maybe that would be a good thing. But maybe not. It all depends.

I'm interested in what you all have to say.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 04, 2003.

I'll let these guys speak to the question.

"All of us have heard this term 'preventitive war'since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is the first time I heard it. In this day and time.... I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone that came in and talked about such a thing."

President Dwight Eisenhower, 1953,
upon being presented with plans to wage preventitive war to disarm Stalin's Soviet Union

"Our position is that whatever grievences a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling those grievances or for altering those conditions."

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson,
the American prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, in his opening statement

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), March 04, 2003.

Excellent!

These are really great and useful quotes thank you!

They really do spell out why a future war with Iraq could be very unjust.

However, if you would be so kind as to humor me with your view on what probable outcomes war or peace would wreak on our world, I would appreciate it.

You see, as a young dad with a wife and children I want to know as best I can what we can look forward to in the coming decades.

There is an array of forces in this world.. increasing ideological polarization in American politics and culture, a split in Europe, acendant and increasingly strident Islam while at the same time democratic movements bubbling up... newly assertive (and anti- Christian) Hindu nationalists, a surging (and anti-Catholic)Communist China with a booming economy and growing militarism...

In short, if American power is illegitimate and unilateral disarmament and withdrawl is the only moral option, how long do you think we have before the bubble of our security and domestic peace is broken?

Should I head for the hills, relocate to rural regions or emmigrate to a more just and out of the way backwater country where wars and terror will not find us?

Please help.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 04, 2003.

If you find the quotes above reasonable and you take at look at pre- emptive warfare of the past (except the slaughter of native Americans), optimistic outcome predictions are, at best, folly and would be held only by the aggressor.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), March 04, 2003.

Chris, you're really arguing off topic.

I mean those quotes were great but... the topic isn't about the just or unjust nature of an American war and liberation of Iraq...

My question was what you think will happen afterwards both in the short term and long term as far as American domestic tranquility goes.

The reasons I asked are clear - I'd like others' opinions about our chances for lasting or semi-lasting peace in my childrens' life times.

I've argued through plenty of posts that the morality of the US action pivots on the amount of information anyone has as to both the threat posed by Iraq, and the tactics to be used to overthrow a regime that is illegal in its own right.

Careful reading of Vatican diplomatic dispatches as well as public announcements of the big players has convinced me that people tend to talk past each other on this issue rather than with each other.

Up to now virtually NO ONE has provided the facts to back up their arguments as to why diplomacy has a greater chance of success than war - if "Success" is defined as the elimination of future threats to the USA of state-sponsored terrorists armed with WMD.

Diplomacy is entirely capable of achieving "success" if it is defined as preserving the status quo, or convincing state-sponsors of terror to only target the USA rather than Europe or China.

I'm sorry folks but it just isn't intellectually honest to just be opposed to war without also offering some concrete, viable alternative course of action which has a good chance of successfully achieving peace and security.

The other fundamental presumption when making an argument against the US plan is to SUPPOSE or PRESUME the worst case scenario as far as actual war plans go. But no one to my knowledge has offered comments with respect to likely US tactics...

All seem to imagine that we're going to carpet bomb and then nuke innocent civilians for the fun of it. Then wipe out every last Iraqi, steal their oil and then pave over the whole country in asphalt.

But no one has backed up this premise with anything approaching "fact" or "probability". Nor has anyone dealt with the Human rights issue of presently captive Iraqis under Saddam...

In short, while focusing on the morality of this situation you HAVE to look not only on one scenario but at all of them. Not just what is the worst possible case but also the best case... and then look at all the possible and likely alternatives to armed action.

Otherwise we're just grunting and throwing slogans at each other.

I don't want to base my family's future safety on slogans or emotions. I'm looking for REASONS AND FACTS. Please help me.

If you don't have time, fine. But at least try to say something half way intelligent that makes sense not just for beating up the Americans but also applicable if the terrorists were blowing up St Peters or the Eiffel Tower.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 04, 2003.

Joe,
As simple as I can make it.
We are about to invade a country.
We have threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons and chemical weapons beyond our enormous conventional force in this aggression and you ask us to predict outcomes?
As Jimmy Durante says,"I got a million of em." The future is about as predictable as 9/11, I'd venture to guess.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), March 04, 2003.

Countries have a right to self defense.

Under the present UN mandate, countries who invade their neighbors break international law. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 "for their oil".

International law is enforced by the "international community" which acts either in regional coalitions (cf. Grenada in 1983, EU then UN then NATO in the Balkans) or as a world community under the aegis of the UN. (cf. "police actions" in Korea, Sinai, Vietnam, Somalia...)

In 1991 the UN authorized armed force to settle the dispute between Iraq and Kuwait. Hostilities ended when Iraq agreed to an armistice. Terms of armistice agreements are legally binding. The end of Gulf War 1 stipulated terms of peaceful resolution, including a full disclosure and destruction of Iraqi offensive weapons programs.

In international law if the agressor nation breaks the terms of armistice, hostilities may resume. There is no statute of limitations. (Thus, North Korea still is in a state of armistice but not peace with South Korea and the USA after 50 years).

As hostilities ended on condition Iraqi surrender and destroy all said offensive weapons and their production facilities, and since peaceful resolution of international disputes currently hinge on good- faith agreements, it would appear that subterfuge and outright violations of armistice accords render diplomatic solutions void and provoke a renewed hostilities....

According to international law as enforced by the UN, Iraq has been in de facto breech of its legal obligations for over 12 years. It has repeatedly abused the system put into effect by the "International community" to disarm it of offensive weapons.

In November 2002 the UN security council resolution 1441 stipulated that "serious consequences" will occur should Iraq not immediately obey their part of the agreement ending Gulf War 1.

Thus far, Iraq has not immediately surrendered or even admitted to possessing WMD which the UN in 1998 determined that it HAD.

It has also continued to manufacture WMD, and has ties to known illegal terrorist organizations in both Palestine and around the world.

In 1993 Iraq agents attempted to assasinate former president Bush. In 1994 Iraqi defectors supplied evidence that despite 3 years of UN inspections biological/chemical weapons were still being developed in direct breech of international law. In 1998 Iraq expelled UN inspectors.

It was also determined by all parties that UN trade embargoes and other "International diplomatic pressure" resulted in widespread poverty and suffering of the Iraqi people and was thus morally suspect.

Given this list of facts and the legal condition of the present Iraqi regime, I ask you, how shall the "UN" or "world community" maintain some semblance of "international law" when aggressor nations do not need to really disarm or obey the armistice agreements entered into?

In legal terms, the coming American invasion is not "pre-emptive" or "preventive" warfare just as America is not a "democracy" but a federal republic - in other words, words have meanings. If you base your moral argument on the wrong terms your conclusion will not reflect reality and thus be moot.

The coming American invasion will be the direct response to 12 years of Iraqi armistice violations.

But too many moral arguments are being launched based on faulty premises as to what a) the situation actually is, b) what the UN and US are actually doing, and c) what the US plans to do.

Virtually no one who argues that war is unjust explains how Iraqi civilians are EVER to be liberated or the UN resolutions are to be enforced (since embargos are off the table) without armed intervention.

Virtually no one who argues that war is unjust because the US will go in alone ever explains why the war would suddenly become "just" if the UN security council agrees to an invasion! And since embargoes and other forms of intervention are off the table and continued "inspections" are pointless, what viable alternative is left except unilateral and unconditional Iraqi surrender...or war?

And if war comes - and the USA occupies Iraq, there have to be some more likely scenarios and less likely scenarios as to what the world will be like.

I'd like to see what you think is the most likely scenario for a) a US occupied Iraq or a b) US defeat in Iraq and continued status quo.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 04, 2003.

Joe,
You should know that I have been of dedicated contientious objector status since 1968. I shall not dicuss the merits of warfare with you. Nor shall I attempt to sway your opinion regarding this invasion.
I thought it important to point out that your need to guage the future was pointless because of the variables.

-- Christopher Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), March 04, 2003.