On Iran, Iraq, and the Moral Clarity of Just War

Well, it's been a while—eight years since my last post—but the urge struck me again in the midst of learning how to create models in Blender for my new Anycubic Kobra S1 3D printer. Time has flown by—hours and days passing while working in Blender without my noticing them at all.

Anyway, here are my thoughts on the current threat of Iran, in the context of how we responded to Iraq during their invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

---

In today’s geopolitical landscape, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran—a nation that has made direct threats against Israel and, at times, the United States—forces us to confront hard questions about preemptive action, national defense, and moral restraint.

Often, critics of military force invoke Christian teachings—particularly the words of Jesus—as if they require absolute pacifism. But that’s an incomplete reading. When Christ drove the money changers from the Temple, it was not a violent riot, but a targeted act of moral confrontation. He condemned corruption hidden under religious pretense, and he did so forcefully. This wasn’t about losing control—it was about demonstrating righteous anger in the face of institutional exploitation.

This example provides a useful framework for understanding Just War Theory, developed by theologians like Augustine and Aquinas, and central to Christian moral philosophy. Just War doctrine doesn’t forbid force—it regulates it. War must be:

• Waged for a just cause (not conquest),

• Declared by a legitimate authority,

• A last resort, after diplomatic efforts fail,

• Proportional in its force,

• And conducted with a realistic chance of success.

Now consider Iraq. In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait—unprovoked and brutal. It was a clear violation of international law and Christian morality. The U.S.-led coalition that expelled Iraq in 1991 did so with moral legitimacy: it was defensive, restrained, and backed by international consensus. The goal was not conquest, but liberation.

The ceasefire Iraq agreed to afterward, under UN Security Council Resolution 687, required proactive disarmament and unrestricted access for inspectors. Iraq failed on both counts. It obstructed, delayed, and deceived. It did not meet the burden of proof—it evaded it.

This failure sustained the just cause for continued pressure. While the 2003 invasion of Iraq is more controversial—especially given the flawed intelligence regarding WMDs—the moral groundwork had already been laid by Saddam’s consistent noncompliance, aggression, and brutal internal repression.

Critics of the Bush administration often claimed the war was about oil or revenge, but these accusations have little grounding in fact:

• Iraq retained control of its oil fields.

• U.S. oil companies did not walk away with spoils.

• The cost of the war far outweighed any conceivable resource gain.

Had a different administration been in power, many of these same critics may have viewed the situation differently. Political alignment often colors moral outrage.

Now, to Iran. Its regime sponsors terrorism, suppresses dissent, and has made explicit threats of annihilation. If it were to acquire and ready nuclear weapons, Just War principles could apply—if the threat is credible, imminent, and unavoidable by peaceful means. Christian moral tradition doesn’t require nations to sit idle while their cities face potential destruction. But it also doesn’t permit wars of conjecture or convenience.

Regime change, contrary to some interpretations, is permissible under Just War Theory, if the regime in question is itself a threat to peace and human dignity—just as Nazi Germany was. The morality of the act lies not only in the removal, but in the responsibility taken afterward to secure peace and stability.

The lesson from Iraq is not that action was unjustified—but that action must be matched by foresight. Intelligence must be solid. Planning must be thorough. And motives must remain rooted in justice, not pride or profit.

Ultimately, Christian doctrine compels us to ask:

• Is the danger real?

• Have we exhausted other options?

• Is our response aimed at peace?

If so, then action—even preemptive action—can be morally just. The challenge lies not in knowing whether evil should be resisted. The challenge lies in resisting it wisely.

USDA Employees Suggest Rremoving 'Climate Change' Term

So, no more "climate change."


Actually, who could deny "climate change?" Who would expect the climate to remain static, unchanging?


Of course, the climate's going to change. It has done nothing but change for the entire history of this planet even having a climate. Nature hates stasis, loves chaos. And, the climate is a product of Nature.


Now, whether or not Man has a meaningful effect on the climate is another thing. I contend that He does not. At least, that such an influence has yet to be proven in a manner that would meet the terms of the Scientific Method. A Method that seems to be among the unknown to the "scientists" of the Consensus.


So, the change embodied in the USDA emails would be more for the term as it is used in the anthropogenic global warming lexicon than for the meaning of the term itself.


Note: not just "global warming," because the world is warming as a by-product of the Sun aging. Eventually, the Sun will grow so large that it will engulf the Earth. But, long before that, the Earth will have been turned to a charred cinder. The term, "anthropogenic," must be included to properly note that the term applies to a warming caused by Man. Again, something not scientifically proven.

23 Million Would Lose Health Insurance Under Republican Bill

Prior to Obamacare, the story was that there were 47 million uninsured. Supposedly, this was why we so drastically needed the unconstitutional program.


Now, with repealing it, we only go back to 23 million uninsured. Looks like 24 million managed to find insurance. Why can't the remaining 23 million do what they did?


Anyway, the US has a population of 324 million. Why are 93% of the People being taxed just to provide 7% with insurance? Further, how many of that 7% are young, healthy individuals who feel they don't need insurance just yet, and would prefer getting a bigger paycheck, instead?


Even if the federal government had the authority to provide healthcare - they don't - why not simply address the alleged needs of that 7%, rather than screw up the insurance and healthcare plans of the remaining 93%?


Why not? Because the healthcare industry would lose their shirts being forced to cover "pre-existing conditions," unless EVERYONE is FORCED into the program.


Question: If one has no car insurance and gets into a wreck, is there a reasonable expectation that they can trot to an insurance company to buy insurance to cover that "pre-existing condition" for their car?


There is no "one size fits all" option here. And, that's all the feds can do, which is one reason why they are not authorized to meddle in healthcare.

NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years

Those proposing anthropogenic global warming do not use the rigors of the scientific method to test their claim. They propose a theory and expect all to accept their opinion on face value. Their "belief," if you will. They want to prevent any competing idea from reaching the light of day.

To that, there is an apropos quote from Carl Sagan;

The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge. And there is no place for it in the endeavor of science.
-- Carl Sagan, Cosmos.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is their religion and it is being used to further their politics.

Personally, I hope they're right.

No, really.

If they're right, then it means that Man IS causing global warming. And, if so, Man could stop the process.

But, they have not provided the smallest proof. As such, I am forced to conclude that it is Nature and that Man is ineffective against it. So, we better learn to adapt, if this is a long term problem.

US aim for ‘zero civilian casualties’ draws criticism

"U.S. and coalition air forces are aiming for zero civilian casualties in airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), frustrating some lawmakers who say the military campaign is progressing too slowly."

Oh my gawd!

Fight the war or not, you moronic pacifists.

"Zero civilian casualties?"

So, all ISIS has to do is grab some civilians, hand-cuff, tie or chain them to their vehicles or in their buildings, and voila! Instant protection from any sort of attack.

What we need to do is go all Dresden on their sorry @sses.

Terrorists can't hide where they aren't - at least - grudgingly accepted. If the civilians in these towns and cities didn't want ISIS, they could throw them out. So, we send over a few squadrons of B-52s, lay down a few hundred tons of iron bombs - none of this picayune "surgical strikes" malarkey - and level their cities, if they don't kick out ISIS. Make them fear US far more than they fear ISIS.

All these people understand is a heavy hand and all we're doing is giving them stern looks.

South Carolina governor expected to call for removal of Confederate flag

The Hill reports that South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley is expected to call for the removal of the Confederate flag from the state capitol grounds at a Monday afternoon press conference.

Speaking as a born Yankee, I find this ridiculous. The flag didn't do anything. Leave it to the left to attack a symbol, rather than the party responsible.

When I first moved to Texas, I saw all these bumper stickers saying, "The South's Gonna Do It Again!!" My first thought was, "What, lose?" I thought that it was silly to revere this flag, but, hey, to each his own.

An insane fool shot up the church, not a hunk of cloth. Put the fool away, execute him, but attacking a collection of colored threads arranged in a pattern is just plain moronic.

Why Abortion Should Be Illegal

There was a time when I considered abortion as acceptable at any point prior to the fetus being viable outside the womb. My logic was, if the mother died, then the fetus would not be able to live without her. Admittedly, this was not a well-thought out position, but one borne of poor education on the topic.

However, as time went on and I became more educated in rights, logic and the law, I realized that the point of viability is a variable. It changes not only with the advent of technology, but also with each fetus. I came to realize that humans aren't machines; no two are alike, thus no two fetuses will have the same viability.

Connecting this to the fact that LAW must be definable; that it must be OBJECTIVE, not SUBJECTIVE; that it must be clearly laid out with parameters set in stone; I then realized that there is only point in a fetus' being where that can be pinned down:

Conception. Any other point is variable and depends upon natural events or outside intervention.

Then, I considered human rights and their nature. Bringing them into the equation, I determined that the question is; "At what point are human rights assigned to a human?"

Prior to this point, a human - well, potential human - is merely a mass of differentiated tissue; property. And, like any other property, it can be disposed of in any manner the owner wishes.
After this point, however, a human is - well, a human. He is embodied with all the rights God grants to all human beings and no man is empowered to take them away. One of those rights is the right to life.

So, the problem is, when are rights assigned?

They can't be assigned on some nebulous idea like "viability." As I pointed out earlier, that is a subjective assessment that cannot be presumed to be the same for all. No, rights MUST be assigned at a point that applies for ALL humans.

There are only two points in a human existence that are well-defined and subjective;

1. Conception, and
2. Death.

Well, it's silly to assign rights at death, so the only other point available is conception.

But, some say, what about birth? Why not assign rights at the time of birth? That is an event all share.

Alright, why not birth?

First, what is "birth?"

Is it expulsion from the birth canal? If so, does that mean that all delivered by C-section are not human?

Of course not.

How about that point at which the human life takes its first breath outside of the womb; either through natural or surgical means. Well, if for nothing else, we already have judicial precedence set where someone who has killed a pregnant woman has been charged with two murders. As one cannot "murder" differentiated tissue mass, obviously the law already considers the unborn as human with the rights there assigned.

However, even without that legal precedence, I cannot think of any magical process that takes place prior to a child's first breath that converts the fetus from a hunk of flesh to a living being with rights. After all, even birth can be subjective; arbitrary.

Birth can be induced and there is the C-section process, both of which introduce an outside decision on when the event takes place. Thus, even birth is subjective, and more so as our technology increases. Test-tube baby, anyone?

So, birth can't work, either, due to its subjective nature.

Therefore, by the above reasoning, I can see no other time than conception for the assignment of human rights. Thus, any abortion is an inherent violation of one's rights and that is why it should be illegal.