Many are searching to find a "just war theory" to provide a moral and ethical cover for this dirty war in Iraq.
You can not compare Lincoln's very moral stance against the barbarism of the slave trade and the institution of slavery with Bush's intent to occupy Iraq for:
1. Oil
2. Regional domination
3. To support a bellicose Israel which continues to pursue a policy of treating Palestinians as if they have a non-human standing, much like the Native Americans of Lincoln's day.
Oh, ok, maybe there is a comparison between Bush and Jefferson Davis.
Going to war hurt Lincoln immensely... it cost this courageous and noble man his life... whereas Bush and his oil buddies... along with the CEO's of Halliburton, Blackwater and United States Information Services are making hefty profits from this war in Iraq without any personal risk at all.
I have studied the Civil War quite thoroughly, including visiting not only many of the Civil War battlefields in the South; I have spoken to many of the descendants who remain loyal supporters of slavery and the Confederacy in these communities... some of whom still hail Jefferson Davis as their hero as they look down upon Lincoln and have a great admiration for George Bush.
There is no "theory" of any kind which can justify what the United States is doing in Iraq, or Afghanistan, today; nor, the unconditional support for a bellicose Israel.
I am happy to see that morality and ethics is now entering into the discussion.
Lincoln had a conscience and really had to grapple with the human toll and suffering of the Civil War; I really don't believe George Bush has any concept of morality and ethical behavior in our modern world where dialogue and discussion over problems is considered the "norm" for most of humanity.
Many have pointed out that I have been using 21st century concepts of ethics and morality in judging those who settled Jamestown and introduced slavery to North America... now, I would encourage you to consider that peace through dialogue and mutual understanding and respect for one another is the morality of our contemporary world... there simply is no longer a place for theories that allow for "pre-emptive wars," certainly not pre-emptive wars that have been initiated based upon lies and deceit; I doubt you will find any theory, contemporary or otherwise, which would justify such a war.
Lincoln was very honest about the Civil War... he did not hide behind lie after lie after lie as George Bush does.
What did give Lincoln fits was the fact that Congress was allowing a large part of the Armed Forces to be engaged in a brutal campaign to exterminate Native Americans here in Minnesota and the Dakotas at a time he desperately needed these troops to help win the Civil War.
Bush's problems are all of his own making; Lincoln's problems were created by people with a mindset like Bush... but, you will probably accuse me of mixing the ethics and moralities over a one-hundred fifty year period... however, I have noticed that the military seems to have become dominated by generals of southern descent... I am thinking this may be something which requires some research to see if those who could not win the Civil War to continue slavery have risen to positions of great influence in the United States military establishment today as I have noticed a similarity in the way they think to those who continue to refuse to acknowledge the Confederacy lost the war and drive around with bumper stickers on their cars proclaiming their racism stating: "If we would have known; we would have picked our own cotton."
I would also note that this same military establishment frowned upon the man who exposed the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam teaching "ethics and morality" at West Point and other military academies... perhaps this is why torture, human debasement, and ignominy has been tolerated in Iraq, along with brutal and grotesque hangings very similar to the torture and mass hangings of Native Americans in Mankato, Minnesota which Lincoln so despised.
I would ask, why, at this present, advanced stage of human development any kind of "just war theory" would be needed when there isn't a single local, regional, or international problem which can not be resolved through dialogue and negotiation?
The fact is, no matter how morally and ethically wrong terrorism is no nation can wage "war" against terrorists--- it is simply an impossible task.
The only way to end terrorism is to deprive terrorists of the issues they claim "inspire" them to their immoral and dirty deeds... you apprehend and punish the terrorists as you would any other criminal as you try to resolve any legitimate problems they hide behind that are giving rise to their dirty deeds. You do not wage war against the people of an entire nation where you think these terrorists might be hiding out in holes in the desert or caves in the mountains.
Before even considering a "just war theory" which would involve military action it has to be determined if the military is the appropriate governmental department required for the job; to apprehend criminals--- terrorists--- you usually use the police who are supposedly trained for such tasks.
I find it quite amazing the FBI and the CIA can not locate Bin Laden after all these years especially since he was great chums with the CIA for so long and on their payroll, as were mafia hit-men.
After reading "The Family Jewels" I am thinking perhaps there is a slight problem with "ethics and morality" in our police agencies, in addition to our military, and the man in the executive office... perhaps Bush should have considered having a mafia hit-man slip Bin Laden the "pill" that was left over from the disgraceful attempted hit on Fidel Castro?
Actually, Daddy Bush, who was the head of the CIA, could have slipped Bin Laden the pill himself when he was wining and dining him... perhaps he was afraid Bin Laden would switch drinks with him.
Wouldn't this be a good time for Congress to consider impeachment?
Something to think about and ponder around the kitchen table.
