What with everyone claiming God is on their side lately, I have decided to go back and read the Bible cover to cover again. I'm about half way through Exodus and so far neither Sadaam Hussein nor George Bush's names have come up yet, but I'll let you know if they do. My point is that so many people claim to know what God wants from us, but how can we really know. The best we can do is what we think is right. It is the height of presumption to claim that what you are doing is Gods will. We don't know what His will is. If we did, then God would be obsolete. The best we can do is try and do what we think He wants us to do. I believe what our military is doing is right, but I cannot believe that God would want us to kill. I believe He would prefer a peaceful solution. However, we are mere mortals and I also believe we are doing the best we can given what we are I only hope God can forgive us for the way we are handling this test He has put before us. Maybe someday we will be able to look back upon the way we have handled things and find a better way.

It never ceases to amaze me how the same people that scream the loudest about how our soldiers are fighting for our freedoms, will be the first to trample all over them. Earlier this week, Peter Arnett of NBC and MSNBC showed an appalling lack of judgment by going on state run Iraqi television and saying he though the U.S. war plan in Iraq was failing. This blunder cost him his job and the respect of many of his viewers. Mr. Arnett has paid an appropriate price for his mistake. However, there are now members of our government who want to try Mr. Arnett for Treason because of what he said. Mr. Arnett's comments in my opinion were inappropriate for and American Journalist on an "enemy" TV network, but they were hardly treasonous. The first amendment protects our right to make an ass of ourselves, especially journalists. Treason is defined by the constitution as knowingly giving aid or comfort to the enemy. I do not believe Mr. Arnett intended to do either. My Arnett was exercising his right as an American to express his opinion. It shames what our soldiers are doing in Iraq to even suggest that what Mr. Arnett did was treason. People have every right to agree or disagree with Peter Arnett. Our government does not have the right to try him for his words.

I’m once again glued to the TV. It’s like car wreck on the freeway. Try as I might, I just can’t seem to bring myself to change the channel to something other than the war in Iraq. The Iraqi government seems to be living up to it’s reputation. They have already violated the Geneva Convention by publicly interrogating POWs. This less than 24 hours after Saddam Hussein publicly pledged to follow the convention. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.

As of this writing, the U.S. is at war with Iraq. It's stated purposes are to enforce the U.N. resolutions requiring Iraq to rid itself of weapons proscribed by the cease fire agreement signed at the end of the first gulf war, to further the fight against terrorism, and to remove the government of Iraq that poses a threat to the security of the U.S. and the world. Many people do not agree with our country's decision to go to war with Iraq to further the stated objectives. I happen to agree with the actions taken by the U.S. and others. Of the people who don't agree with the actions of this country, several of them I am proud to call friends. Many people who disagree with the war in Iraq have been called "Un-American" or worse. The defining attributes of a free society are the right to hold whatever beliefs you want, and the right to express those beliefs in a way that does not harm others without reprisals from the government. The people who disagree with the actions of our government are displaying the very thing that make this country great. These people should be applauded for their courage in standing up to the government. I hope to get some people who disagree with my point of view to contribute to this blog.

The government of Iraq has been given 12 years to comply with the 14 U.N. resolutions requiring them to rid themselves of proscribed weapons. The only time it seems they even make a show of destroying these weapons is when foreign troops are sent to enforce the resolutions. The Iraqi government has claimed that they are complying with the U.N. resolutions, but they have been unable of unwilling to provide proof of their compliance. If they are complying with the resolutions, why haven't they provided the proof that the U.N. required? Were I trying to comply with the requirements of a legally binding resolution, I would make sure I had the proof of my compliance.

Almost all of the Iraqi people who have managed to get out from under the shadow of Saddam Hussein agree that he and his government needs to be removed by whatever means necessary. It is for these reasons that I support the governments decision to send troops into Iraq.

Many people accuse the U.S. of acting unilaterally in this action. The U.S. has been called upon by the world many times in the past to do what we are doing now. I cannot see how what we are doing now differs from what we were asked to do in Yugoslavia, Kuwait, South Korea and many other places around the world. Also, as of this writing there are over 40 countries whose governments has expressed public support of what we are doing. The are troops from several countries right along side of U.S. troops working to make Iraq a safer place. Some of the countries that support are actions are middle east countries that are directly threatened by Saddam Hussein's government and military. A large percentage of the countries in support of the war in Iraq are countries that until recently were oppressed by dictators themselves.

Had certain permanent members of the U.N. security council not vowed the veto any resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq to enforce the U.N. resolutions, the resolution would have most likely passed. This is a case of a few countries dictating to the majority. By this token, I would argue that those countries that blocked the passage of the resolution allowing the use of force were acting unilaterally themselves.

The inability of the U.N. to enforce their resolutions in regards to Iraq has seriously compromised it ability to be a force of peace and freedom in the world. The U.N. has the potential to be a world wide instrument of order in the world, but it will not be able to live up to it's potential as long as a few countries are able to manipulate it's policy in their own interests, and in detriment to the good of the rest of it's members. The idea of 5 countries having the power in a supposed world organization in a contradiction. All countries need to have an equal voice for it to be an effective organization. I would like to see the veto power stripped from all members of the security council, including the U.S. If a country is unwilling to support the wishes of the majority of the members of the U.N., they should not be allowed to keep the rest of the U.N. for acting in what they perceive to be in the best interest of the world.