war with iraq

it is interesting how the issues we are facing with iraq are strikingly similar to the issues we once faced with north korea. in the early nineties, when it was known that north korea was actively pursuing technologies to produce weapons of mass destruction, i.e. nuclear weapons, the u.s. and other world powers went the diplomatic route and struck a deal with them. it was the so-called 'contain and embrace' policy. at first, the world powers, namely the u.s., japan, and russia, did not think north korea could pose such a great threat. however, with the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles (icbm) that were capable of reaching as far as alaska, and even potentially the west coast of the united states, their neighbors began to take notice. furthermore, as north korea actively engaged in building nuclear powerplants capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium in yongbyun, the u.s. and others realized that there could well be a nuclear crisis at hand if it was not dealt with immediately. and thus comes the agreed framework. in 1994, the u.s., along with japan and russia, agreed to supply fuel and food to the starving nation of north korea in exchange for an immediate halt on their nuclear weapons program. at the time, it was heralded as a landmark diplomatic move with the stalinist state, but now we see that it miserably failed to accomplish its goals, namely preventing north korea from amassing nuclear weapons.

so what went wrong? mind you, the agreed framework not only kept the north koreans happy with a regular supply of fuel (oil by the tons) and food, they also allowed IAEA inspectors to come in and inspect the plants (a la iraq after desert storm). despite all of this diplomacy, kim jong il still gets the last laugh with a successful nuclear weapons program and an even greater ambition of producing the capability to go inter-continental. that means, not only is south korea in jeopardy, which is obvious (seoul can be turned into a 'sea of fire' within minutes of the first missile launch), but also its neighbor japan, and even more importantly, the continental u.s. can be in
danger of attacks.

if we are to learn anything, the 'contain and embrace' policy is ideal, but realistically, it's not effective in containing so-called rogue nations. it didn't work with north korea. it's not working with iraq. that is why confrontation is necessary.

then, does that mean the only option is war? is it right, especially as a christian, to favor war? one misconception is that president bush is 'pro-war.' it is important to know that bush is not 'pro-war.' in fact, war is the last option. no man should ever favor the killing of lives, especially the inevitable casualty of the innocent, and the destruction of property. however, saddam hussein leaves us no other option to take. as chuck colson says, let all the christians unite in fasting and prayer, with weeping and mourning, as our nation heads into war, and where many lives will be lost for the sake of peace and world security.