Were Those Who Opposed War Wrong?



The question has been raised and it deserves an answer. Yet it must be asked does the answer to the question depend on the results of the war? If in the future there is a rise of terrorist activity in the United States and Britian would that make the war suddenly suspect in the minds of supporters? If there is never any "real" evidence of weapons of mass destruction found would that make the war wrong? Does anyone even remember why this war was being fought in the first place and why those opposed felt that all the means to avoid it had not been exhuasted?



There is no question that the United States possesses a superior military second to none on this planet. We have air and satelite capabilities that make us the "supermen" of the planet. We can easily become the bully on the block--but the bully in the end is always destroyed by some "David" who comes at it with a slingshot. We can also become a great force for the good of the world (as we have often been at our better moments).



Those who opposed the war or in most case correctly opposed the war at this time can speak for themselves. I for one still think that the end doesn't justify the means--a good end doesn't justify using any means to arrive at it. But my convictions come from my belief in Jesus Christ and how I encounter Him in the Gospels--His injunction that Catholics will hear again this Holy Week that if a man doesn't have a sword, he should now buy one is quickly followed by one of his disciples using a sword when the same Jesus comes under attack. The Lord responds angrily for His disciple to put away the sword, "for those who live by the sword, die by the sword."



There is nothing wrong with us having the big sword, but if we start living by it--I fear what the future may hold for us.