On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 16:48:44 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote > If Iraq does end up as a stable > democracy - and the odds of that are higher than they > have ever been in all of Iraqi history - are you going > to come back and admit that those evil > neoconservatives destroyed one of the vilest > governments on earth and replaced it with something > pretty good _while you did everything you could to > stop it from happening_? Who, in that equation, will > have been looking out for poor, brown people who are > far away?
Are you saying that Warren been trying to prevent democracy in Iraq? Are you saying that war is the only way to get rid of an evil dictator? Or war was the only way to get rid of this one? Am I mistaken in believing that in almost every other case, our policy has been not to go to war for that reason? Is "removing an evil dictator" justification for this war? For what it's worth, there is no major religion that accepts such a justification. There are two great religious traditions with regard to war -- pacifism and "just war" theology. The latter never allows for a pre-emptive war. Virtually every major religious body in the world (the one notable exception being the Southern Baptist Association) urged us not to undertake it, before it began, which means before we even knew for sure that Iraq was no threat to us. Very aggressive inspections by an international force more like police than military, indicting the leader in a world court and other pressure could be brought to bear in such situations. Well-developed policies and plans for such intervention, backed by international agreement, would go a very long way toward peace. And so would many things that I have a direct part in -- consumption of oil and other scarce resouces, more diverse voices in the media, a more intelligent national discussion of issues and values... Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
