On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 20:08:41 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > It can be. Bush I and Clinton tried other means for ~12 years. I > think, after that time, it was safe to say that Hussian wasn't > losing his grip on the country and wouldn't without an invasion.
Safe to say? Meaning it's not debatable? Do you think that international pressure could have been increased -- something between what we were doing and going to war? > Again, let me state that I was opposed to going in because I didn't think > we were prepared to handle the peace afterwards. We might suceed in > spite of ourselves...but if we do or not, the question with regards > to Iraq has always been a practical one to me. The practical > questions need to be answered with ethics in mind, but I see nothing > inherently wrong in overturning Hussein with military power. Even though Iraq neither attacked us nor posed a credible threat? I don't see any room for such an action under any major religion's theology. > Well, let's look at three other cases I don't mean to disrespect your focus on the past, but I think we need a vision for the future that is different from the past. None of our solutions to this sort of thing has worked particularly well. Let's have an international discussion that develops approaches to conflict resolution that are as advanced as our weapons systems! The questions I posed above are critical to making a moral decision, I believe -- did the nation in question attack us? Does it pose an imminent threat. If the answer to both is no, can war be justified? If we're fighting terrorists, rather than nations, how can war be an solution at all? Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
