----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 11:56 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
> Dan wrote: > > > My point was (however poorly I made it) that the invasive inspections that > Hussein allowed were a measure of his weakness and his vulnerability to > measures other than a full out invasion. He was weak in the sense that he would lose a war with the US, that's pretty clear. But, he allowed more invasive inspections before, stretched out over several years. I thought at the time that such inspections would allow us to continue to contain him. I'd be curious to see why the same type of inspections that we had before would do any more than what was done before. Why was Hussein more vulnerable in 2003 than in 1991? The main point that Gautam seems to be arguing is that whether or not to go to war in Iraq was a point that reasonable moral people can differ on. Words like "unjustifiable" tend to indicate that such a stand is impossible for a reasonable moral person to have taken. Dan M. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
