> From: Dan Minette > > Would this be a general rule for the US being engaged in a > war? That we > only use our military against countries that pose a direct > threat to harm > the US? >
I would like to think it went further than that. I don't think democracies should start wars at all. And what is a direct threat? Don't all the current nuclear powers pose a direct threat? Does that mean war should be declared on China, Russia, France etc? No, so where do you do draw the line?. I don't think I agree with this idea of the right to pre-emptive strike. If the US has it, then so does every other nation (or don't they, and if not, why not?) and as the US most certainly does pose a direct threat to every nation on earth, then they all have the right to a pre-emptive strike against the US, using whatever means they have available, eg planes, suicide bombers etc. I think pre-emptive strike is too dangerous a precedent and too open to potential political manipulation, as Iraq demonstrates. As for "humanitarian" wars, well, that's more complex, but they should not really be wars, but peace keeping missions, mounted at the behest of the country concerned, or if that country has basically ceased to exist, then at the behest of a world body, like the UN. Eating people is wrong Maru _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
