02-28-2003, 10:09 PM
Hi,
That which can be solved without force should be, and we must make as much of an attempt as possible before resorting to violence.
That is but a reasonable attitude, neither pacifism nor whatever its opposite might be called. It is not an extremist attitude. It allows for the use of force when necessary and as necessary. The discussion leaves the realm of "war is never justified" which is neither factual nor defensible. It becomes a case by case discussion of whether war is justified in a specific case. What it would take to make the war justified. How much war is justified. And so on.
As I said, there are opinions specific to not going to war with Iraq that I consider reasonable. There are objections that the position of the USA is too precipitous, too hasty. There is some merit in those opinions, although they ignore the reality of fighting a war in Iraq during the summer. It is not so much a case of "a little more time" as a case of at least six months more time. And the question then becomes one of what can be done in six months that has not been done in 12 years.
If one accepts the rational standpoint that wars might be necessary in certain circumstances and at certain times, then the questions become:
"Are the circumstances such as to make a war with Iraq inevitable?" The behavior of Saddam throughout his career, and especially in the past few years tend to make me say "yes". That is a point that could be argued. The indication of the development of WMD and their delivery systems also contribute to my "yes". This point is slightly less debatable, since the indications are irrefutable except as a mass conspiracy. The significance of the development is a little more arguable. However, given the only use for those weapons and the history of Saddam's behavior in war (or even suppressing his "own" people) I think there is little room for doubt.
"Is the time for war now?" If there is to be a war, it will either be now or in six months. The only things delaying it does is give Saddam more reason to believe that it will not be fully prosecuted and give him time to further build up his forces. So, there is little to argue about on this point. If the answer to the first question is that war is inevitable, then it is best if it were done quickly. Delay will not change the final outcome, only the butcher bill.
Of course you don't hear about wars that don't happen.
Only if you don't listen. Do a Google search on the phrase "war was avoided" and you will get many hits telling you of wars that were either avoided or postponed for a time.
--Pete
That which can be solved without force should be, and we must make as much of an attempt as possible before resorting to violence.
That is but a reasonable attitude, neither pacifism nor whatever its opposite might be called. It is not an extremist attitude. It allows for the use of force when necessary and as necessary. The discussion leaves the realm of "war is never justified" which is neither factual nor defensible. It becomes a case by case discussion of whether war is justified in a specific case. What it would take to make the war justified. How much war is justified. And so on.
As I said, there are opinions specific to not going to war with Iraq that I consider reasonable. There are objections that the position of the USA is too precipitous, too hasty. There is some merit in those opinions, although they ignore the reality of fighting a war in Iraq during the summer. It is not so much a case of "a little more time" as a case of at least six months more time. And the question then becomes one of what can be done in six months that has not been done in 12 years.
If one accepts the rational standpoint that wars might be necessary in certain circumstances and at certain times, then the questions become:
"Are the circumstances such as to make a war with Iraq inevitable?" The behavior of Saddam throughout his career, and especially in the past few years tend to make me say "yes". That is a point that could be argued. The indication of the development of WMD and their delivery systems also contribute to my "yes". This point is slightly less debatable, since the indications are irrefutable except as a mass conspiracy. The significance of the development is a little more arguable. However, given the only use for those weapons and the history of Saddam's behavior in war (or even suppressing his "own" people) I think there is little room for doubt.
"Is the time for war now?" If there is to be a war, it will either be now or in six months. The only things delaying it does is give Saddam more reason to believe that it will not be fully prosecuted and give him time to further build up his forces. So, there is little to argue about on this point. If the answer to the first question is that war is inevitable, then it is best if it were done quickly. Delay will not change the final outcome, only the butcher bill.
Of course you don't hear about wars that don't happen.
Only if you don't listen. Do a Google search on the phrase "war was avoided" and you will get many hits telling you of wars that were either avoided or postponed for a time.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?