cicerone imposter wrote:dys, A man holding a gun or rifle is a threat - even when he seems to be aiming at another human. You don't shoot first, and ask questions later. That's not how democracies work. c.i.
Ci - Good point, though I don't think it takes us where you want it to. First, though it's a tangent, you keep throwing this idea of "how democracies work" into this equation. By definition, a democracy works however the majority of the people think it should work, which is why we are not a democracy. In a democracy, if 51% of the public thought you should shoot first, that would be the law of the land.
Now, secondly, we have not fired first. We are asking questions first. Surely you can see that. In fact, in case anyone's memory is still hazy on this point,
Saddam fired first when he went into Kuwait and did not leave when asked to do so. Everything since has been an ongoing
cease fire, contingent on his meeting certain obligations he refuses to meet.
We stopped a war
he started (and we were poised to finish), and he agreed to live with the sword of Damocles over his head. It is up to him, not us, to see that it does not fall. Whether or not we do respond militarily, we have the legal and moral right to do so on those grounds alone.
Lastly, I think I have shown reason in this discussion to question the notion that preventing war will save more lives than prosecuting the war. I'm surprised at the absence of any comment on this from you, given the protection of innocent lives seems to be your primary concern in this.