Should we conduct pre-emptive war? Can it be justified? Those against the war, can you think of a scenario where a pre-emptive strike is a possibility, where it is a morally permissible option in going to war or is all "pre-emptive" war unjustified because we have not yet been actually or directly attacked? Or some other reason?
Let's also keep in mind Sen. Kerry's words.
He no longer believes Iraq was a sufficient threat to go to war. Though he did not think that last year:
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."Jan. 23, 2003 in a speech at Georgetown University
It seems that he was arguing against the attempts of the French and the Russians to soften a UN Security Council resolution directed against Iraq.
Sounds familiar. Hmmm.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"A man's country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle; and patriotism is loyalty to that principle." ~George William Curtis
Post a Comment