where are the WMD?

I'm no right-winger, but largely I'm for the president vs. the alternatives (I think Gore would have been much worse). And I did vote for him.WMD or no, I really wish the administration would pony up whatever evidence that they had in the first place about the WMD. I mean, with Iraq about to be the 51st state, surely it'd be no risk to uncover whatever source that info was from, right?As it stands, they're in major danger of looking like war-mad tyrants if there turns out to be no WMD. Although it may be that Saddam sold them to terrorists or something at the beginning of the war. (Just a theory.)But ultimately I don't think it will matter if they find the WMD or not. They'll gloss over that point and everyone else in Europe et al will be to afraid to bring it up. Or it may be that Iraq does so well afterwards that everyone will say "Well, it was good they took Saddam out, no matter what the pretense." Certainly, I think the UN won't be able to punish us or anything. They wouldn't stand up to Saddam, why will they stand up to us?

Well, so thanks to this war they hate us in the Middle East - what else is new?I don't see this being the cause of more terrorism (because they weren't too fond of us anyway, and I doubt we could do anything to change that), but I don't really think we'll have reduced terrorism either.So long as Israel and Palestine are at odds the middle east will hate us. Anything we do there will be seen as secondary, I think.

Probably true. Althogh I think the moral imparative to stop the slaughter of innocent people is similar in quality if not in scope.Certainly Hitler was gearing up to take over the world. Saddam was no such threat.Oh, well. I'm glad it's almost over. Ultimately I think this will raise the standard of living in Iraq. Whether that's enough to justify the human cost in lives is something that I don't feel wise enough to argue.

Like I said, I don't feel wise enough to even begin to do that math.

Not to jump into a topic that's clearly beyond my years to speak of but...As an aside, I thought you might be interested to know that a number of the 9/11 WTC victim's families have expressed exactly these sentiments - that the deaths of their loved ones shouldn't be used as moral capital to support a needless war. A number of them were against the war in Afghanistan, too.

I'll challenge that view, because it's not wholly correct (fallacy of false alternatives). The very act of protesting the war, without providing a viable alternative to lower Saddam's threat level, is endorsing the regime of Saddam.The simple act of opposing war doesn't mean you support Saddam. It simply means that you disagree that war is the best method to get rid of him. What were the alternatives? I never heard any workable ones, which is why I supported the war. Had better alternatives been presented I would have supported those. That wouldn't have made me a Saddam supporter, though.

Well, if Saddam IS taking human life, and one has the power to do something about it and doesn't, isn't that contradictory to a moral stance against taking human life?I mean, I just don't see how somebody could be a moral person and yet tolerate such a regime. That doesn't equate to war, I know, but I don't see how opposing war without a better idea isn't the same as supporting such a regime. Cuz aren't you basically saying "It may be bad, but it's better than the steps we'd need to take to improve things there."Now, clearly, you're not fighting for Saddam, so you don't support his regime. But Saddam's regime was a problem. If not war, what was your solution? Just letting it happen? That doesn't seem like a moral alternative.

I wouldn't imply that the Amish are pro-Saddam, but unless they propose a better alternative than war, they're not really helping. I won't go so far as to say that "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem", but it is generally true that if you're not part of the solution, and you don't have a better idea, you're generally in the way.Out of curiosity, how much violence have the Amish brought an end to? Last I checked, people were still shooting and raping each other in Pennsylvania...I guess that's the problem I have with pacifism. Ultimately there are people who have committed to violence, and the only way to oppose them is the careful use of violence. That's why policemen carry guns. Does that require murder to stop murder? Sometimes it may have to.

Yeah, I did think all the signs comparing Bush to Hitler, saying he was the terrorist, etc. were a little excessive (understatement). Last I checked, Bush never lowered anyone into a wood chipper. Has he made policy judgements that were, in my view and the views of others, rash and ill-considered? Sure. Is he still one of the "good guys"? I'd say so. Saddam definately isn't. A bit black-and-white, but some things are. But for a good guy, I wish Bush and his administration weren't so obviously in the pocket of big business (or at least acting like it.) I mean, the first thing they did in office was call the Justice Dept. dogs off Microsoft.

I think there's a certain level of "security by being a sitting duck" at work for the safety of the Amish. I mean, it's so easy to rob or hurt the Amish that it feels bad to. (Not that I know of course!) More seriously, I think the simple fact is that people who would be predisposed to being violent just don't want to live with the Amish. I personally would find them annoying day after day. (I feel safe saying that because I'm pretty sure no Amish will read this.) MLK Jr. didn't change the regime. The regime changed for him. The black civil rights movement was by no means entirely peaceful. And racist violence against black people continues to this day.Anyway, MLK Jr. held up pacifism because he was struggling against laws, not people. Thus he opposed the law through civil disobediance.I understand the liberation of India was by no means peaceful. Ghandi may have not advocated violence, but a vast amount of anti-british violence was done in his name.I'm just saying - pacifism can only protect you against the people it is in your power to educate. People who think differently than you will always have the upper hand.

Well, I certainly agree with this. But I do think it's possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. I'm hoping that's what happened in Iraq.

In my country, if you've ever been convicted of domestic assault, I believe so, yes.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-29-2003]

You and me both, friend.