[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Mouse: Actually Cerek, what I was trying to do was to focus some thought on the justification for a pre-emptive attack on a sovereign state purely on the basis of the accusation that is has the potential or intention to possess WMD's at some point in the future. To me, the invasion of Iraq has established a worrying precident. Can you contemplate a stable future world where all one country or alliance has to do is accuse another of such a potential or intention to establish a legitimate reason to go to war? Just imagine if the PRC decided to invade Taiwan citing Iraq as a precident.

That is a good point, Mouse. And I agree that using the mere suspicion of WMD's as the primary justification for a pre-emptive strike does set a very disturbing precedent. If Iraq had been found to have WMD's by the U.N. teams (in violation of the numerous sanctions against them), then it would have provided a better justification for the U.S. to take action against them (cause I seriously doubt the U.N. would have done anything other than issue more sanctions and/or criticisms at Iraq for violating the sanctions already handed down). Still, even if they had WMD's, attacking them pre-emptively sets a rather dangerous precedent unless it could also be shown irrefutably that they had intentions of using those WMD's or selling them to terrorists.

On the other hand, if an enemy professes continued hatred towards your country and fully supports terrorists organizations that have promised to kill Americans at every opportunity - then you have to decide how many casualties you are willing to suffer before taking measure to prevent future loss of innocent lives.

Originally posted by Mouse: On the subject of Israel and the Palestinians, all I would say is when the only policy is "an eye for an eye", everyone ends up blind.

That's a cute cliche', Mouse, but it doesn't "work" in reality. Do you honostly believe Palestine will stop sending suicide bombers into Israel if Sharon suddenly declared they would stop ALL retaliatory strikes?

The other situation where the cliche' is applies is in discussions of the Death Penalty. Again, it's a great catch phrase that gives opponents of the D.P. a warm, fuzzy feeling of intellectual and moral superiority - but it also doesn't apply to most D.P. cases. People like Ted Bundy, Wayne Gacy, and other serial killers WILL kill again if they get a chance. The incident that finally led to Ted Bundy being captured AND sentenced to death was the brutal death of some sorority girls that he savagely bludgeoned to death with a piece of firewood. Before this incident, Bundy had been very careful in selecting his victims and had taken them to remote spots. But this night he simply couldn't control himself and his murderous tendencies. Why not? Because he had just recently escaped from jail after being locked up for 2.5 years and hadn't had a chance to exercise those homicidal impulses he had. Once he got out, he literally lost all control.

The point is that there ARE cases where the ONLY way to prevent any future deaths is to KILL the person that cannot control their urge to kill others. That is not "an eye for an eye", nor is it vengence. It is justice.