Tuesday, March 18, 2003
The State | 03/18/2003 | Treasurer spurns bond proposal but I'm sure it won't stop the smoke and mirrors approach preferred by the alleged leadership of the S.C. House of Representatives.
On war with Iraq...
Personally, I don't really know what else those who oppose war would have the President do. "Give diplomacy a chance?" It's failed for twelve years, not just since last November. While I'm a p.r. hack, not an attorney or law student like many of my friends, my own reading of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, in citing Resolution 678, seems to give us the authority to use force:
"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,"
I would definitely be interested in hearing someone on the wire versed in international law to share their opinion.
Even without UN authority, however, I'm still convinced that we are justified in going into Iraq, even if it means embracing the doctrine of preemptive war. Can anyone honestly debate that Adolf Hitler was evil? Would the world not have been a better place had someone, anyone, taken a preemptive strike against him?
We can have a philosophical debate on the existence of evil if you want. But I was raised a Southern Baptist and converted to Catholicism, so I believe that some things, some people are, in fact, evil. In my view, Saddam has demonstrated his nature, and stopping him is justified.
But philosophy aside, in my mind practicality justifies preemptive action in the world in which we now live. Sitting around waiting for Saddam - or anyone else - to attack before we act is suicide.
Personally, I don't really know what else those who oppose war would have the President do. "Give diplomacy a chance?" It's failed for twelve years, not just since last November. While I'm a p.r. hack, not an attorney or law student like many of my friends, my own reading of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, in citing Resolution 678, seems to give us the authority to use force:
"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,"
I would definitely be interested in hearing someone on the wire versed in international law to share their opinion.
Even without UN authority, however, I'm still convinced that we are justified in going into Iraq, even if it means embracing the doctrine of preemptive war. Can anyone honestly debate that Adolf Hitler was evil? Would the world not have been a better place had someone, anyone, taken a preemptive strike against him?
We can have a philosophical debate on the existence of evil if you want. But I was raised a Southern Baptist and converted to Catholicism, so I believe that some things, some people are, in fact, evil. In my view, Saddam has demonstrated his nature, and stopping him is justified.
But philosophy aside, in my mind practicality justifies preemptive action in the world in which we now live. Sitting around waiting for Saddam - or anyone else - to attack before we act is suicide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)