"Walter Banks" wrote in message
...


Bill Graham wrote:

"Walter Banks" wrote in message

This is a slippery slope, what separates a leader who killed a million
from one who killed 900,000. Is 100,000 enough? What about
3,000?

Using this measure to justify invading and deposing a leader can
have un-intended consequenses.

This is true, but what other measure is there? Were we justified in
supporting England in her war against Hitler? And, if not, then at what
point should we have done so in order to protect ourselves?

Looking at the very narrow case of attacking a country to dispose
a leader and apply the same rules to attacks on the US. I am not
justifying either one just thinking through the logic of your statement.

w..


Of course you are right. There is a good case that we shouldn't have
attacked Iraq. but it is not cut and dried. There is also a good case for
doing so. I am very tired of those who say there is no such case. After all,
he did kill a lot of people, and we did get rid of him. But the larger
question is, at what point in the light of many corrupt world leaders is
such an action justified? How many innocent people should die before we or
someone else, steps in and does something about it? And not just for the
innocents who are dying, but for our own protection in the future. If Iran,
(for example) gets nuclear weapons, will they drop them on Israel? they
certainly imply they would, judging from their own rhetoric. Where have I
read that sort of thing before (Mein Kampf)? If I am well armed, and I see a
neighbor being attacked, should I go to his aid? There are city ordinances
that say that I should. Do we have a moral responsibility to stop the
certain slaughter of millions of innocent people? I personally believe we
do, in spite of the fact that right now, we only seem to do this sort of
thing if the countries involved have lots of oil. This is not my fault. I
would get rid of Ahmedinijad's reactor whether he has any oil or not.