I don't think so, Robert. If what you're saying is true, he would have used his weapons of mass destruction during the first Gulf War. He didn't.
However, if he feels he's threatened and that he'll die, if he has such weapons, well, then he might use them. On a scale of competing harms would such a war be worth it, especially given results can come from continued inspections?
Instead of beefing up the war, why not beef up the inspections? Why not work toward conditions in the world that would make the terrorists moot? Why not make it more difficult for old terrorists to recruit young terrorists?
Is it old soldiers who die young, or young ones? Well, that's what happens in war. And then there is the matter of Saddam's victims, innocent civilians, who will themselves suffer the most deaths should the war happen.
1) Would such a war be just?
2) Have all remedies become exhausted?
3) On a scale of competing harms would conducting the war make matters worst for people? |
