Can you expand on those notions of "justification" and "harm" just a tad.
Hi NightOwl,
Your strike didn't last long, eh? <g>
"Harm" on the other hand, is easier to define, but it would seem to be formulated based upon those things that I would most fear, rather than the things that my neighbor might fear. I could also point out that my "fears" of harm are often times more damaging than would be the result of those fears if they were made real.
We seem to have fallen into the trap that you describe here, wherein our fears were far more worrisome than reality; ie, pre-invasion rhetoric vs lack of post-war WMD.
In any case, fleshing out these concepts might aid the conversation without you or anyone else becoming the target of tit for tat exchanges. ...Then again, maybe not. <g>
I think that the terms "harm" and "justification", though admittedly amorphous by definition, should be taken to their theoretic ultimates when used to discuss war. Especially when considering a never-before-used doctrine of preemptive invasion. And of course, ideally coupled with impeccable intelligence, wisely considered.
Otherwise, we are just striking out blindly from fear and perhaps misplaced revenge. |
