<It's clear now that Bush made up his mind over a year ago to go to war with Iraq.
...Talking about how many fewer Iraqis would die if we invaded was designed to silence critics of the chosen course of action. But it also foreclosed any further thought of alternatives.
Using the moral calculator myself, I came up with a "grace period" of 3-4 years before you could legitimately say that sanctions+inspections+force didn't work and that war would be better. A lot of thinking and acting could have been accomplished in that time. But further thought was off the table.
This last paragraph is probably the closest anyone has come to actually laying out a possible alternative scenario that is specific enough to be subjected to real argument. Although I'm not quite sure exactly what the term "sanctions+inspections+force" means.
The fact is that Bush (and for that matter Clinton) exhausted all the alternatives before he decided to go to war. After about a week of the latest round of inspections, any idiot could see that they would go nowhere with Saddam actively concealing information.
We already know how well sanctions worked. Not at all.
Off Topic » in reply to Moral calculator versus moral compass
Well, at least you came up with something.
The whole thread (42 posts)
- For the "Better Red Than Dead" crowd.
- Another Perspective (a better one)
- This requires explanation....just whom do you think is included in this grouping?
- Re: explanation
- He supported building those bombs...Did you?
- To be a little more precise...
- offered as an aid to your precision......
- Moral 'profit and loss'
- Re: Moral decisions
- Thank you, Robert
- the failure in your logic...
- I mentioned no one specifically. Ears burning? (n/t) (n/t)
- Maybe that open letter resonnated a little too clsoe to home? n/t (n/t)
- Wow, Pub, that's just sour. Someone piddle in your cornflakes? ;-) n/t (n/t)