Under certain circumstances the ends justify the means so long as there is a conscious intent NOT to harm.

In other words, if the US intended to slaughter Iraqi civilians as part of program strategic regional peace that would be unacceptable.

But if the US is trying to disarm Saddam and displace his regime using force with the minimum bloodshed as humanly possible, preferably none, that is an unpalatable but more acceptable solution to the threat of a nuclear weapon armed third world despot.

We make the same ends and means decision when we support our police department. The police use force to apprehend criminals. To protect the weak and preserve order - we set up police departments in all our cities.

The police often break into homes of those who are suspected of harboring illegal weapons.

In the same sense Saddam is like a common criminal who is purchasing illegal arms with a past criminal record.

If Saddam were not in a country but in a crackhouse in the ghetto of some city with his gang around him - no one would blink at his arrest or the confiscation of his weapons.

If his gang pulls weapons - they will likely get shot.

This war in Iraq is not about killing Iraq's army - but is about Saddam and his WOMD. Naturally, those loyal to Saddam who pull their weapons will be taken down.

That is why there has even been a debate about the special forces versus conventional army - because a "war" is not really what is wanted. Just like a policeman doesn't want to go around killing gang members.

If someone threatens your family with an uzi, you can sit back and let them be mowed down or you can take some sort of action you feel will be constructive and save your family (flee, distract the gunman so your family can escape, or fight back). The ends don't justify any means but INTENT is the all important factor toe each and every action.

Selfless?
Selfish?
Constructive?
Destructive?

I'm the guy who has three copies of Mark Twain's war prayer - and I agree with every word and sentiment he attempted to get across. However, for the same reasons I can support a police force at this time in civilization, as much as I might wish that true freedom and self-responsibility for actions could be developed, I can support a disarming of Saddam.

If Saddam was not pursuing nuclear WOMD my attitude would be vastly different to an incursion. I would say let the crime be committed first.

But in this case the development of WOMD is the crime.

It may seem like a "cop"-out, but there it is.

;-)

SDAI-Tech1