lets split this discussion based on the issues your prior post brought up.

tom wrote:
"Your response to Dan still bothers me a bit. You have said in other posts that the civilian casualties in Afghanistan are more defensible, since they attacked us first. While at least shows you don't follow the solid Leftist line*, I don't see how this is consistent. Is revenge sufficient to make such deaths moral?"

No, revenge is not a justifiable basis for any death on any scale. You will find that as a fundamental principle of every mature, reasoned and ethical legal system (such as ours and all western legal systems). Self defense IS. It was in the interests of Self Defense that we attacked Afghanistan. We did so in a commendable manner and tried very hard to spare civilian casualties.

Tom wrote:
"Or was the intent to prevent future attacks? I've seen how that rationale goes over here. How do you prove that such attacks would have taken place?"

In short: The steaming and smoking pile of rubble in NYC. They demonstrated the means, capability, intent and dedication to attack us and to continue attacking us.

Tom wrote:
"Ask a cop about the Dahmer analogy. The man brutally murdered about 15 people, and showed no signs he would ever stop. While I think his capture was actually bloodless, had there been a firefight and one of his hostages was killed in the crossfire, what do you think would have been the judgment of the courts on the actions of the cops?"

And your assumption is that every cop would say the same thing? You arrogate your pudgy chair-warming behind to speak for all cops? I bet you would find a diverse opinion expressed by cops. I bet they would resent you for painting them with one brush! I know a couple, and ONE is very much opposed to this war.

Tom wrote:
"To make it really tricky, maybe we should imagine the firefight killing a kid in a building nearby, who would have been in no danger at all had the firefight never occurred."

Yes, you are right. It is tricky. I doubt we will find any nice neat answer by exploring allegories and analogies. Nobody ever does. Just look at Buddhism!

Tom wrote:
"Conversely, it is certain that with Saddam's defeat, many will live that otherwise would have died. This isn't as cut and dried as you seem to think it is, either."

Wait a second there Spanky! I never said its cut-and-dried. What I DID say is that:
You can't pile immaginary potential corpses (those saddam might have killed) next to the ACTUAL corpses of the people we DID kill in the process of the war and call the POTENTIALLY smaller pile of ACTUAL corpses the moral choice. Morality does not work that way.

And besides the point- liberation was NEVER our prime justification for this war. Self Defense was.

To say that you CAN make that corpse accounting, and that this accounting retroactively justifies our invasion IS VERY CUT-AND-DRIED!

Davin L.