Yes, the means can taint the end, and I take that point and agree with it. But in this limited case of Iraq - we can't tell a man who is hanging upside down in an acid bath, or a woman who is being gang-raped by prison wardens in front of her husband and children, or a prisoner who is being kept in a morgue container for months on end with only 30 minutes daylight each 24 hours - that - yes, sorry, we could rescue you, but it would mean INTERFERING and that would "taint the end" i.e. would make your rescue somehow not worth it.Do you really think a war will rescue these people? I sincerely doubt it.
Why are we not going to attack Zimbabwe? Mugabe is every bit as sick as Saddam and his people are suffering and dyeing because of him.
Why are we not bombing NK? They have concentration camps. Oh, that can also fight back, perhaps that is it.
Why are we not attacking all countries we disappprove of?
What about our own weapons of mass destruction? we have far more and we have alraedy used them.
If this war was going to affect us directly-ie like in WW2 when our people and cities were bombed would we be so keen to go to war? I imagine it easier to support war when it is not on our doorstep.
I believe Saddam and his 'family' should be got rid of. Bombing the hell out of his people, killing them, and pretedning we can resuce those held in torture chambers is fanciful to say the least.
bw
colin
