Replies

I am nor sure that your analysis is 100% precise.

The JW theory also allows for use of force (under the usual conditions re: innocents, etc.) to disable/neutralize a "clear and present danger."

JW theory is similar to the moral laws surrounding self-defense.

The difficulty is not so much discering what is right--it is in DOING what is right.

Another example: it is probably objectively wrong to assasinate Saddam, since by getting close enough to assasinate him we are also close enough to drag him off to trial. HOWEVER, there is a moral imperative to capture him, which imperative should be clear to anyone who knows his history.

The imperative burdens FIRST Iraqi citizens, THEN Iraq's neighbors (i.e., Israel) and THEN the USA---by virtue of geographic distance we are third on the list, but for different reasons.

The Iraqi citizens are burdened with this imperative because it is THEY who are in most 'clear and present' danger. Iraq's neighbors are next in the heirarchy for the same reason. We are third--not because we are not in imminent danger, but because we are simply more geographically distant.

The best solution is for Iraq to disarm and for SadHus to abdicate. Next is simply disarmament. Next is the disablement/neutralization of SadHus (without prior disarmament.) Last is war.

IMHO, Bush is feverishly trying ALL the first three in any way possible....