On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 01:07:22 GMT, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

The U.S. is a party to various treaties which clearly prohibit
aggressive war, treaties like the UN Charter.

Which is why there was a combined effort to throw Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.
After this, there was a ceasefire, with conditions imposed on Iraq. Hint:
ceasefire means a state of war still existed in 2003, and exists now.

How are the clues coming along?

I guess I incorrectly assumed that this was common knowledge. Our
government run schools have apparently seen to it that most Americans
are utterly clueless in such matters.

No, most of us are well aware of this, and most of us recognize that Iraq was
not complying with the post Desert Storm conditions.

Per the UN?

Put simply, aggressive war is immoral, defensive war is not.

In the case of Bush's present war against Iraq, it's plain to see that
it's immoral...it takes no sophisticated moral reasoning, IMO.

You think we should not have thrown Iraq out of Kuwait? This is one war, not two.

Bush & Cheney & Rumsfled should not have approved the invasion
in the first place then.

Obviously, that would depend very much on the circumstances, no? It may
ultimately boil down to what's in the heart of the person who does the
killing, i.e., it may not be possible for an observer to always
determine whether a certain action taken by a certain person was
morally proper on not.

This is in part why, in my view, the most important qualification of a
politician or statesmen is his moral competency; his experience in
matters of state, is secondary, at best.

Unfortunately, our political system has demonstrated an inability to select
moral, competent leaders. Since Truman, anyway.

So don't be praising any wingers ....
--
Cliff