Once again America seems to be going to war. Where is the moral right to do so?

[Jibby7]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/health/chi-0303090269mar09,1,5402542.story
(Reg. Required)

To twist the OP a bit, given the horrendous human rights violations that many Iraqi exiles such as this one document, how is it moral not to act? In the case of Iraq, those opposed to action are relying largely for the obivous military justifications. In other words, you are looking actions taken by Hussein and his military against other sovreign nations before you will justify war, but I know from having read this board for a while that many of you who oppose this war are full supporters of human rights in other areas. But not in the case of Iraq. When it comes to Iraq, human rights violations are something that are paid attention to when convenient.

[Weird_AL_Einstein]

*Originally posted by antechinus *
**So your reasoning is that: because the country is “run by Saddam Hussein” then that is key to attacking. **

Umm…yeah. It’s a pretty big one. Got a problem with that? Do you like SH?

*Originally posted by antechinus *
**What if another leader took over Iraq - one that had a different name - should the US still attack? **

What a bizarre question. The whole point of this excercise is to effect a regime change. To get a leader that is less…you know…evil. Don’t know what your babbling about a “different name”, but if Hussein were deposed that would obviate the need for an attack.

*Originally posted by antechinus *
**It seems you are brainwashed into thinking: we should attack because it is SH, even though there is no evidence of a threat to the USA. **

Is that seriously your position? “No evidence”? Because you realize all I would have to do to prove you wrong is find one little shred of evidence. Perhaps you would like to rethink that.