- Sun Nov 10, 2002 7:14 pm
#37404
Whilst everyone is entitled to their own opinion, the key players at whitehall are playing a rather shrewd game by waiting for nato's verdict on the situation. we shouldn't storm in there with uncle bush straight away, british diplomats are well aware of this and are delaying are total involvment until further international backing has been provided.
The key debate here is whether a war over iraq is based on the faliure to capture bin laden or an honest phase in a true war against acts of terror in the world. If the allies intend to end further hostilities in countries ruled by a less then democratic reign after the iraq conflict, then fair enough. However, if this act is to effectivly create an mdf trophy cabinet for crimes of sept 11th I see little moral ratification in doing this.
As for the 'war is bad' debate, sensible military conflict is sometimes required to stupper a plomatic situation before it evloves into a far dangerous affair. For example, world war two would have never escelated to the vast proportions it did if america was willing to obey the leauge of nations documentations which it signed. By properley policing the expansion of Nazi Germany prior to the war via the usage of military enforcement, fewer lives would have been lost. The policy of appeasement however, which encapsulates the desire for peace and diplomatic resolutions helped a radical power strenghen themselves territorilly and financialy.
War is not a desirable move. But sometimes it is nessacity to achieve a peacefull enviornment.
chrismoyles.net
