>ah, the old "it's way more complicated than that" straw man. ms bone appears to have more "moral certainty" than a lot of people i know who oppose the war . . . my fave recent twist was blair arguing that we should go to war so that we can end the evil sanctions.
No, I think the argument is a valid one. I don't agree with the conclusion, but it is an extremely good argument for war.
In fact, I think it is interesting that the strongest arguments in favour of this war, that "Saddam is a cruel tyrant who should face international justice", is very similar to the strongest argument AGAINST the war. To my way of thinking, it is the arbitrariness of enforcing some UN resolutions and not others that is the great weakness of the pro-war case. International law cannot be enforced selectively. That isn't law and it isn't justice.
So the weakness in Ms Bone's reasoning is not one of moral certainty, there is an unquestionable moral case that Saddam Hussein should face international justice. It would be very moral. The trouble is that the prosecutor in this case has no credentials. The US is rabidly opposed to any system of international justice.
I agree that Saddam Hussein should face international justice. But I'm damned if I'll agree to anyone facing an international LYNCH MOB led by the United States, an outlaw nation which holds international law in contempt.
Still, Pamela Bone's argument is one we should study. In some ways it is arguing the anti-war case for it. In the sense that strength of the anti-war public mood is largely derived from deep disquiet about the rogue behaviour of the outlaw superpower.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas