Deb asked:

"War is not the answer." Do you agree or disagree? Why?

============

I presume that this question is associated with the present conflict in Iraq. However, I sense that it is
aiming at broader treatment of the problem.

I suppose we could ask at the outset: "War is not the answer to what?" It is difficult to say whether
one agrees or disagrees until an answer to this question is provided. Hence, there are situations in
which most people would agree that war is the only answer, and situations in which most would agree
that war was not the answer.

In a world where the human race is divided up into groups with vastly different world views, vastly
different moral concepts, and vastly different regard for the sanctity of human life, there is going to be
conflict; particularly when moral concepts and world views are reflected in widely diverse religions
and creeds.

Let us ask a basic question. Why do states have armies? The answer that most would possibly offer
is, to be prepared to defend the state against aggressors. The ironical point of this answer is that if
every state firmly believed this no army would ever be used aggressively against another state!
However, we know that this is not the case. Some armies are raised for the specific purpose of
aggression. History is loaded with evidence of this as far back as records go.

To come back to the point, if a state is threatened and subsequently attacked by an aggressor, what
should it do? If it allows the aggressor to walk into its country and occupy it, then this will avoid war.
An example of this is Nazi Germany's annexing of Austria in 1938. Alternatively, if the oppressed
state resists the occupation then that is war. The cost of Austria's action or non-action was to lose
their independence and to be suppressed beneath the nazi yoke until the end of the Second World
War. Poland was one of the states which put up resistance to the nazis, they were thoroughly beaten
in a short time, suffering tens of thousands of both military and civilian casualties, then, like Austria,
were suppressed beneath the nazi yoke. Because they had shown the temerity to resist and to kill
Germans, they were treated worse than the Austrians. Now we have to choose. Was it better for
Austria to lose their dignity, but save thousands of lives, or for Poland to lose thousands of lives but
maintain their dignity? They, of course, both lost their freedom. Putting all this into the full context of
the Second World War and considering the final outcome I believe that most, particularly at the time,
would say that war was the answer, the vicious aggression of Germany, and later, Japan, had to be
resisted, and somehow crushed.

In the current Iraq war the situation is rather more complex, and, therefore, there is no clear-cut
answer. Those who are for the war can state a reason, those against can state a reason, the choice
is very much a personal one. Those who believe it is right to free a people from their tyrant leader will
say that the war is worth the suffering. Those who believe that the war is an excuse for hidden
motives will be strongly against it. Then there are other factors like, Who gave the USA the right to
police the world? Seeing that neither the USA or the UK can show real evidence of being threatened
by Iraq, what right have they to attack this nation? What right have individuals to over-rule the UN?
Then, of course, there is the underlying suspicion concerning oil. Considering all this, my personal
view is that in this case war is not the answer. I also believe that there is no evidence to link Iraq to
the eleventh of September abomination. Diplomacy in all cases of disagreement should be carried as
far as it can possibly go, in this case it was not.

None of the above detracts from the fact that, like most others, I believe Saddam is a monster and
that the world would be much better off without him.

John Brandon