I've said it before, and i'll keep saying it:
Assassination SAVES LIVES!
And, it's more cost-effective than a war would be.

Beyond that, however, there are many, many good reasons to go to war. Just think of where Hitler would be if we had hippies back in the '30s.

The point is that hippies in the 30's (if they existed) probably wouldn't have opposed WWII because it was not preemptive, but entirely provoked. The idea with the war against Iraq is that it is preemptive of any strike or actual harm that Iraq has caused anyone, aside from being belligerent when dealing with treaties. Morally speaking, assassination is against my beliefs, however, on a humanly instinctive level, I must say that I am inclined to agree with you about that.

Hippies: no, they were against war because it was there for them to be against. Not because it was "preemptive." And are you saying the war with iraq is merely "preemptive?" i think not.

Assassination: As a Christian, I don't see how morals could justify anything -but- assassination. The man is evil, despite what the liberal media would like you to believe. the liberal media believes evil does not exist, but it does. So, we can either kill a bunch of iraqis, AND our own troops, or we can let him continue to slaughter his own people, or we could assassinate him. It seems to me that killing one to save the lives of potentially millions is the only moral thing to do.

Hippies: depends on the type as to whether or not they oppose war (really not all hippies oppose war all of the time), but I'm not going to get into that one....

Preemptive: The "war" (of which we are currently not yet fighting) with Iraq is indeed entirely preemptive. Even from the conservative perspective, of to which you may adhere, this war, if waged, can be seen as preemptive. Paul Schroeder writes an excellent article covering the matter at www.amconmag.com/10_21/iraq.html discussing the terms of preemptiveness and how indeed this war is a preemptive one.

Assassination: Evil does exist in this world, and there is no doubt in my mind that Hussein is an evil man. But, Christianity does not command for us to kill those who are evil, but to instead focus on addressing the evil itself. In fact, this whole world is evil, you and I are evil, but this does not justify the immediate taking of our lives simply because we have sin in it. Sin will result in death, but a much more permanent and eternal one, and there is only one remedy for that sin - the forgiveness of Christ. You and I both know that this forgiveness only happens if the sinning individual asks for it, and that forgiveness of sin is ultimtaely left in the hands of God. We also live in a world where threats to and evils in society must be handled by society itself. That is where our organized, political systems come to play, and at the moment it seems as if the U.S. is trying to overstep its bounds within the system of the UN that it has agreed to work in accordance with. If individual states (this can be referred to on an international level as well as on a personal level), take the law into their own hands and attempt to overthrow the system in place, then chaos will ensue. And this is no minty chaos either....

Oh...if you want to read some really good philosophical takes on working within the bounds of societies rules, while still valuing, uplifting and following the personal and religious morals to which one adheres, check out John Rawls books. He wrote four books (I think) and goes into great detail about this.

okay. you have a point about this being a preemptive strike, which i recognized after i posted. however, what i should have said was this: even if the war is preemptive, is that really such a bad thing? Is the only good war a reactionary one? An action is preemptive because it presupposes another action. should the US simply wait until hussein strikes out at another country (like our own, for example) with his germ warfare and nukes, so that the rest of the world can see that our position was morally justified?

were we only justified in taking out Hitler because we first let him slaughter 6 million jews? I say that our inaction in 1939 caused the loss of too many lives, and that we would have been morally justified if we had merely listened to his retoric, decided he was dangerous and ended it there.

assassination: do you really think saddam hussein is going to "see the light and become born again" before (or after, for that matter) he has the chance to kill more of his own people in the name of himself and islam?

Yes, the world is evil, and full of evil people. So the question is, why are you bent on following "social values" when you know as well as I do that society has none?

God did not create evil, and, contrary to popular opinion, not everything happens for a reason. I don't believe in a God that cruel. Sometimes there are elements in our world that -must- be eliminated for the good of mankind. It goes back to the old question: if you could cure cancer and save millions of lives by sacrificing one small child, would you do it? God would, and has done so already in sacrificing the blameless to eradicate blame. would he, then, not sanction the sacrifice of an evil man to save the lives of the innocent?

perhaps, if the world is so hell-bent on keeping their checks and balances that they are afraid of righteous action, a little chaos is in order.

There is a very fine line between religious freedom and religious domination in society. The matter we are discusing now is one of those issues where we approach the edge of the line and need to look closely at the details. First, we all live in society together, and it is ideal if the state of society is one of peace and order. This order is achieved through rules, laws and regulations that is developed to become our government. We cannot simply ignore these rules, lest we find ourselves in the position of jeopardizing the system and/or facing the penalty system approved by society. This does not mean, however, that society ignores or is not founded on our various religious values that we uphold. It is a fact that in this world there is a plurality of religious, moral and philosophical beliefs. This is not to say that all these thoughts are right, nor does it demand that we accept all of these beliefs to be true. We simply have to acknowledge that they exist. As a Christian, I uphold the Christian faith as being the only true religion. However, this does not give me the right to act in any way I please, as long as it coincides with my religion. In order to live peacefully with others in this world, particularly others who acknowledge other religious that have beliefs counter to my own, I have to understand that I live within a set of rules and boundaries in my society. Ideally, for me, the society is one that is democratic, where the people of that society affect the development of rules and laws, in that morals that I value will be held also within government. Maybe I do want Sadam Hussein to be taken down for his evil actions. I think he is wrong wrong wrong, but right now we are in a position where we are dealing with multiple societies, governments and cultures, and I cannot simply override the entire system because I think an evil must be eradicated. I believe that what happens in this world is in the hands of God, and He instructs us to live peacefully with those around us and to adhere to the rules of our government. In this, He will ultimately eradicate all evil in this world, including Sadam Hussein (unless he does miraculously "see the light"). In the meantime, we should try to resolve conflict through our given set of rules. If Hussein tries to break the rules, he will be punished. If he attacks us, we will attack back. If his is belligerent, we will tighten control on him. He is being bent, but it is through the system. God is in control of the whole world and all the systems in it. Justice will be served, and hopefully with as little chaos as possible.

Re: WWII - As far as us first letting Hitler take 6 million Jewish lives, that is slightly incorrect. As I understand it (though I'm not expert in the area), we did join the war after it had already begun, and France and England fought for a long time before we joined. Had Hitler been giving threats that we could have taken action on, it would have been an appropriate preemptive strike (as defined currently), had the UN and the laws presiding over it been in place. Our action was reactionary during WWII, but I feel mostly because we came in later as an aide to France/England. In comparison with what Hussein is doing now, it does seem a bit Hitler-like doesn't it? We are keeping very close watch on him, but frankly, if we're to be reacting to and watching anyone, it should be Kim in North Korea who actually does have concentration camps right now where people are practically enslaved under his tyrannical regime. Funny how we tend to avoid the worst of the worst and focus on those who are more like annoying flies than anything.