A Moral Obligation

Submitted by Richard Steffke (United States), Aug 22, 2002 at 06:06

...We have no less of a moral obligation in taking this guy out than we did Adolf Hitler. The Treaty of Westphalia be damned.

If there was any uniformity in moral principle the rest of the world would recognize this. We didn't seem to have a problem attacking Serbia over the situation in Kosovo. Now Milosevic sits in the dock being tried as a war criminal, and the guy is a piker compared to Saddam.

So, how does, what was good enough to do to Serbia, somehow becomes a non-issue when it comes to Saddam?

Why don't we just come out and say that Serbia was an easy victory whereas Iraq might be more difficult nut to crack?

Nation states have to follow their own Realpolitik and if that's the honest assessment why obfuscate around the issue? The naysayers against an attack on Iraq should just say so, but of course that would preclude them from taking any higher moral ground in the future, which would actually be a good thing.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".