Is this board capable of analysis ???
LOL !!!
Can this board honorably answer the following:
Is war illegal if used to stop the carnage in Ruwanda, or Yugoslavia, where no imminent danger to your own country is present?
Would war be illegal if the destruction of Dafur in the Sudan is stopped?
Is it possible to stop a government or military from committing slaughter, ethnic cleansing or genocide without the use of war?
Would war be illegal if it prevents a despot from becoming a Kim of North Korea?
Is imminent danger a matter that can even be proven in a court of law?
Will that court decide in a speedy course of time to avoid the great sin of exposing a great many people to danger if they don't strike first?
Is evidence ever complete enough where a decision can be automatic without the use of a judge?
And isn't that why we need a judge because the nature of evidence is never complete enough, yet the issue contains enough peril to require a proper decision?
Isn't it a fact that police can do nothing to protect you prior to the imminent crime, that the crime must be committed first and if you don't survive the case is moot?
Can we possibly weigh all of these questions in such a perfect balance that no mistakes can be made?
Can a government ever weigh properly the perfect balance of civil liberties and security, and do not both need each other in order to enjoy and survive?
Don't all of these questions contain a greater truth than any possible answer we can give, and yet we must try to answer them all the while honoring the ultimate authority these questions hold over us all ?
Is everyone too suspicious that everyone has some sort of secret agenda that they cannot decide to answer any one of these questions honestly and directly?
LOL !!!
Can this board honorably answer the following:
Is war illegal if used to stop the carnage in Ruwanda, or Yugoslavia, where no imminent danger to your own country is present?
Would war be illegal if the destruction of Dafur in the Sudan is stopped?
Is it possible to stop a government or military from committing slaughter, ethnic cleansing or genocide without the use of war?
Would war be illegal if it prevents a despot from becoming a Kim of North Korea?
Is imminent danger a matter that can even be proven in a court of law?
Will that court decide in a speedy course of time to avoid the great sin of exposing a great many people to danger if they don't strike first?
Is evidence ever complete enough where a decision can be automatic without the use of a judge?
And isn't that why we need a judge because the nature of evidence is never complete enough, yet the issue contains enough peril to require a proper decision?
Isn't it a fact that police can do nothing to protect you prior to the imminent crime, that the crime must be committed first and if you don't survive the case is moot?
Can we possibly weigh all of these questions in such a perfect balance that no mistakes can be made?
Can a government ever weigh properly the perfect balance of civil liberties and security, and do not both need each other in order to enjoy and survive?
Don't all of these questions contain a greater truth than any possible answer we can give, and yet we must try to answer them all the while honoring the ultimate authority these questions hold over us all ?
Is everyone too suspicious that everyone has some sort of secret agenda that they cannot decide to answer any one of these questions honestly and directly?