hitler

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty

[Paladin]

Depends on what you mean by "slow progress," I'd imagine. Actions speak louder than words, and the value of the human life being destroyed would have to take prioirity over whatever "progress" negotiations were making.

[ardillacid]

It would be, but I cannot imagine anyone doing anything about it. Probably the only thing that would happen is the UN would reprimand him.

[Theoketos]

want another two options,

Yes, with qualifications.

No, with qualifications.

If the one procurring the war was a legitimate authority, and it was the last resort, and the war was going to prevent more damage/more abortions then the war itself were the cause.

DG you only have some of the qualifications for a just war.

[OLAM Dad]

More than just, laudable.

[rkwright]

look to yugoslavia in the 90's

[toledo_jesus]

yeah, anytime you have Hitleresque killings going on...diplomacy has already failed.

War would be just and the [b]only[/b] proper action. Anyone who argues different is not thinking clearly. There is a clear moral imperative to stop genocide.

We should be in Darfur now.

[Cow of Shame]

How exactly are you defining 'progress' if it doesn't result in the end of the killings?

[Jaime]

Dairygirl's polls make me smile

[ardillacid]

America cannot by itself make the world a perfect place. To get into another war right now (In Africa or elsewhere) would be political suicide for right-wingers. They have had the tar beat out of them over Iraq, and to believe that liberals would all of a sudden jump on the war wagon is ridiculous. They would jump at the chance to shred conservatives over another war. The only thing that is going to happen in Darfur is a reprimand or something along those lines from the UN.

[uriel]

Are we in his country or another? If we're in his country and are able to take legal action against him we should slave to work within the confines of the established system to curtail his negative effects. We should work to convince those capable of stopping him to take the necessary steps.

If we're in his government and the government is fundamentally flawed "it is the right, it is the duty of the people to abolish such a government."

If we're outside his country we should try to diplomatically curb the killings. If this doesn't net changes within an arbitrarily short period of time we, it seems, would have a just war on our hands and could go to war against him in good conscience.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='uriel' date='Apr 4 2006, 09:49 PM']Are we in his country or another?
[right][snapback]935957[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It sounds from the question as if we are in America, today.


[quote]If we're outside his country we should try to diplomatically curb the killings. If this doesn't net changes within an arbitrarily short period of time we, it seems, would have a just war on our hands and could go to war against him in good conscience.[/quote]

You really believe that America is up for another "unilateral" war? I don't think so.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Apr 4 2006, 02:43 PM']We should be in Darfur now.
[right][snapback]935404[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I totally and thoroughly agree with that.

What's going on in Darfur is abominable. And apparently it's getting even worse again, like it was in 2004.

[styx chyx]

Interesting question. As far as the possibility of war is concerned, the question would then become who is it 'better' to kill, the people supporting their cause, or the people being victimised?

[Desert Walker]

HUH?!

The majority of people on Phatmass think Hitler is still alive?!

I thought most people here were against even considering such conspiracy theories!

[b]Edited after reading the header statement.

Disregard my expression of shock. [/b]

Edited April 5, 2006 by Desert Walker