Digression: Bush and just war

Okay, President Bush has been backing up and backing up on his claims that Saddam Hussein had great big missiles full of chemical/biological weapons pointed directly at the United States and ready to fire at any time. Maybe that's not exactly what he said, but the whole imminent danger thing kept coming up over and over again.

Now we're getting proof that Saddam had, at best, a few shoddy programs and that his people were lying to him the whole time.

But he was a bad guy, right? So we're okay. We ended that terrible regime.

Problem: The reason Bush STARTED A WAR was not because the US had collectively decided to help out Iraqis. It was because of the immediate threat to the lives of Americans. Self defense is an ethical justification for war--if someone attacks, you can fight back. But just deciding someone else's country has a bad ruler is not a justification for war.

War is always evil. It gives people a free pass to kill and destroy. There is never a war where bad things (killing/raping civilians, theft, looting, etc.) do not happen, and both sides are always guilty of some of it. Granted, some wars are worse than others, and not all people involved in war act inhumanely.

I'm not saying that Saddam Hussein was a great guy, etc. etc., but it turns out that the policies we were using before--containment, sanctions, inspections--were actually working to keep him from attacking us. And using war to solve humanitarian problems is a little like using a hammer to kill bugs.

Still, war is a tremendous evil and shouldn't be rushed into lightly. Our policy of "pre-emptive war" (read:war of aggression) means that the responsibility for this one falls squarely on our shoulders. And now, surprise surprise, it turns out we were wrong. And we went to war anyway, on little evidence, but lots of rash blustering.

--end rant--