Originally Posted by
LOki
Ok. I still see self defense as a valid argument for the excersise of violence, but what kind of validation makes believing this perception of future threat meaningful enough to initiate proactive violent action?
That of course would be subjective to what the person perceiving the threat considers "validation." If you are looking for an irrefutable, defining line in the sand, I don't think there is one without obvious, solid evidence that supports the perception, and the validation would be as varying and the perceptions.
For instance (and I am not trying to rehash the WMD argument -- only use it as an illustration) ... Saddam Hussein produced, possessed and used chemical weapons ... lumped into the catch-all "WMDs" by the media.
There are STILL unaccounted for chemical/bio weapons/compounds/percursors on record at the UN as being in his/Iraq's possession.
He led UN Weapons Inspectors around by the nose, allowing them to look only in certain places, kicked them out of the country at times, and generally giving all the appearances of attempting to hide something.
He continually made threats against the US and/or our allies.
On at least two separate occasions, he used chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians.
On two separate occasions he initiated military hostilities against neighboring nations.
The perception, using nothing more than logical conclusion, is that he possessed and would use WMDs. A perception held by most intellgence agencies in the world, and most people -- barring the current revisionists who now swear they knew all along something apparently no one else did.
Evidence after the fact has not supported the perception. Either Saddam managed to hide his WMDs, or he disposed of them. Does the Monday morning quarterbacking in any way alter the perception held prior to those weapons not as of yet being found? IMO, no.
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke