the ends never justify the means.

the means have to have their own justification.

especially when there is an acceptance of killing for the sake of some end.

someone will have to look very clearly, disinterestedly, not polemically or politically, at the occasions, motivations, & necessities of this war.

it may be justified. but it's hard to draw that conclusion without evidence of imminent threat. it's being justified as part of a long-term plan for dismantling of terrorism & state-sponsored terror. but will those ends ever really justify these means? we shall see.

another element in the equation up for judgement : the inherent extreme violence of the current Iraqi regime - whether it has forfeited its right to remain in power.

I don't think that reactive nay-saying is justified either. the moral thing is to search actively for ways to cooperate toward good ends, rather than taking cheap & conceited shots at our "enemies", rather than passing around partisan blanket condemnations. blah, blah, blah. there's enough of that vulgar crap on all the poetry listserves & blogs.

the famous Eisenhower M-I complex quote. what ends are served by maintaining this colossal technological war capability? mere domination? "security?" can we control or change those purposes? can we change world socio-political conditions, can we adapt more peaceable ways of thinking & behaving, can we dismantle this junk?