[wretchard]

"Mr Brooks, it's easy to argue for war when you can't see yourself doing the dying."

Actually, we will likely be doing the dying. Most of Saddam's or the Islamist's countermeasures , be they anthrax dispersals or Scud missiles or suicide bombs, will be directed against civilian targets. In the war to date, there have been more than 3,000 civilian deaths as against a handful of uniformed military casualties. This ratio is likely to continue in any forseeable scenario.

We are noncombatants in the same sense that the people of Dresden, London and Hiroshima were noncombatants.

Mr. Brooks' question remains relevant, because it amounts to this: 'will the danger to my son increase or decrease if the Peace Lobby has it's way?' You seem to argue that it will decrease if nothing is done. John Pilger says, "don't fan the flames". Noam Chomsky warns, 'they will retaliate if we fight back'. Still others have suggested that we overwhelm terrorists with love. Seriously.

I guess that nonresistance or surrender is an intellectual position which should be debated on its merits in a fair and honest way. However, it is not accurate to say that Mr. Brooks is exhorting others to risks he would not run. Anyone could have been on Flight 93. Anyone could have been in the World Trade Center towers. And anyone could be the next suicide bomb or anthrax victim. We have a right to participate in the debate over whether we should live or die. The Peace Lobby has no real right to tell everyone to shut up.

[joeyman]

The Peace Lobby has no real right to tell everyone to shut up.

I agree. If you look at the responses on this thread, you'll see that the only ones who seem to want people to shutup (ck out longcut's remark (lead follow or step aside) are the pro war crowd.

And yes I do think we'd be much safer if we don't go to war because of the escalation potential to WWIII.