Letter: Potential civilian casualties make war unjustified

"You shall not kill" is one of the basic rules we can probably all agree on. A war in Iraq would most likely kill thousands of people, most of them civilians. Could their deaths be justified? I believe that killing innocent civilians can be excused if there is no other way to save far more other lives. This the only possible excuse. Punishing one man does not justify killing others, and better government is little relief for the relatives of civilian casualties. A war in Iraq could be justified if without an attack many more people would die than with an attack. The U.S. government claims to have evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. However, it does not share this evidence, not even with its European allies. Also, its claims are not backed by the findings of the U.N. inspectors. Even proving that the Iraqi government is acquiring weapons of mass destruction does not justify war. They would have to prove that Saddam Hussein plans to attack the United States or another country, give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists or commit genocide within Iraq. The U.S. government has not proven this. Therefore, attacking Iraq would not be a just war. It is the concern for the lives of the Iraqi people that is the main reason why so many people - including large majorities in most European countries - oppose a war in Iraq. We are not weak, not naive, not ungrateful and not against American values. We just don't want the citizens of Baghdad to end up as what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld calls "collateral damage."