The argument for and against war

The problem about arguing about war is that modern warfare moves with such startling rapidity that the war can start and end before the the interested parties have finished their arguments. An interesting point that could undermine many people's anti-war stance was brought up by William Saletan at Slate today. Those who argue against war should argue for a war that saves more lives than it destroys. Even if that is not the case in this war (too early to know), less collateral damage is the trend. Net loss of life may not be the question now but it will be the next time. Will anti-war advocates be able to justify their arguments if it is known that more innocent people will die if American troops stay home?

P.S. I know why I lost the link to Blogdex. Part of the reason is spelling. It is spelled "Blogdex" and not "Blogodex".