Saddam didn't have weapons and only threatened America after we launched an unprovoked war on them in 1991, forced them to sign an illegal treaty under duress, starved 200,000 Iraqi people to death and kept them from life saving medicines, bombed them daily for 12 straight years, etc.
He had every right to threaten America and to hate America. But his threats weren't credible, and had no weapons. Attacking Iraq for making threats would be like blowing up Santa Catalina Island because someone there said they hate America and they think it should be destroyed. Santa Catalina poses no less of a danger to America than Iraq did. --- In [email protected], <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Merely having weapons does not make one a threat. > > Absolutely true, but also absolutely besides the point. Having weapons and saying that you will use them is. Making people believe you have weapons and then saying that you will use them is. Saddam did not just have or make people believe he had the weapons, he said that he would use them. Indeed he did use them at a prior time and place. > > BWS > > > > Correct as far as it goes. But what about threats MADE with weapons > > that are reasonably believed to be HELD by another party. Saddam was > > reasonably suspected to have WMDs and DID make threats to use > > them. > > > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
