No. In my opinion a credible threat of force (Which Saddam didn't represent in even the slightest way, except to some people) would only warrant a response if those making the threat were in the act of carrying it out.
--- In [email protected], <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So in your opinion a credible threat of force (which Saddam represented) does not warrant a response. Someone with a weapon says he is going to shoot you and you restrain yourself till he actually does shoot you? Interesting. Not libertarian but interesting none the less. > > BWS > > From: Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > As usual, your war mongering has taken over reason in your > > position. > > > > 1. The only WMD Saddam had or used were given to him when America put > > him in power and he was on the CIA payroll. Any weapons he did have > > were long gone since before America's unprovoked and illegal invasion > > of 1991. > > > > 2. It doesn't matter what weapons he did or didn't have, he was under > > no legitimate obligation to disarm for the UN or the U.S. Iraq is a > > sovereign nation and doesn't require the permission of the UN or the > > US to develop or have any weapons they choose. > > > > 3. Saddam didn't invade America. The only legitimate provocation to > > use the U.S. military is a direct attack on American soil or > > ships. > > Unless you can prove that Saddam sunk the USS Nimitz or dropped a bomb > > on Detroit, you have no provocation for using the U.S. military. > > > > 4. The United States and the U.N. (not Sadddam) created embargos, and > > prevented food, medicine, and other supplies from going to Iraq. > > America did this after launching an unprovoked, unwarranted, and > > unconstitutional attack against Iraq, and forcing them under > > duress to > > sign an illigitimate agreement. If someone puts a gun to your head > > and forces you to sign your pink slip over to them, the contract isn't > > valid. > > > > 5. Whether or not Saddam tortured his people, bombed them, raped > > them, or mass murdered them is irrelevant and does not constitute a > > valid provocation to use the U.S. military. > > > > 6. Whether or not Saddam invaded Kuwait or every other nation in the > > middle-east is also irrelevant and doesn't constitute a legitimate > > provocation to use the U.S. military. > > > > 7. The oil for food program is irrelevant. Neither the U.N., nor the > > U.S. has any authority to make "no fly" zones, to force Iraq to > > disarm, to force them to comply with inspections, to blow them up, to > > control what they import or export, etc. > > > > The United States alone started the war in Iraq and is 100% > > responsible for each and every single death and injury associated with > > it including the 200,000 who were starved to death, those who died in > > the two unprovoked and illegal wars, those who die at the hands of > > insurgents, those who died in Spainish and English train bombings, > > those contractors who were beheaded, the soldiers, etc. > > > > It wouldn't matter if Saddam actually had 100 nukes. That wouldn't > > make Saddam a threat. In fact I wish Iraq had nukes back in 1980. > > It > > would have stopped America from invading without legitimate cause. > > It > > wouldn't matter if Saddam took over the entire middle-east and invaded > > every country there mudering every single person on his way. That > > still wouldn't be a valid cause to use the U.S. military. > 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/
