Terry wrote: > Will someone who has thought this > through please give me your findings?
Hi Terry. >From my perspective, the options appear straight forward. Saddam Hussein is working toward obtaining nuclear weapons in a secretive manner. Given the history he has had with invading Kuwait, and given his history of violations against the weapons inspectors, and given his hatred for the U.S., and remembering the 9/11 incident and his links to terrorism and support for it, it is very clear to me that if we don't deal with him now, we will have to deal with him after he has nuked New York city and perhaps other cities as well. >From my perspective, it's kind of like a guy you know who is about to murder your family. As he is gathering his weapons together to do the job, do you passively sit by and watch him kill your family, or do you shoot him down first? Perhaps the peaceful solution would be for us to elect Saddam as our President and let him lead our country. In this case, maybe we would not have to worry about him nuking our cities, but is that really the more peaceful solution? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida USA ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
