Here are three important questions that need to be answered before we launch a preemptive strike against Iraq:

Who has more nuclear weapons, Iraq or the United States?
Who has more chemical weapons, Iraq or the United States?
Who has more biological weapons, Iraq or the United States?

If the answer is the United States in all three cases, then I consider it gross hypocrisy for us to use Saddam's weapons of mass destruction as justification for aggression against another sovereign state. Now if it can be prove by evidence that Saddam Hussein was in some way behind the attack on the WTC, that will constitute an attack on our own soil, and I would fully support full retaliation by launching as invasion of Iraq.

However, I'm not sure there is any evidence to pin the WTC attack on Saddam Hussein. It seems to me that if there was, then the current administration in the White House would trot it ought as the primary argument for war with Iraq. That they have not done so is the best proof that Saddam was not involved in the September 11th attacks.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power
corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost
always bad men." --Lord Acton, 1887
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR

/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// ///

This email was sent to:

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!

Reply via email to