I will not write what initially came to my mind when I read your post. It
might be misunderstood! :-)
So, let me state that there are several reasons why a country might arm
itself. These include:
1. To act as a deterrent. In this case, the fact that they have them is
made known publicly. This is the case for the US.
2. To use as a bargaining chip. In this case the fact that they have them
is made known publicly. This is the case for North Korea.
3. To use to perpetrate a blind attack on someone. In this case, the fact
that they have them is hidden. This is the case for Saddam/Iraq.
Your three important questions fail to take this into account. We live in a
dangerous world, one where Satan would love for us to roll over and play
dead. We must walk a fine line, which I believe we have done reasonably
well over the last 60+ years.
It is not hypocrisy to take out Saddam. We are not taking him out because
he has WOMM. We are taking him out because he has and will use them against
others in acts of blatant aggression, for Saddam's personal gain.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John W. Redelfs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 3:04 PM
Subject: [ZION] Important Questions
> 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
> Hussein. It seems to me that if there was, then the current
> in the White House would trot it ought as the primary argument for war
> Iraq. That they have not done so is the best proof that Saddam was not
> involved in the September 11th attacks.
> John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "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 ///
> /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
This email was sent to: firstname.lastname@example.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!