>>>If I'm standing down the street from your house, and I yell out, "I'm going to kill you", yet
>>>I'm standing there empty handed, you cannot pull out a gun & shoot me because I threatened you.
>>
>>You threaten me and mine, I will take you seriously. At a minimum, I will call the police.
>As you should. But legally that's all you can do.
>
>Now if I broke into your house and attacked you or your family, then self defense is justified.
>
>
>>
>>>There was no imminent threat to the US from Iraq. Talk and threats don't equal action.
>>
>>Comparing individuals to nations isn't valid. The situations are totally different. And if we are talking about WMD's I'd just as soon not wait around for a threat to become imminent, thank you very much.
>
>I don't agree. No one, individuals or countries, has the right to attack another based on a perception of
>danger. Not only does there have to be the threat, but the means to carry it out has to exist.
>
>There are some third world countries in Africa who have no air force, no navy and very small amries.
>If they threatend the the US, do we go attack them because someday they might actually be capable of
>following through on that threat?

Historically, we have never allowed the lack of or inferiority of another countries military, deter attacking them for whatever reason. :)