>>Now if I broke into your house and attacked you or your family, then self defense is justified.
>
>The laws are a little different in Texas, but generally that is true. Although it isn't in the UK.
>
>>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.
>
>The means DID once exist in Iraq, Saddam was required under the terms of the 1st Gulf War cease-fire to prove they no longer did, and he did not cooperate.
>There was no "innocent until proven guilty" clause in the cease-fire.

And again, that's where we don't see eye to eye.

Iraq's military was in shambles before we attacked. We destroyed it 15 years ago. They had no real means
of projecting force against the United States. Therefore, they were not a threat to us.


>
>>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?
>
>Specious arguement.

Not if you consider my previous statement. Iraq's military was reduced to that of a third world country.