How different is a “preemptive attack” from a terrorist attack? Time to rationalize. To rationalize is to have dialogue without truthful intent.

If we had to attack someone because of 9-11, why Iraq? How about England? England has a lot of terrorists and a history of terrorism. Spain would be a good candidate for a “preemptive attack”. Don’t forget France and Germany.

Libya, North Korea, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran, should enjoy a “preemptive attack”, so we could express our love of mankind. The list goes on. Why not just punch that red button in the Presidents office and blow up the entire world? Then we would have an equal playing ground.

Tom




>The U.S. "did it" to the Iraqis despite their having NO INVOLVEMENT in the 9/11 attacks, and the casualty counts of Iraqis was severe in the actual war itself.
>
>Let's assume for one moment that Iraq had zero connection with bin Laden (which is not true, but let's assume for one moment that no connection existed). Hussein was guilty of....
>
>- Torture of political dissidents in Iraq
>- Taking money and resources sent as aid for the country, and using it for his own gain
>- Repeated and continuous violations of U.N. resolutions
>- Paying 25-30K for Palestinian suicide bombers
>- Attempting to purchase nuclear material from the Russian black market
>
>Pre-emptiveness is a necessity. Had we taken out countries like Iraq, Syria, and Iran, it could have prevented 9-11.
>
>Kevin