Len,

>>Hi Len,
>>
>>>Doug,
>>>
>>>I'll deal with your comments out of order :
>>
>>Like your thinking process?? *gd&rvvf*
>>
>>(Sorry - I apologize but that was too juicy to pass up. I hereby grant you one free cheap shot in return. <g>)
>
>I'll save it for an appropriate time !!
>
>>
>>>
>>>>Given the nature of Sadam v most everyone else he's a barbarian at best.
>>>
>>>I don't disagree with you.
>>
>>Damning with faint praise? <g> Why not just say you agree with me? <g>
>
>There's a subtle difference between saying that I agree with you & saying that I don't disagree - at least from my point of view - perhaps another English English - American English thing.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>I think the 'flaw' in your thinking is one of presuming moral equivilence.
>>>>At what point is it more moral to stop someone as opposed to not? I'm not sure exactly where this might be myself in any given case but I'm sure there are folks who spend their entire careers on these kinds of issues.
>>>
>>>I'm not commmenting on the rights & wrongs of the proposals.
>>
>>Could have fooled me. <g>
>>
>>>
>>>The point I am trying to make, though it may not necessarily be clear, is about the advisability of the current administration so openly speaking about their plans. By being so open, are they putting American lives at risk ? By speaking so belligerently (even bellicosely), is that increasing the risk of pre-emptive retaliation ?
>>
>>*shrug*
>>
>>I suppose Len that there are people still out there who actually think that talking to some of the folks like Husseein will actually help. PT Barnum said it best; "There's a fool born every minute."
>
>Missing the point. I'm not suggesting talking to him or anyone else for that matter.
>
>I'm not questioning the morality of making plans to attack Iraq or even assassinate Saddam Hussein. I'm questioning the advisability of the constant public airing of those plans & the threatening posture taken.

I don't disagree, to use your approach. ,g>

We have a problem that comes from ours being a more 'open' society. That is the 'annonymous' individual who leaks to gain a political advantage. I suppose it's the price we pay for openness.

>
>One of the justifications that has been given is that an attack would be justified on the grounds of pre-emptive self defence. No-one really knows the state of Iraqs build up of weapons, so the threat may be imaginary. But from Iraq's point of view there are real threats openly & repeatedly being made, is it reasonable for them to be able to take pre-emptive action in self-defence ? (Or do the rules on self-defence work in one direction only).

I'd bet we know far more than you or I are aware of. Our remote drones can take pictures from around 60,000 feet with a clarity that would amaze you or me. We pretty much know where a lot of stuff is.

>
>>
>>>
>>>(A very cynical view may be that that is the intent, American lives a deliberately being put at risk, so that there is little world condemnation of an all out attack on Iraq following the pre-emptive retaliation).
>>
>>Perhaps but I don't get that impression. Remember, our military is voluntary so there's not much room for griping I suppose.
>
>I'm not even thinking about the military - you join up, you take the consequences. I'm thinking more of possible civilian casualties - there is a long history of attacks on easy targets such as embassies.

Sure, but which side usually makes those kinds of attacks.