>>>Saddam will have earned war when he attacks some country directly or by proxy through terrorism. That's the way the world works. Especially the free and democratic world.
>>
>>Would you still say the same thing if the country he attacks was Canada by detonating a "dirty nuke" in Toronto?
>
>Of course I would. And let me tell you, your home security is far more visible than ours. That not only leads me to believe that it is more thorough than ours, but it also makes me feel that we have a great chance of being the "backup" location for any dirty deed in the works that might be thwarted by your security.
>
>The position that Israel was in in 1967 is a case where preemptive action was, in my opinion, justified. The position of anyone today vis-a-vis Iraq is in no way comparable.
>
>Since it's inevitable I can only hope that Saddam reconsiders at H-hour (not bloody likely), that one of his minions takes him out shortly after H-hour (but I wonder how they'll get the message through) or that war is as short and "clean" as it can possibly be.

You say that you would still have the same belief that we should wait until untold number (posibibly millions) die before we "react"? All I remember is the rage I felt about NYC being attacked on 9/11. SH cannot be allowed to stand if he's capable of supporting or supplying terrorists with the means to cause so much havok! Even if he had nothing to do with 9/11, he could be the catalyst to something far worse. I truly do believe it would be best to have an Iraqi "insider" take him out, but we've been waiting for that for over 12 years.