Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (47925)	9/29/2002 12:22:19 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The question is imminence. Very well. We can all agree, I hope, that if Saddam intended to strike someone first, those struck would suffer grievous bodily harm. He certainly has the ability to cause grievous bodily harm, that's not being debated. We know that he has struck first a number of times - the Iran-Iraq war, the invasion of Kuwait, gassing the Kurds. We know that he is hostile to the United States. For example, he attempted to assassinate, not only former President Bush but many of his family members, including present President Bush's wife. Another example, Iraq is the only country on earth which openly expressed satisfaction on 9/11. We know that Iraq presently supports terrorists who have attacked our interests in the past, and presently supports terrorists which attack Israel, our ally. For example, Iraq presently shelters members of Al Qaeda in Baghdad. (One might mention that Iran and Saudi Arabia also shelter members of Al Qaeda, but their time may not yet have come.) We know that Saddam strives, without ceasing, to amass ever more destructive WMD, including nuclear weapons, and medium-range missiles. He already possesses short range missiles which are capable of striking our military bases. Finally, we know that, if Saddam were to decide to strike first, we would not have time to stop him. Thus, we have reasonable apprehension of bodily harm which, if imminent, could not be stopped. So, when you see your sworn enemy, who has already attempted to murder your wife, standing next to your wife holding a gun in his hand, do you wait for him to take aim at her, or do you shoot first? I think the fact that he has already attempted to murder your wife is the factor you are not considering. If your enemy has already attacked you once, your fear that he will attack again is much more reasonable than if he has never attacked you. In Texas, where Dubya is from, and in Louisiana, where I am from, there is an expression that "that man needed killing." If you kill a man who needed killing, no jury in Texas will convict you. Sadaam is a man who needs killing. It's like taking down a rabid dog. You don't wait for him to bite.