Yes, yes...(grin)

Well, BB, I have always said and will continue to say this: It is NOT, in my opinion, a crime for a nation to possess a weapon. It is a crime for them to USE that weapon in an unprovoked, illegal, aggressive attack on somebody. The USA has done that with its weapons (B-52's, F-18's, tanks, cruise missiles, etc...) over and over again. Those are crimes. Iraq did so once against Iraq and once against Kuwait, but never against the USA. They had no real capability to attack the USA, and in any case, such an attack could only have led to their own destruction. Saddam is not a religious fanatic who wants to die for Allah at the first opportunity, so I highly doubt that he would have contemplated committing such a suicidal act as to attack the USA, even if he had weapons capable of doing so...which he did not.

Iraq probably did not possess more than a few mere scraps of what anyone would normally term WMDs by the time of the recent war, anyway, but what I am saying is that possessing such a thing is not a crime. I don't give diddly what the U.N. or the USA or you say about it, I don't think it's a crime. Using what you have to kill people is a crime.

You don't go attacking people on the basis that they might one day, someday attack you...unless you are just a self-serving, cynical opportunist with the scruples and mentality of Al Capone... or a paranoid lunatic. Then of course, yes, you do.

And that is why the majority of the U.N. was opposed to Mr Bush's war. It was not justified by the circumstances. It was the act of an outlaw government that simply does what it wants to because no is powerful enought to stop them from doing so.

That's exactly how the Romans acted when they were out conquering places. They did what they wanted to, because no one could stop them. I think they may have been less phony about their reasons for so doing than the USA is, but perhaps those were more honest times in some respects.