Would we have the right to attack a country that was harboring those
who planned 9-11, funding their activities, and training them? Would
you consider that country to have attacked us?

That depends on the extent to which they were backing the terrorists.
Bear in mind that the United States is also harboring terrorists,
funding their activities, and training them. We might not like it, one
branch of our government might be trying to root them out while another
branch of our same government is giving them scholarships, paying food
stamps, and teaching them how to fly. It could be construed as criminal
negligence that even faced with actual reports to relevant government
officials about the "odd" behavior and training requests that the 911
pilots manifested, our government ignored these reports, gave them
visas, and aided and abetted them. (We'd certainly call it "aid and
abet" if it were Pakistan that did that).

Apparently a lot of people believe [Saddam] did [attack us] by paying rewards to suicide
bombers' families, firing missiles at our planes, etc.

What planes did he attack? I believe they were all planes that violated
his soverign airspace.

As to paying rewards to suicide bombers' families, that's not an attack
on the United States, and I don't think we have the right to stop it.
Here we pay rewards to jobless drifters, faith based institutions, and
drug dealers. There are many government programs that can be construed
to support the actions of evil people. Be careful, houses are made of
glass.

Is it just Republican politicians that you do not trust, or do you not
trust any of them?

I don't trust any of them. I don't know what "Republican" has to do
with what I am saying.

Well, Iran's president is a Holocaust-denying politician (do you trust
him more than your own politicians?) who has publicly stated on the
floor of the United Nations that he believes it his personal
responsibility to bring about Armageddon. He wants Israel, our ally,
destroyed.

What he believes and wants is one thing, what he does is another.

He has sent supplies, men, arms, and money to people who use
them to attack our soldiers. By these criteria he has attacked both us
and our allies. Would you suggest attacking him? Or would you wait for
him to acquire a nuclear weapon and use it on Jerusalem or Berlin
before attacking him?

What were our soldiers doing at the time?

Let us suppose that an enraged man who cannot be reasoned with bursts
into your home screaming that he is going to kill you and your entire
family. He points a gun at you. Do you wait for him to fire first
before you shoot him, or do you shoot first? What if he is out in the
public street?

This is a credible threat, and I would shoot as soon as he pointed the
gun at me or my friends. I would not subsequently go out and shoot
everyone else who looked like him.

I can give you a simple, complete, and foolproof answer to all these
questions, once you supply me with a number that is greater than six and
less than four.
Obviously. Are you saying that your own philosophy has painted you into
a logical corner?

There are some problems that just have no solution. In these cases, it
is even =more= important not to take actions that make the situation
worse. I don't advocate caving in to their demands, and I don't think
there is a general answer to the question, except this is something we
just have to live with and accept, if we are not going to "destroy the
village in order to save it".

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.