I support a war against Saudi Arabia, Eygpt and Syria before Iraq. We may get a war against all of 'em before this is over. But only Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (including anthrax, at a minimum).
Do you think Saddam would use anthrax against us if he could?
If so, do you believe we would be justified in a pre-emptive attack, hoping to head off an attack on us that had not happened yet?
Just curious.
No- I don't think Sadaam would use Anthrax against us even if he could. But if he could it still would not be justification for a premptive attack. Do you support an attack against China because they can launch nukes against us first? And what about our so called "allies"? You don't think Syria has a nuke program? Or Eygpt? Or Saudi Arabia? Those are all countries that can afford it and are open to the type of trade that makes it feasible? Don't be naive. We know of dozens of countires that have the same programs and that are not friends to America. Iraq is a point on a board for Beltway empire builders and they have been calling for war against Iraq for years. And the shameful use of 9/11 to justify this in the face of evidence that points to our "allies" in that region should give us all pause!