[Jolly Rodgers]

If a nation were to have used nuclear weapons during a war in the past, would that serve as evidence that the nation might be crazy enough to use nuclear weapons again, thereby justifying a preemptive attack on that nation?

I would say, no.

This administration wants to attack Iraq. They want the US population to support that action. However, they either do not want to, or can't, provide a valid justification for such action. At the same time, the administration goes out of its way to declare its support of the nation most directly responsible for the September 11th attacks on America, and I'm not talking about Afghanistan.

Bush has a hard-on for Saddam and it looks to me to be financially justified, but not morally justified. I would like to know we are killing people for a just reason before we embark on that path.

[Iwentsouth]

We are not going to be attacking theSaudis anytime soon. too many business interests in the Bush family with them.

Thing is. Iran declared war on us. Embassy takeover, Marine Barracks bombing etc.

So we chose the opposite side.

That does not make us responsible for Saddam gassing the Kurds.

[okie01]

"I would like to know we are killing people for a just reason before we embark on that path."

Where do you think the anthrax came from?