If we had found WMDs in Iraq would that have made our attack okay?

[Toots]

I think we were wrong to attack a sovereign nation that had in no way threatened the US even if that Nation had WMDs. Just as I think it would be wrong to attack Iran or North Korea just because they possess certain weapons. I am not of the belief that we need to turn the other cheek but we must be slapped first. If any country has the audacity to attack the US with any weapons then I believe we should take them out with whatever means we have at our disposal. I do not believe we have the right to presume that others would do what some of our leaders would do. Unless another country actually attacks us or shows real evidence of a build up towards attack we should not Pre-Emptively attack. It just is not American. We are supposed to be the good guys not the aggressors.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. No, not at all.

We'd at least have a modicum of integrity left as a nation though.

[nightfox02]

2. hell no..

war=imminent threat to u.s.

unless you believe that chimps excuse...

9/11 didnt change a damn thing about the legal definition of war no matter how many times shrub repeats it...

since when did a country having wmd's equate to us attacking it again?

this war was illegal from day #1 weapons or not....

[Solly Mack]

3. No

[sinkingfeeling]

4. No, by what authority does the US have the right to control the

rest of the world? Why should we be the only ones to decide what weapons will 'protect' us (missile shield, weapons in space, mini-nukes, etc) and then tell the rest of the countries they can't arm themselves?

[Protagoras]

5. No

Preemption is the problem here. Basic concept in international law...if you aren't being attacked you don't get to invade them. EOM.

[Double T]

6. Hell No!!! Who Ever Appointed The United States Gate Keeper Of The Planet?

[mopaul]

7. no. every damn nation has wmd's

[endarkenment]

8. If they had real WMD we would not have attacked.

Think about it. Look at North Korea - immune as they can take out tokyo.

But you raise an interesting point. By what right do we decide that no other nation may build or possess weapons we deem unacceptable? Why can't Iran or North Korea or Lybia or Syria have nukes? Why can Israel, or Pakistan, or India, or it is rumored Saudi Arabia? Why can't Brazil or Venezuala develop capabilities that make them as immune to our military threat as North Korea?

[Just Me]

9. If existence of WMDs, alone, justifies waging war, the USA,...

,...which holds the greatest stockpiles of WMDs could validly be a target for any country to declare war.

[firefox]

10. No

There are only two ways to have a legal war. One requires UN authorization and the other is being under immenent danger of attack. The misadministration lies when they say they had UN approval. They try to say Iraq violated the UN resolution that intentionally outlined that the US could not use force in the war it was so bellicose to have.

[firefox]

11. No

There are only two ways to have a legal war. One requires UN authorization and the other is being under imminent danger of attack. The misadministration lies when they say they had UN approval. They try to say Iraq violated the UN resolution that intentionally outlined that the US could not use force in the war it was so bellicose to have.

[mopaul]

12. kick