I notice you didn't answer any questions.

Anyway, "incontrovertible evidence" is needed. With Iraq there ain't any evidence according the the US CIA.

Next. L. J. - "To put it on a more personal level, if you saw someone drawing up to throw a punch at your head, do you let him strike you or would you try to block the punch?"

Currently, under the laws of 50 States of the United States, you CAN block the punch.

You cannot hit first. Period. Even if you think he might swing, you cannot hit first. You cannot hit the person in the back, you can't enter his home to hit him even if you think he'd like to hit you.

Now, how do these two facts impact the US argument that it is justified in attacking Iraq, if indeed you think that is the US argument and that an attack is justified?

Recapping - the CIA says there is no evidence Iraq had anything to do with WTC. Neither the CIA, nor GWB, nor Tony Blair has dragged out incontrovertible proof of an imminent attack. And,

Using your example, blocking is OK, but under the laws of ALL United States hitting first is battery and illegal unless the person is under active attack.

Arf