<The point was to illustrate that the United States has faced a terrible threat before, without resorting to a pre-emptive strike, but not to suggest that our foreign relations with Iraq should be modeled after the US-USSR experience.

In any event, this would be an impossibility because it's a completely different situation which requires a completely different approach. Iraq's military potential is miniscule compared to that of the former USSR.



ok, so its a completely different situation which requires completely different tactics. The different situation is that the USSR did not send suicide bombers to attack us. The USSR sat in their bunkers across the line and hoped to hell The US wouldn't strike first. They wanted to survive, so they didn't strike first either. It worked, thankfully, because both sides had too much to lose in a war, and neither could survive one. Terrorists have nothing to lose and in fact hope to die with as many of the enemy as possible. Iraq, which may not be playing the role of suicide bomber is certainly empowering terrorists with money and weapons. The jump to empowering them with WMD is not too far a leap when considering Saddam's past.


Which should unerringly lead one to the obvious conclusion that If we didn't need to resort to pre-emption in the case of the Soviet Union, then we certainly do not need to in the case of Iraq.


wrong, first you said they were different situations, and now you are saying that since we didn't resort to certain tactics then, we need not do it now.

Since A + B doesn't = C. X + B still could = C.

Where A and X are different situations
Where B = preemptory attack
Where C = A world where cities aren't turned to glass.

Just think about it for a minute.

-Steve G.