and hints, beliefs, guesses and allegations.

Good to know you are at least consistent.

tom wrote: "Your bar would require something very bad to happen to America or its allies first, since there is no way in the real world to anticipate the danger of a terror attack to the level of certainty you require to justify acting in self defence. I may not be doing very well making this latter point."

No, this is a false inference drawn by you that you wish to argue with me about, not a true statement about what 'my bar' is like.

We had no evidence of an impending or planned attack on the US from Iraq before the war. We had no convincing evidence of actual connections with Al-Qaeda or active international rterrorist groups before or after the war. We had reason to believe that he might have some WMD cpacity before the war, but he had not deployed it during 10 years of sustained military conflict with the US, nor against any of his citizens, nor against any of his neighbors in close to 20 years.

Unless you set the bar so low that we would be REQUIRED to invade about a dozen other natiuons BEFORE Iraq, you can not claim that this was a 'reasoned test'. Instead, you selectively apply absurd criteria to Iraq in order to justify an emomtionally based, non-rational war waged on false pretenses.

It is categorically NOT my assertion that we only take military action ONLY when attacked. It IS my assertion that we have clear, un-contradicted evidence of a threat begfore we take military action. Fron Al-Qaeda to Salman Pax, from Anthrax production to Ricin and drones, there ws no clear unimpeachable evidence of a threat to the united states before this attack. And need I remind you, that in the aftermath those claims of threat have turned out entirely incorrect.

tom wrote: "My personal opinion is that I feel that America is a lot safer erring in Bush's direction than erring in yours"

If we pre-emptively attacked anyone who didn't like us or kowtow to us we would be safer as well. In both this war and in this hypothetical, we are never-the-less morally, ethically and factually wrong.



"My personal opinion is that I feel..."

" have seen enough to convince me that Saddam has supported terrorism in the world.... "

and

"I also feel that Iraqis are a lot better off...."


This, entirely, is my point against this war.

I see, so if you believe or YOU feel or you are convinced, then there is no need for clear evidence? Right tom? Bullshit. Some people believe, in the absence of proof, that some races are inferior, and act accordingly. Some people believe that re-distributing all wealth in a communist fashion is a superior economic system, again in the absence of evidence. Some people believe that the possession of wealth is immoral and akin to murdering the poor, again without a factual truthful basis.

We are ALL entitled to believe what we want, but when we take actions that include KILLING PEOPLE, we are not allowed to BELIEVE. Keep your faith-based beliefs to yourself, Tom.