[Vision2020] Antiwar Rallies/Attack Irag Now

[Bob Hoffmann]

At 03:48 PM 2/19/2003 -0500, WMSteed@aol.com wrote:
>So the notion that we are not a "first strike" country becomes a death
>sentence for us, if we allow this to happen first, before we take action.

Name one military dictator throughout history who wouldn't have taken 
advantage of such a rationalization.

Any country can make such a claim and, in effect, use such a claim to 
attack, preemptively, another country.  In fact, under such 
rationalization, Iraq would have a legitimate basis for attacking the 
United States, as the Commander in Chief of the U.S. is not covertly, but 
openly, planning to attack Iraq with weapons of mass destruction.  Even the 
use of nuclear arms is on the table.

Before Bush Sr. launched his attack on Iraq, there was much discussion in 
the U.S. press as to legal grounds, under international law, for going to 
war.  The mainstream press has fully avoided the issue this time around, 
for obvious reasons.  While there could be rational debate in 1990 and 1991 
as to whether a U.S. attack could be "legal" under international law, an 
attack on Iraq as proposed by the Bush Jr. admin would clearly be 
illegal.  Preemptive strikes are not legal under international 
law.  Nations launching preemptive strikes are clearly labeled aggressors.

There may be times when it is tactically wise to use a preemptive strike, 
but the nation that does so forever abandons the claim that its action was 
defensive.

Bob Hoffmann
820 S. Logan St.
Moscow, ID  83843

Tel: 208 883-0642