Hey Aunt Judy, this is why we're in Iraq, you retard.............. 3293

"That was BEFORE nuclear,chemical,or bio weapons. "

Actually if you recall your history Chemical weapons were used in WWI long before 9-11. We joind the rest of the civilized world in the Geneva conventions to ban this type of warfare because it was so gruesome. And, if you go back a few centuries you will discover that biological warfare was used when laying seige to a city. The attackers laying seige would take the rotting bodies of those end in battle and hurl them over the walls of a castle in order to promote disease and drive out the defenders. The only thing that has changed is the willingness of American citizens to stoop to this sort of uncivilized warfare.

"Here we go with the UTOPIAN BS again. "

I'd rather believe that man has the ability to solve our problems peacfully that being doomed to forever repeat the mistakes of the past. It is hte inability of knuckledraggers like yourself to let go of the "Old Ways" and move on to something better that continues to mire us in physical conflict.

"Relations between countries are not under that system. Don't even make the mistake of thinking that,it's not true."

Well there are international laws, but the United States seems to only want to have them enforced when it is in our best interest. Even if there were not an international court to resolve disputes there has always been diplomacy. It is the warmongers that make it difficult to work things out peacfully. Unfortunately they exist on both sides and are constantly encouraged by the arms manufacturers and defense contractors to insist that weaponry is the only way to solve problems.

"Gee,it worked for Europe and Japan.they didn't copy our 'way of government' to the letter, nor did we force them to."

We dictated the terms of surrender and if you will recall they threw the first swing (Hitler when he invaded Poland, and Japan when they attacked Pearl Harbor).

The last part of my post said if someone swings first annihilate them, then dictate the terms of surrender. I'm not a whimp or a cat. I have learned a few lessons about human behavior over the years; one is that an extended hand usually gets a better response than a clenched fist, and never leave your opponent in a position to retaliate.

"The unforgivable crime is soft hitting. Do not hit at all if it can be avoided; but never hit softly." --Theodore Roosevelt

If someone pointed a gun at me I would do whatever I had to do to protect myself, since I never carry a gun that sort of leaves the shoot first option out. This is a survival instinct that works on a personal level but doesn't have a real parallel on the national level.

If someone points a gun at you there are clues that you read on a very personal level that tell you whether or not the person is a threat. Is it a boy or a man, are they nervous or confident, is it a real gun or a toy, is there ongoing conflict between you and the other person, have they ever done anything threatening to you or anyone else before, do they have the advantage or do you. All those things would be processed in an instant and you would react to ensure your survival.

Countries on the otherhand may or may not who or where the theat is coming from, need a lot longer to process the information about their opponent and must respond in a more calculated manner. It isn't just one life at stake but millions. That's one more reason war isn't a great option most of the time. If millions of their innocent civilians die, their is a good likelihood that millions of our innocent civilians will die also. You could be one of them.

Striking first just encourages other countries to do the same, and you have to remember that there are a lot more of them than there are of us.

"As civilization grows, warfare becomes less and less the normal condition of human relations." - Theodore Roosevelt