"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:08:15 GMT, "weary" wrote:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"

Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same right to use WMD to save the
lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting Iran and internal rebellion?
Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately target civilians in
their
war with the USA, specifically WTC?

If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would not have been a need to
defend
"Iraqi
servicemen."

Complaints about his use of WMD relate to uses considerably pre-dating
his invasion of Kuwait.


As for the attacks on the WTC there was no military value there. An
argument
could be made for the strike on the Pentagon being a military attack.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid military targets within the
cities.

The odds are that there were Reservists in the WTC at the time of the
attack.
The poster I was replying to advocated using "ANY MEANS" to end the war.
He also wrote "If that means incinerating two, three, or however many
Japanese Cities
by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s, so be it." He made no mention
of
destroying military assets. His choice of words clearly states that the
destruction of
cities was what would produce a Japanese surrender, not destruction of
military
assets.



Destruction of Japan, by whatever means possible, was warranted.

That's what AQ thinks of the USA

The
barbarity of their military was an abomination, and it was continuing
daily

That's what AQ thinks of the USA.

in China, Korea, etc. If incinerating every building in Japan would
have ended the war, it would have been completely justified.

The only thing that the US did that was "wrong" was not hanging the
******* Hirohito from the nearest tree.

Al Minyard