Anyone ever notice how private law and international law are the same when it comes to killing someone?  We aren't allowed to kill anyone unless it is for the purpose of defending ourselves or another from immediate threat of death
or serious injury.  Same thing is, (was), true in international law.  One country can't attack another unless it, or an ally, has first been attacked.  Makes sense doesn't it?  If everyone follows the rule then there will be no killing.  Something to which everyone should agree.

Okay, how does this apply to George Bush's justification of  "preemptive strike" on Iraq ?  He doesn't say that this new military action is a continuation of the legitimate invasion of Iraq , sparked by its attack on Kuwait , because Sadam broke the cease-fire agreement.  Instead he listed three elements of"preemptive strike": 1) The nation must have or want weapons of mass destruction, 2) The nation must be not like us and may someday try to attack us, 3) It must not treat its own people right.

To equate this departure to law governing us individually, we might have the right to take out a brother-in-law as he enters the local greasy spoon if he owns a gun and might someday try to hurt us because of some misunderstood indiscretion concerning his sister. Great defense, huh?

Look, if this is the new international law, what should we tell India about its use of atomic weapons against Pakistan -or visa versa? Palestine against Israel ?  North Korea against South Korea ?  China against Taiwan ?  You get the picture.  Here's one for you-how about untold numbers of the world's countries against the United States ?

If we gave Sadam atomic warheads we still would be in no eminent danger.  Shooting a Scud missile at the United States is like throwing a rock at the moon.  Of course he could help sponsor some terrorists to sneak into America with a horrific explosive, but so could Saudi Arabia , (Opps-sorry. I forgot it is our ally in our invasion of Iraq ).  Here's a question: Will we be more at risk for a terrorist attack if Sadam continues to work on his arsenal or if we blow away a large number of Muslims in the middle of a part of the world that grows Muslim suicide bombers?

Some could argue that we are fighting a religious war.  A scary thought for a country in which many of its citizens escaped Europe for the right to worship as they please.  Last time I checked there are a lot of Muslim patriots in the United States .  Anyone notice how well other religious wars have worked out in human history?  Some Christian political leaders have made mean spirited public statements in this regard.  Odd.  Perhaps it explains why Christ never had much political ambition.  Ever hear of what Christ said about "living by the sword", or "loving your enemy"?

Another reason for attacking Sadam is to control our position in the mid-east oil fields.  After all, stability in these fields has been important since Winston Churchill, (as Secretary of the Navy) decided in World War I to convert the British armada from a coal burning to oil burning fleet and sought strategic reserves in the mid-east.  From that day forward the western world has depended upon its involvement in the Arab countries for fuel.  Where do you think the Shah of Iran came from anyway?

If this is the true reason for the invasion, why don't we spend the seventy plus billion we intend to spend kicking Sadam's butt to finance a remedy at home?  What can we do to avoid having to be involved in the never ending wars in that part of the world and avoid our continued efforts to control their oil fields that evidently pisses off some people so much they are willing to die to hurt us?

Does anyone remember when John Kennedy challenged America to put a man on the moon in ten years?  It sparked our imagination and spirit.  And you know what? We did it.  Why don't we spend our time, resources and determination becoming energy independent in the next ten years?  We could do it if we have a charismatic president to challenge us and lead us to a peaceful, effective addition to our homeland defense-to develop our oil production, solar energy, windmill generators, Hydrogen energy, electric cars, and whatever else the thoughts of a charged up nation can come up with.

We could contribute life saving technology to the world, enjoy a cheap and stable supply of energy, and stay away from violent confrontations with cultures we know little about because of some geological accident that deposited oil within their aquifers.

But then-what do I know?