A lot of my postings are in direct reaction to Little Miss Attila and this one will be another one. Ms Attila is obviously supportive of this Iraq shindig, despite the horrible illegalities and hypocrisy spewed by our dear President. Now the hypocrisy has trickled down to Bush's followers. Her latest diatribe is on behalf of Israel and how she supports and understands such a beleagured Nation. No argument there. Israel from inception has had an extremely precarious and violent existence.

Heck, who needs Arabs? The factions within Judaism alone would likely ensure violence.

And that's her first mistake, claiming that the Jews are a peaceful religion. My dear, take out your bible and re-read it. With God on their side the Jews went on a rampage, conquering, slaughtering - how else do you think they got the nation of Israel the first time around? Why do you think that the Jews are so adamant about controlling Israel? It's theirs as a promise from God and they owned it a couple of thousand years ago. Despite the Diaspora, the Jews own Israel and they won't argue the point - it's theirs.

Now mix in two more of the most violent religions on Earth - Christianity and Islam - and you have a region where blood and oil sure as hell mix because there's plenty of both saturating the ground.

Hypocrisy comes in when you describe how Israel defends itself with offense, using the nuclear reactor episode as an excellent example. Bush has now implemented a similar policy: pre-emptive strikes as self-defense against threats to the U.S. national security. (That was one of his reasons given to the U.N. for invading Iraq.) But Bush has *YET* to show how Iraq could b a threat to our national security. Oh yeah, the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" - sick of that phrase.

If Hussein did have such weapons which nation would he use them on? The U.S. or Israel?

For Iraq to be a threat to us they'd either have to develop longer range missiles or use more covert actions. Long range missiles are out; our satellites would pick up the launches and in retaliation Iraq wouldn't exist, just be a big glass bowl in the desert. Plus the cost of research would be enormous and test firing likely obvious to our satellites. So that would leave more covert terrorist type actions and, yes, it's possible but not probable that Hussein would use such tactics just not against us.

Because Hussein's big target is Israel. Always has been. Gulf War 1 - he launches scuds at Israel. None at the U.S. Current war. He announces payments to Hamas for more violence in Israel. Hussein *KNOWS*: attack U.S. - become radioactive dirt. Attack Israel - become Islamic demigod. Again, since 1947, the Arab world wants nothing more than to see Israel cease to exist. Hussein does that...and Mohammed gets a sidekick.

And if Hussein really does have Weapons of Mass Destruction, particularly of the nuclear type, don't you think Israel might do something about it?

Here's a new thought. What if Hussein was telling the truth and he didn't have *ANY* weapons of mass destruction? Wow, wouldn't Bush look really stupid (more than normal). With the abundance of anti-war protests around the world..gosh, we might see Bush on trial for war crimes. Move over Milosevic!

If Hussein does have them, will he use them on our troops or on Israel? I guess we'll have to tune in to our favorite talking head and see.

Finally, Miss Hun's little comments about "And you wait for people to thank you later. Or never--that's fine, too." So now if the U.S. doesn't get forever thanked by the liberated Iraqis, it's cool. So why all the crap about the France? How can you say we're liberating Iraq from the abundant altruism of our hearts on one hand and then condemn France for not blindly supporting us and what kind of crap are they since we saved their bacon in WW2? France has thanked us repeatedly. The Iraqis will likely do the same but when we go trooping in to liberate Iran, if Iraq does voice opposition, are we going to launch a few in their direction as a little reminder as to who's the head camel?