Footwedge wrote:

jmog wrote:

bigmanbt wrote:

Let me guess, they hate us because we are free, because we are different than them, they basically hate everything about us and want nothing more than to see us gone. It certainly has nothing to do with us occupying their lands and trying to tell them what they can and can't do :rolleyes:

Preventive war solves nothing, and if you haven't seen that yet you must have had your eyes closed.

1. I didn't state one thing why they hate us.
2. Show me where prior to 9/11 we "occupied their land and told them what they can/can't do". If you can do that, then you have a point, if you can't then you are the one with your "eyes closed".
3. Preventative war solves nothing? You have zero proof. The middle east has been a powder keg ready to explode for years and still might into a WWIII. If the world (and the US) had got more involved with Hitler/Germany after their first attack/conquest instead of after they had taken over half of Europe, most likely WWII wouldn't have been nearly as big.

You are unaware that the US has occupied their land? We have bases all over their land...and have occupied their land for decades. Bin Ladin stated the motives for attacking the US. This was one of the 2 primary reasons for attacking us.

And spare me the the WWII corallary with Iraq. That is so far out in left field that it is beyond comprehension. And remember, Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11...that bin Ladin hated the secularist Saddam Hussein...that before we invaded, there were absolutly no Al Quada operatives under Saddam's jursdiction.

I cannot believe that there are still people in this country justifying that war....especially now that all the dirty laundy associated with it is all public knowledge.

You can't totally dismiss the correlation. Suppose Britain and France had invaded Germany under the auspices of violations of the Versailles treaty in the early to mid 1930's and deposed Hitler. Lets say it cost the lives of 5 to 10 million people. Yet unbeknown to anyone it halted the slaughter of 10s of millions in Europe. How would the world have judged them?

That being said I would rarely support preemptive war. That kind of war is based on the supposed foreknowledge and intelligence of government. In the instance of war the constitution states that congress must declare it.

In many of our wars we have relied on nothing more than a muddled approval of force from congress. Many argue that is all that is needed. I argue that a declared state of war is similar to a declared state of emergency. It grants the government unusual powers. Conducting war is an unusual power in that it is not the normal function of governance. In the case that preemptive war is necessary so much more so is the necessity of an official declaration by congress.

majorspark wrote:
You can't totally dismiss the correlation. Suppose Britain and France had invaded Germany under the auspices of violations of the Versailles treaty in the early to mid 1930's and deposed Hitler. Lets say it cost the lives of 5 to 10 million people. Yet unbeknown to anyone it halted the slaughter of 10s of millions in Europe. How would the world have judged them?

Please don't equate Saddam Hussein with Hitler. You conveniently forget that the Republican Gaurd was completely destroyed during Operation Desert Storm. From the end of that operation, until 1998, US inspectors were in Saddam's military shit, and he was nary a threat to piss in the Euphrates River.

Then, the inspectors came back into Iraq in December of 2002. For 4 months, these inspectors had unfettered access to every single cite that Colin Powell had pointed to in his power point presentation to the UN. Unfettered.

Saddam Hussein had no WMD's...and Hanz Blix and Muhammed Elbaradei had confirmed this 3 weeks prior to Shock and Awe.

That being said I would rarely support preemptive war. That kind of war is based on the supposed foreknowledge and intelligence of government. In the instance of war the constitution states that congress must declare it.

As you have mentioned below, the US has not followed constitutional protocol in declaring wars since WWII. Neither the Korean War nor Vietnam were declared wars.

In many of our wars we have relied on nothing more than a muddled approval of force from congress. Many argue that is all that is needed. I argue that a declared state of war is similar to a declared state of emergency. It grants the government unusual powers. Conducting war is an unusual power in that it is not the normal function of governance. In the case that preemptive war is necessary so much more so is the necessity of an official declaration by congress.

Agreed. But it would help Congress make this tough decision if they weren't lied to on the actual threat.

Had the Office of Special Plan not deliberately distorted the known intel, and tried to sell this war on "regime change" only, the Congress would have told the Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfy, Douglas Feith to screw off.

It would have been a bi-partisan no go.

Footwedge wrote: Please don't equate Saddam Hussein with Hitler. You conveniently forget that the Republican Gaurd was completely destroyed during Operation Desert Storm. From the end of that operation, until 1998, US inspectors were in Saddam's military shit, and he was nary a threat to piss in the Euphrates River.

Then, the inspectors came back into Iraq in December of 2002. For 4 months, these inspectors had unfettered access to every single cite that Colin Powell had pointed to in his power point presentation to the UN. Unfettered.

Saddam Hussein had no WMD's...and Hanz Blix and Muhammed Elbaradei had confirmed this 3 weeks prior to Shock and Awe.

I did not equate Hitler with Saddam. Also keep in mind I was talking about the Hiltler in the early to mid 1930's. Not the Hitler of 1939.

You didn't answer the question that I asked in the context of jmog's correlation with the second world war. I'll ask again.

Suppose Britain and France had invaded Germany under the auspices of violations of the Versailles treaty in the early to mid 1930's and deposed Hitler. Lets say it cost the lives of 5 to 10 million people. Yet unbeknown to anyone it halted the slaughter of 10s of millions in Europe. How would the world have judged them?

majorspark wrote:

Footwedge wrote: Please don't equate Saddam Hussein with Hitler. You conveniently forget that the Republican Gaurd was completely destroyed during Operation Desert Storm. From the end of that operation, until 1998, US inspectors were in Saddam's military shit, and he was nary a threat to piss in the Euphrates River.

Then, the inspectors came back into Iraq in December of 2002. For 4 months, these inspectors had unfettered access to every single cite that Colin Powell had pointed to in his power point presentation to the UN. Unfettered.

Saddam Hussein had no WMD's...and Hanz Blix and Muhammed Elbaradei had confirmed this 3 weeks prior to Shock and Awe.

I did not equate Hitler with Saddam. Also keep in mind I was talking about the Hiltler in the early to mid 1930's. Not the Hitler of 1939.

You didn't answer the question that I asked in the context of jmog's correlation with the second world war. I'll ask again.

Suppose Britain and France had invaded Germany under the auspices of violations of the Versailles treaty in the early to mid 1930's and deposed Hitler. Lets say it cost the lives of 5 to 10 million people. Yet unbeknown to anyone it halted the slaughter of 10s of millions in Europe. How would the world have judged them?

They would have probably been the villians. You make a good point here, but let's raise another question then. Go back even further to the end of WWI. Had we (Allies) not been so harsh on Germany after WWI and fueled the conditions for Hitler to take over, would he have ever gotten in power? The rise of Hitler can be viewed your way, where we could have prevented it with war, or my way, where it might have been prevented with peace. I'll choose peaceful diplomacy, if at all possible.

"He who forgives ends the quarrel." If we could have forgiven Germany after WWI, WWII might have been prevented. If we could only forgive the Arab people for 9/11, who knows what we can prevent. It looks like we could at least prevent a financial collapse.

bigmanbt wrote:

They would have probably been the villians. You make a good point here, but let's raise another question then. Go back even further to the end of WWI. Had we (Allies) not been so harsh on Germany after WWI and fueled the conditions for Hitler to take over, would he have ever gotten in power? The rise of Hitler can be viewed your way, where we could have prevented it with war, or my way, where it might have been prevented with peace. I'll choose peaceful diplomacy, if at all possible.

"He who forgives ends the quarrel." If we could have forgiven Germany after WWI, WWII might have been prevented. If we could only forgive the Arab people for 9/11, who knows what we can prevent. It looks like we could at least prevent a financial collapse.

Come on, even the most far left liberal can't really believe that horse crap.

You mean to say that Germany only was "bad" in WWII because of the sanctions against them after they tried to take over the world the first time in WWI?

Give me a break.

Do you really believe that if we had just said "its ok, we forgive you" after 9/11 the Islamic Terrorists would have saiid "wow, they are nice people, we will be their friends!"?

This isn't some heavenlike utopia, this is the real world, do you care to join it?

jmog wrote:

bigmanbt wrote:

They would have probably been the villians. You make a good point here, but let's raise another question then. Go back even further to the end of WWI. Had we (Allies) not been so harsh on Germany after WWI and fueled the conditions for Hitler to take over, would he have ever gotten in power? The rise of Hitler can be viewed your way, where we could have prevented it with war, or my way, where it might have been prevented with peace. I'll choose peaceful diplomacy, if at all possible.

"He who forgives ends the quarrel." If we could have forgiven Germany after WWI, WWII might have been prevented. If we could only forgive the Arab people for 9/11, who knows what we can prevent. It looks like we could at least prevent a financial collapse.

Come on, even the most far left liberal can't really believe that horse crap.

You mean to say that Germany only was "bad" in WWII because of the sanctions against them after they tried to take over the world the first time in WWI?

Give me a break.

Do you really believe that if we had just said "its ok, we forgive you" after 9/11 the Islamic Terrorists would have saiid "wow, they are nice people, we will be their friends!"?

This isn't some heavenlike utopia, this is the real world, do you care to join it?

Why not study WWII a little more please, the Treaty of Versailles crippled Germany and made them hate the victors of WWI. Have you not studied history at all? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_WWII Why don't you read up and educate yourself a little bit. The Treaty of Versailles enabled a man like Hitler to take control of Germany because he promised a return of German power, and the people didn't necessarily care how they got that power back, just that they did.

Calling me a far left liberal is comical as well.

We need to forgive them for 9/11 NOW, not when it happened. When something like that happens, you punish them with swift military action. But then when you come home and leave the war, you forgive. What's wrong with being the bigger man? Rather be the bigger man than be the biggest bully.

You war-mongering chickenhawks who think the world is out to destroy us are so paranoid and ignorant that you fail to see the reasons behind human actions, you just look at the outcomes. Take an in-depth look sometime and put America on the other side of the war, guarantee you wouldn't stand for another country trying to do to us what we do to them.

Edit: If you need another source for what I say, read the Road to Serfdom by F.A Hayek, a German economist who fled Germany because of the ideals he saw rising in Germany that led to the Nazi regime. The Treaty and the conditions laid on the Germans monetarily played a HEAVY role in allowing an extremist like Hitler come into power.

majorspark wrote:

Footwedge wrote: Please don't equate Saddam Hussein with Hitler. You conveniently forget that the Republican Gaurd was completely destroyed during Operation Desert Storm. From the end of that operation, until 1998, US inspectors were in Saddam's military shit, and he was nary a threat to piss in the Euphrates River.

Then, the inspectors came back into Iraq in December of 2002. For 4 months, these inspectors had unfettered access to every single cite that Colin Powell had pointed to in his power point presentation to the UN. Unfettered.

Saddam Hussein had no WMD's...and Hanz Blix and Muhammed Elbaradei had confirmed this 3 weeks prior to Shock and Awe.

I did not equate Hitler with Saddam. Also keep in mind I was talking about the Hiltler in the early to mid 1930's. Not the Hitler of 1939.

You didn't answer the question that I asked in the context of jmog's correlation with the second world war. I'll ask again.

Suppose Britain and France had invaded Germany under the auspices of violations of the Versailles treaty in the early to mid 1930's and deposed Hitler. Lets say it cost the lives of 5 to 10 million people. Yet unbeknown to anyone it halted the slaughter of 10s of millions in Europe. How would the world have judged them?

Yes you are STILL drawing a hypothetical corallary that I don't think has any merit or should even de discussed. Why? Because you are asserting that somehow Saddam Hussein would, in the future, invade neighboring countries "successfully", and in the process kill millions of people...ala Hitler.

How many times do I have to repeat myself here? The Republican Guard was literally destroyed in 1990 during operation desert storm. They had no military left, they were under close eye inspections by UNSCOM....and they were no threat to anybody at that time.

Getting back to your question regarding Hitler, had Germany been invaded in the early 30's when he first came to power, the international community would have been looked at by historians as being slimeballs. No one could have predicted back then how expansive the 3rd Reich would become.

Footwedge wrote:

Getting back to your question regarding Hitler, had Germany been invaded in the early 30's when he first came to power, the international community would have been looked at by historians as being slimeballs. No one could have predicted back then how expansive the 3rd Reich would become.

You can't make that argument cause we have no way of knowing. The Brits and French could have discovered the Germany was 1. Breaking the rules of Treaty of Versailles by arming and ceding lands. (a perfectly good rational for war in a state centric world and IL) and 2. Had the infrastructure and will to start the Final Solution, or at least the will to kill Jews or place them in camps.

History is full of what ifs. For every one that says x there is one that says y and z. We can play this game all day.

^^^^And let me add something here....Hitler's forces would never have been able to do what they did, had the neighboring countries been well equipped in DEFENDING themselves. The idea behind a strong military is for defending their homeland, not a strong offense...which America used to live by, but have now lost their moral compass on the issue.

Bomb first ask questions later....is as amoral as it gets.

Footwedge wrote: Bomb first ask questions later....is as amoral as it gets.

Where is the middle ground? Waiting until attacked is by definition NOT self-defense, it's retaliation. Is allowing your own people to be killed before acting somehow more moral? Of course not.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

Getting back to your question regarding Hitler, had Germany been invaded in the early 30's when he first came to power, the international community would have been looked at by historians as being slimeballs. No one could have predicted back then how expansive the 3rd Reich would become.

You can't make that argument cause we have no way of knowing. The Brits and French could have discovered the Germany was 1. Breaking the rules of Treaty of Versailles by arming and ceding lands. (a perfectly good rational for war in a state centric world and IL) and 2. Had the infrastructure and will to start the Final Solution, or at least the will to kill Jews or place them in camps.

History is full of what ifs. For every one that says x there is one that says y and z. We can play this game all day.

He asked me for my opinion...and I shared my opinion. I think Hitler came to power in 1933. The question posed by Spark.."how would the world view the invaders had they taken out Hitler in 33 or 34." Since nobody could forecast the future of Hitler's intentions at that time, my opinion is that the international community would have viewed the invadors as slimeballs. That is my opinion.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

Footwedge wrote: Bomb first ask questions later....is as amoral as it gets.

Where is the middle ground? Waiting until attacked is by definition NOT self-defense, it's retaliation. Is allowing your own people to be killed before acting somehow more moral? Of course not.

And you prove my point in us losing our moral compass. You think that Iraq was going to bomb us? With what? They didn't even own planes....let alone weapons.

Truly irrational.

Footwedge wrote: And you prove my point in us losing our moral compass. You think that Iraq was going to bomb us? With what? They didn't even own planes....let alone weapons.

My question was intended to be more generic, without a specific context. Asking it differently, can an offensive action legitimately be considered an act of self-defense?

bigmanbt wrote: They would have probably been the villians. You make a good point here, but let's raise another question then. Go back even further to the end of WWI. Had we (Allies) not been so harsh on Germany after WWI and fueled the conditions for Hitler to take over, would he have ever gotten in power? The rise of Hitler can be viewed your way, where we could have prevented it with war, or my way, where it might have been prevented with peace. I'll choose peaceful diplomacy, if at all possible.

I agree they would have been vilified. As for the harsh treatment of the Germans following WWI I would say it played a major part in Hitlers rise to power. I found them no more at fault during WWI than any other nation. The only difference was the German people had enough of the mass bloodshed first. They were the first to turn on their government for sending countless young men to their deaths to trade a few miles of earth back and forth.

bigmanbt wrote: "He who forgives ends the quarrel." If we could have forgiven Germany after WWI, WWII might have been prevented. If we could only forgive the Arab people for 9/11, who knows what we can prevent. It looks like we could at least prevent a financial collapse.

In the context of WWI perhaps, but really why did anyone need forgiven? The arms race was on in Europe and all nations were at fault by making these entangling foreign alliances. Nations were so entangled a single bullet to the head of one individual set the whole thing off. The American delegation was not for the harsh punishment of Germany. It was led by Britain and France.

Blind forgiveness however is a weakness. This world is full of people who would take advantage of it. Forgiving without justice shows weakness. Take Japan and Germany in the aftermath of WWII, justice was served on them for their aggression against humanity. After the allies defeated them they forgave them and treated them humanly and aided in the rebuilding of their nations. Today they are our allies and would go to bat for us if necessary.

As for 9/11 justice had to be served. I believe Afghanistan was the field of justice. I wish we would have been more aggressive with serving justice on our enemies in that country.

Footwedge wrote: Yes you are STILL drawing a hypothetical corallary that I don't think has any merit or should even de discussed. Why? Because you are asserting that somehow Saddam Hussein would, in the future, invade neighboring countries "successfully", and in the process kill millions of people...ala Hitler.

How many times do I have to repeat myself here? The Republican Guard was literally destroyed in 1990 during operation desert storm. They had no military left, they were under close eye inspections by UNSCOM....and they were no threat to anybody at that time.

Bold is an overstatement.

I agree it is a hypothetical corollary. Would not all discussions or arguments concerning possible justification of preemptive military action by definition be hypothetical?

Footwedge wrote: Getting back to your question regarding Hitler, had Germany been invaded in the early 30's when he first came to power, the international community would have been looked at by historians as being slimeballs. No one could have predicted back then how expansive the 3rd Reich would become.

I agree. This is why finding justification for preemptive war is likely fruitless. It relies on the future prediction of another nations actions. Whether it is just or unjust no one can ever definitely prove it. Evan if hostile weapons are found, who can prove their hostile intent?

jmog wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

Remember, the conservative view encompassed a strong defense, but not until recent decades, a strong offense,

There is nothing conservative at all about initiating blood baths half way across the globe....when our country is not at risk.

If you don't think Afghanistan and even Iraq posed a threat to the US then you really should get off the Kool Aid.

Islamic Terrorism is a real threat to the US, period.

Islamic terrorism is a threat, absolutely. Afghanistan, IMO, is justified. The government was one that supported Islamic terrorism (this has been proven) and were friendly with AQ.

Conversely, Iraq had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. Saddam allowed religious freedom in his country for crying out loud (except for Judaism). Iraq was a very bad move and was never a threat to the US and never had anything to do with Islamic terrorism (has yet to be proven, 7 years later).

SQ_Crazies wrote:

bigmanbt wrote:

jmog wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

Remember, the conservative view encompassed a strong defense, but not until recent decades, a strong offense,

There is nothing conservative at all about initiating blood baths half way across the globe....when our country is not at risk.

If you don't think Afghanistan and even Iraq posed a threat to the US then you really should get off the Kool Aid.

Islamic Terrorism is a real threat to the US, period.

Let me guess, they hate us because we are free, because we are different than them, they basically hate everything about us and want nothing more than to see us gone. It certainly has nothing to do with us occupying their lands and trying to tell them what they can and can't do :rolleyes:

Preventive war solves nothing, and if you haven't seen that yet you must have had your eyes closed.

Have you had visions from God that showed you that nothing would have happened had we not gone into the Middle East?

Probably the same visions that showed we had to go into the ME to prevent something from happening.

SQ_Crazies wrote: You're totally right because what we should have done is not gone in there and allowed Iran to pull of 1930's Germany 100 times easier than they can now...and then had to go back in like Normandy once they blew up..

Wow, if you really believe that, I don't know what to say.

SQ_Crazies wrote: Of course you don't, because like many others you don't understand the war in the Middle East. But that's fine, time will tell you all you need to know.

And you do? I've been to Iraq and served during this war, so I'd say I know more than the average person on this site what is going on over there as I have seen it.

SQ_Crazies wrote: It's funny because Iraq DID have WMD's.

Yeah, a long time ago. They didn't have them when we invaded in 2003. Let me guess, you believe they were hidden? How in 7 years have we not found any? How have we not proven that Saddam supported terrorists?

jmog wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

You are unaware that the US has occupied their land? We have bases all over their land...and have occupied their land for decades. Bin Ladin stated the motives for attacking the US. This was one of the 2 primary reasons for attacking us.

And spare me the the WWII corallary with Iraq. That is so far out in left field that it is beyond comprehension. And remember, Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11...that bin Ladin hated the secularist Saddam Hussein...that before we invaded, there were absolutly no Al Quada operatives under Saddam's jursdiction.

I cannot believe that there are still people in this country justifying that war....especially now that all the dirty laundy associated with it is all public knowledge.

Bases in their land that was given to us by each countries government.

Wait, Afghanistan and Iraq gave us land for bases? LOL

If you are referring to different countries like Turkey or Saudi Arabia, I take my comment back, just like they took back most land for our bases in their lands.

SQ_Crazies wrote: LOL, I make no sense because I'm not trying to explain it to you. No matter what I said you'd have a different view so it's pointless, therefore my only argument is wait and see.

I could say the same about you, but I won't. Someday you'll understand what I'm talking about.

Now I see what you are doing. You really don't have a view, you're just stirring the pot. Carry on.

CenterBHSFan wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: How did you know about my hobby?

Women have secret powers.

Those powers aren't that big of a secret!

queencitybuckeye wrote:

Footwedge wrote: And you prove my point in us losing our moral compass. You think that Iraq was going to bomb us? With what? They didn't even own planes....let alone weapons.

My question was intended to be more generic, without a specific context. Asking it differently, can an offensive action legitimately be considered an act of self-defense?

No.

If I punch someone because I can see that he has a knife on his belt and I "know" that he's going to stab me...guess what, I'm guilty of assault.

I supported pursuing the terrorists who attacked is by going into Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a different animal. It is really an area of different tribes controlling different sections. Our objective should've been liquidating those responsible for 9/11 quickly to make an example out of them. At best, we should have turned over the government and had a regime come in that would not aided terrorists. Instead we bungled the pursuit of terrorists by putting Afghanistan on the back burner for Iraq and are now engaged in nation building in the graveyard of empires.

As for Iraq, we are worse off now than we were when Saddam was kind of a balance against Iran. He was evil but those two - Iraq and Iran - kind of checkmated each other. We have lost thousands of our fellow countrymen and hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed in combat or indirectly. We have also drained our treasury and are really a bankrupt state. And we are involved in nation building there.

Frankly, I think we are to a point where we should set a one to two year plan for each theatre of operation to withdraw and bring our troops home.

I Wear Pants wrote: No.

If I punch someone because I can see that he has a knife on his belt and I "know" that he's going to stab me...guess what, I'm guilty of assault.

The phrase "better tried by 12 than carried by six" comes to mind. Anyway, this person removes the knife from his belt. Same answer? How about when he begins getting closer to you with the knife out and pointed in your direction? Is there some point short of his actually stabbing you that you would feel morally justified in taking action?

majorspark wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: They would have probably been the villians. You make a good point here, but let's raise another question then. Go back even further to the end of WWI. Had we (Allies) not been so harsh on Germany after WWI and fueled the conditions for Hitler to take over, would he have ever gotten in power? The rise of Hitler can be viewed your way, where we could have prevented it with war, or my way, where it might have been prevented with peace. I'll choose peaceful diplomacy, if at all possible.

I agree they would have been vilified. As for the harsh treatment of the Germans following WWI I would say it played a major part in Hitlers rise to power. I found them no more at fault during WWI than any other nation. The only difference was the German people had enough of the mass bloodshed first. They were the first to turn on their government for sending countless young men to their deaths to trade a few miles of earth back and forth.

bigmanbt wrote: "He who forgives ends the quarrel." If we could have forgiven Germany after WWI, WWII might have been prevented. If we could only forgive the Arab people for 9/11, who knows what we can prevent. It looks like we could at least prevent a financial collapse.

In the context of WWI perhaps, but really why did anyone need forgiven? The arms race was on in Europe and all nations were at fault by making these entangling foreign alliances. Nations were so entangled a single bullet to the head of one individual set the whole thing off. The American delegation was not for the harsh punishment of Germany. It was led by Britain and France.

Blind forgiveness however is a weakness. This world is full of people who would take advantage of it. Forgiving without justice shows weakness. Take Japan and Germany in the aftermath of WWII, justice was served on them for their aggression against humanity. After the allies defeated them they forgave them and treated them humanly and aided in the rebuilding of their nations. Today they are our allies and would go to bat for us if necessary.

As for 9/11 justice had to be served. I believe Afghanistan was the field of justice. I wish we would have been more aggressive with serving justice on our enemies in that country.

I may not have stated it well enough in my original post, but I think we feel the same way. If someone attacks you, you retaliate with swift military action and you go in full bore, not limited. My time for forgiveness is after we retaliate. When you leave, you try to peacefully reestablish contact and work out your differences diplomatically. That's more what I meant. I wouldn't have forgiven the Islamic terrorists on 9/12, but closing in on 9 years, it might be time.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: No.

If I punch someone because I can see that he has a knife on his belt and I "know" that he's going to stab me...guess what, I'm guilty of assault.

The phrase "better tried by 12 than carried by six" comes to mind. Anyway, this person removes the knife from his belt. Same answer? How about when he begins getting closer to you with the knife out and pointed in your direction? Is there some point short of his actually stabbing you that you would feel morally justified in taking action?

I said on his belt. Not threatening with it in his hand.

Iraq wasn't threatening us. And the didn't even have a knife to threaten us with.