As I remember (and I hope my facts are straight about this), Saddam launched an attack of non-nuclear conventional weapons in the early 90s of the 20th century against who he considered his wayward arab brothers in Kuwait ("wayward" because of their commercial-oil commerce with the summertime-immodest United States). Then Bush Sr. came to the half-successful slap-on-the-wrist aid of quasi-ally Kuwait with more-or-less conventional weapons of questionable nature.

It was during that time that Russian-made Scud missiles, apparently launched from Iraq, landed inside Tel Aviv and Haifa which did some non-lethal buildings damage. This was accompanied by what the questionable american media said was alleged anti-America anti-Israel rhetoric in news-clip speeches the media associated with Saddam.

Since then, there have been american-media reports of Saddam purportedly hosting Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq, and funding the families of suicide bombers inflicting terroristic genoicide within parts of Israel.

It seems that that attack against America's ally, Israel, was a major cause why Bush Jr. and the U.S. military attacked Saddam, his Baathists, and all Iraq. Added to that, Bush probably considered Saddam's intent to not sell foreign oil to America, and adversely influence arab-brothers OPEC to also not sell foreign oil to America, justification for attack against the entire infrastructure of sovereign Iraq.

Why did not Bill Clinton simply designate a CIA hitman to take Saddam out of the picture when Monica's Billy had the chance? Well, it is much like the situation where if Bush was assassinated, rather-like-minded Cheney would take over, and if Cheney was then assassinated, the rather-like-minded Republican Speaker of the House would take over, and so on. Similarly, if Bush had ordered a CIA hitman to assassinate Saddam, Saddam's like-minded lieutenants would have taken over. Thus, the attack on and against all Iraq.

As I believe it is now, Saddam is arrogantly defending himself and making his case during his showcase "trial" (as of this writing). If it continues, and is successfull, he is following the path Adolf Hitler took in his comfortable and protected confinement within that pleasant and picturesque Bavarian country-club prison where Nazi-party visitors were allowed to see him as he wrote Mein Kampf. Thus, Saddam would be slipping through the cracks, and if such continues, might eventually become Secretary General of the United Nations and get the Nobel Peace Prize on top of it. Certainly if John Kerry had been elected instead of Bush, Saddam's rise to U.N. leadership would probably have been much quicker, in that Kerry probably would have sheepishly turned Saddam over to food-for-oil Kofi with the nonsense immentality of "human rights."

If Sovereign Country A attacks Sovereign Country B, when Sovereign Country B has not overtly attacked Sovereign Country A, is such attack by Sovereign Country A justified?

It all depends upon what one defines as "overt" attack.

Both times the U.S. invaded Iraq (Gulf War I and Gulf War II), Iraq did NOT have the means of conveyance to deliver SCUD or gas weapons to attack America, and obviously never did attack the U.S. with such weapons.

In contrast, the United States has a well-developed arsenal and network of fully-functional ICBM missiles with standy nuclear warheads and Patriot-type air-to-air missiles to adversely convey far more than what was witnessed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. Iraq never had such ICBM conveyances. One important difference is that the U.S. never had intention of acting as a hostile threat to disagreeable sovereign nations, whereas Saddam's apparent rhetoric of called America and Israel "the Great Satan" was the opposite. To summarize, Iraq, in that sense, posed no "overt" threat worthy of invasion and attack.

The second means of conveyance, other than ICBM missile conveyance, is conveyance by an organized group of well-supplied soldiers to personally deliver genocidal destruction. Saddam and his Baathists never had and thus never used such an army to personally deliver genocidal attack on homeland America.

To my knowledge, there is no proof that Atta and his cellphones-unified group of suicide hijackers who destroyed the NYC Trade Towers and part of the Pentagon were directly affiliated with nor tactically operating under specific military orders from Saddam or his Baathist cabinet. To misconsider than the 19 crazy islamic kamakazes who did havoc on 9112001 were an invading Iraqi army is not only a ridiculous misconstruence and laughable presumption, but is a humiliating record of the pathetic state of American security to allow such to happen and largely to blame. However, in a situation where Vince Foster's devious Hillary Clinton was Senator of NY state, and where ACLU/PAW/AUSCS/PP/NOW-consorting voting-wrong-on-sexual-issues Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, and other demoncrats with turncoat republicans, cast a long shadow of anti-Christian tyranny against unhindered operation of security forces, along with short-skirted Condi Rice being the weaker-sex inferior-gender NSA funnel both the CIA and FBI were reluctant to trust intelligence to....in the tradition of Freeh-bound shoot-Ruby-Ridge and burn-the-Waco-camp Janet Reno....the 19 murderous kooks who accessed the nonforeign weapons of American jetliners through Boston airport with the high-tech armaments of box cutters were nonstoppable because of insidious forget-the-Bible-in-public-schools satanically-ordered-amd-enforced "civil rights" of "nondiscrimination." To summarize, Iraq, in that sense posed no "overt" threat worthy of invasion and attack.

So, WHAT WAS the excuse Bush used to invade Iraq? Clearly, it was preemptive, almost like when a cop arrests someone they presume is guilty of a crime, or a judge convicts someone of a crime, which crime the accused never committed at all. Bush, though, in his Divinely-inspired Spirit-of-Jesus Christian wisdom and foresight, saw that noncooperative lone-wolf-president Saddam - if not stopped - would have soon and irreparably caused national-security damage to both the United States and Israel (within which genuine saints and destined-to-become-saints of the true God reside within) would never have been able to recover from. No sovereign-nation president in his right mind would have the audacity to not only thumb his nose against the presidents of other sovereign nations and not politely group together with them in summit meetings even if he did not like them, like what they were doing, nor like who they were allied with....but then go beyond and take physical steps to actualize his nose-thumbing in serious acts of indirect hostility, especially relating to crucial-for-survival and vital world-oil commerce.

What both Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. did by invading Iraq in Gulf War I and Gulf War II was like when Matt Dillon on Gunsmoke drew his gun faster than the bad guy in another gunfight after the bad guy (who might or might not have been an accurate shot) drew first against Matt - reminiscent of what occurred in the Old-Testament book of Judges chapter 11.

The murder of White House counsel Vince Foster was a classic dark-side operation. Vince Foster was the man who knew too much.

As a former partner with Hillary in the Rose Law Firm, he was the one person in the Clinton entourage who had comprehensive knowledge of all the personal affairs of Bill and Hillary and their secret financial dealings. He knew about all of the illegal activities in Whitewater; the lucrative no-risk stock trades made with the help of highly placed insiders; the collusion with the CIA to run drugs from Central America through Mena, Arkansas; the subversion of the Arkansas State bond markets with secret partner Jackson Stevens; and the corruption of the State Police to cover for Bill’s philandering.

Foster’s danger to the Clintons as a potential defector was even greater since Foster reportedly set up the Clinton’s secret bank accounts in Switzerland with the help of criminal minds like Marc Rich (the same one who was given a last minute presidential pardon for income tax evasion).

There were indications that Foster was getting cold feet and wanted out just as Congressional investigators were moving in to interrogate him. Someone above the Clintons decided he had to be eliminated to protect the first couple and the NWO system they were fronting for.

In brief, Vince Foster was shot by hit men and the body was subsequently taken to Marcy Park in Washington, DC and dumped in the bushes. An auto-loading pistol was placed in his hand to make it look like a suicide. Later, someone drove Foster’s car over to the parking lot at Marcy Park to make it look like he had driven there on his own. It was a sloppy hit job. The perpetrators made lots of mistakes, which had to be covered up later on by falsified and altered government reports.

The gun in Foster’s hand was switched by some government agent to one actually owned by Foster—a 1913 Colt revolver— only after the body was discovered, after paramedics had noted the original weapon and after Marcy Park police had taken charge of the crime scene.

The body showed no blood pooling around the body in its original position. Only when the body was moved up the hill (against standard procedures), head down, did blood begin to flow out the wound. New photographs were taken there as if it were the original crime scene. Paramedics saw (and photographs of the crime scene show) a neck wound. The official report suppresses these photos and makes the claim that Foster shot himself through the mouth.

There was a witness (Patrick Knowlton) to the fact that it was NOT Foster’s gray Honda that was in the parking lot at the time of the alleged suicide, but rather another different colored, older Honda.

Beyond these obvious mistakes made by the hit men themselves, there is ample evidence of official collusion to falsify the evidence and obtain a different conclusion than the original facts would allow. Among other things:

Both paramedics were subjected to intense interrogation by the FBI, in the attempt to get them to change their story about the wound, the gun and the position of the body. One paramedic stuck with his original conclusions despite FBI attempts to “shake him.” The FBI succeeded in confusing the other paramedic by continually writing down his testimony in a way that distorted his original meaning.

The FBI altered Patrick Knowlton’s witness statement so that the Knowlton’s description of the vehicle in the parking lot matched Foster’s Honda. When Knowlton discovered the error, he demanded the record be corrected. The government refused and Knowlton sued in court. Plain clothes government agents began a harassment and threat campaign against Knowlton wherever he went in public. Later, Knowlton identified one of these harassing agents as an FBI agent on Ken Starr’s staff at the Independent Counsel’s office.

Independent Counsels Robert Fiske and Kenneth Starr falsely claimed that a quantity of blood was observed where the body was first discovered. In fact, as mentioned above, the blood only appeared after the body was moved—a fact these counsels wanted suppressed. Fiske and Starr also allowed false testimony that a rescue worker, early on the scene, had moved Foster's head to check for a pulse. This false story was planted to help explain away certain contradictions between the statements of paramedics and Park Police (who were partially involved in the cover-up).

Crime scene photos of the body in its original position when discovered were allowed to disappear. As in the JFK assassination cover-up, the photos later presented as evidence were of the body after it had been moved and its position altered to mask the neck wound.

The White House and others knew of the Foster death even before the body was discovered at Marcy Park and 911 was called. The Foster suicide note was forged and was planted in his office after White House officials invaded the office, searched it and removed all incriminating documents.

Americans at large continue to be besieged - like from immature terroristically-shrieking bratty toddlers - with the incessant barrage of drone of hate-Obama diatribe and tiresome tirade erupting like recurring diarrhea from the mouths of certain deviant TV and radio talk-show hosts, analysts, and commentators......all who in effect are accomplishing nothing but giving weaker-sex inferior-gender Hitlery Fostergate Clinton (who Scripture references obviously forbid being elected to rule in authority over men) a free ride to Democrat Party nomination.

In their greed for female-audience listenership and feebly-futile attempts to patronize feminist-sexist chauvenists pushing for political power, even some so-called "conservative" talk-show-host pansies and patsies pander in their deceptive facade to "respect women" "honor motherhood" and "not abuse women" with "mental harassment" by avoiding scandals-exposure condemnation againstHitlery and instead only target Obama with vitriolic condamnation.

There must be a God who compensates for that in-effect accursedly-one-sided illegally-discriminatory promotion of the woman Hillary, by the Lord Himself presently having allocated more delegates and superdelegates to Obama than to Hitlery Fostergate Clinton - to the vicious-catfight horror and dismay of her biased, bigoted, anti-patriarchal, politically-power-seeking feminist activists and promoters.

By criticizing only Obama and never Hillary, wrong-headed media who do so ignore, disregard, and defy God's expressed Word and intentions to NOT allow a WOMAN to become America's President! Though not same-gender homosodomites, they suck up to and brown-nose Satan's sexist feminists in vain and to no avail, but instead are a deplorable and despicable humiliation against rational sanity and common sense.

NOW is NOT the time to condemn Obama, being that Hitlery is yet in the running! The time to promote anti-abortion-voting-record McCain will come later, when at THAT time Obama can be disregarded - ONLY when Hitlery is safely out of the way!

The words: “Palestine” and “palestinian(s)” are artificial terms found NOWHERE within the Sacred-66-books Old-and-New-Testaments HOLY BIBLE.

God’s Law, specified in both Testaments of Scripture, clearly designated and continue to designate Israeli territory (specifically defined within Scripture) to Jews - not so-called “palestinians.”

Thus, the Holy Land is NOT [purported] “ancestral homeland” of properly-punished-and/or-excluded antisemitic arabs (particularly blasphemously-heretic cultic-muslim/moslem ones)…..but rather to those the Jesus-as-Messiah geneological ones the LORD apportioned and apportions in His Word who have faith in Christ along with works congruent with that faith.

The trouble-causing descendants of Ishmael have been and should continue to be ousted as God directed Abram and Sarai.

Heretically, quite lamentable is the erroneous inclusion of the one-and-only use of the word "Palestine" in the KJV and KJ21 instead of the correct word "Philistia" in the ASV, JPS, RKJV, RSV, etc. Joel 3:4 - which is another example of despicable human faultiness, lying deception, infidel apostasy and/or accursed ignorance here and there not merely in the KJV but also occurring here and there in every English mistranslation/translation of the actual and real Sacred-66-books HOLY BIBLE.

As much as the KJV is accurate regarding the words "younger women" in their rendition of I Timothy 5:14 instead of the wrong words "younger widows" (lamentably found in most every other English Translation except the WTNT and Wesley NT), grievous and diabolical semantical errors are plentious within the KJV, as for example the uncalled-for euphemism of "abusers of themselves with mankind" (whatever THAT means or implies!) instead of the correct word "sodomites" (Gr. arsenokoitai) in I Corinthians 6:9, misuse of the word "Easter" instead of passover in Acts 12:4, miswording of "Would that God my lord" in II Kings 5:3 instead of "Would that my lord," and so forth.

NO English "bible" translation to my knowledge has I Timothy 5:11 translated correctly according to the exact and precise inerrant Scrivener-Trinitarian Greek New-Testament Text. As you can logically concur that all younger widows are younger women, but not all younger women are younger widows, so the Greek word for "younger women" [ne(o)teras] and the word for "widows" [ch(e)ras] are obviously two distinct, separate, and dissimilarly-spelled Greek words. Thus, I Timothy 5:11 SHOULD read: "But refuse younger-women widows..." instead of "But refuse younger widows...." Of course, substantiation that the word [ne(o)teras] does mean: "younger women" and ONLY means "younger women" is found in use of that singular and specific Greek word in I Timothy 5:2 and 5:14 and correctly rendered ONLY as "younger women" in most English Bible translations.

There is even a problem with corrupt Greek Texts purporting to be authentic New-Testament Texts. The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus contain obvious gross errors, as does the Westcott-and-Hort and Nestle Greek texts related to the errant Metzger-Aland United Bible Society text. Apparently the true and correct trinitarian Greek Text of First John 5:7 from Erasmus is based on Latin manuscripts being that additional Greek manuscripts for such have not yet been discovered or are not readily available publicly.

The interlinear Greek-English New-Testament text edited by Gene Ricker Berry includes a concocted Greek-text addition to the last verse of the last chapter of the New-Testament book of Romans in which Berry states that Phoebe is the author of Romans. NO other English translation IN EXISTENCE has THAT erroneous inclusion!

QUESTION NUMBER ONE: Is it acceptable for a military chaplain of the United States armed forces to end public prayers in the name of the deity Jesus Christ, and/or rather pseudo-deity "allah?"

QUESTION NUMBER TWO: Should the phrase performing abortion or instead the phrase committing abortion be used by the media when abortion is done?

QUESTION NUMBER THREE: A follow-up to the previous question. The exact same New-Testament Greek-Text word brephos is used both for the pre-born babe John in Luke 1:41 AND for the already-born babe Jesus in Luke 2:16. Does that clearly prove the personhood of the preborn human babe with soul in the womb of a human mother?

QUESTION NUMBER FOUR: The New-Testament Greek-Text words malakoi and arsenokoitai are exclusively translated into the English words "effeminate" and "sodomites" respectively pertaining to those the Scripture verses of First Corinthians 6:9-10 state will not inherit the kingdom of God. Without any additional qualifications at this point, will homogay effeminate and homopervert sodomites indeed not inherit the kingdom of God?

QUESTION NUMBER FIVE: The opening verses of Leviticus chapter 27, two verses of Ecclesiastes 7:27-28, Isaiah 3:12, Nahum 3:13, First Corinthians 14:33-38, First Timothy 2:12-14, and First Peter 3:7 obviously infer that the weaker-sex gender are worth less than the superior gender and should not teach nor serve as combat soldiers in authority over men. Does that clearly prohibit a woman from becoming Commander-in-Chief President of the United States?