I found this in the opinion section of yesterdays the USA TODAY newspaper. Is this a case in point for justification of the war. You be the judge (see below)<br><br>Pre-emptive strike was right<br><br>Suppose a person approaches you with his hand in his pockets and threatens you, implying he might have a gun. You ask, May I see if you really have a gun? and the person replies, "No you may not." You seize the opportunity, wrestle the person to the ground, pull his hand out of his pocket and find there's no gun. Were you justified in taking this violent action against this hoodlum? You bet. Now suppose that person is Saddam Hussein and the possible gun was a weapon of mass destruction. Enough said.<br><br>William S. Pietrazak <br>Warsaw, Indiana<br><br>I personally don't think this was a good example for justification of the war. It's not like Saddam directly threatened us with a WMD and he didn't have his hands in his pockets and not let us see what he had (UN Weapons Inspectors were allowed up to the point of the war)<br><br>Whats your take??<br><br><br><br>