Quote:
Quote by: O-dehlay  In addition to the title question, is it justifiable? I am trying to build my own opinion on the subject. BTW first post/thread on this forum. |
Define "preemptive." If we receive news that Costa Rica is planning a sneak invasion of Brownsville, Texas, should we wait for Costa Rica to strike first, or take action first? What Bush did in Iraq was not a response to an impending threat, as he claimed. Saddam never had the capacity, or the plan, to attack the US homeland. That was a "preemptive war of choice." I think we see the folly of that decision with each passing day.
So, at first glance, one can't rule out "preemptive" war if such a first strike is designed to protect American citizens from imminent attack. Nothing in the US Constitution says that we must take the first punch. But delivering the first punch in case someday someone might think about making a plan to perhaps threaten the American homeland--in theory--is totally unacceptable. Though it may be constititutional; I don't know.