[Osborn F Enready]

Pre-Imminent, indisputable facts must be present to determine a need or Pre-Emptive war and justify starting it. I have yet to see a military provided good intelligence of that level unless they are reporting on their own positions. Intent can't be verified without doubt, unless proof is substantial, verified, and shown to be authentic and imminent in nature.

You can't have such a thing as a pre-emptive war in most cases. In most cases, for public support, you must have a reason and proof that is beyond compelling, unless employing propaganda or lies, which is outright disinformation. (not a foreign tactic to any nation that I know of)

The argument for pre-emptive war should be the most skeptically, critical viewed argument in the history of war, if liberty of the individuals involved, or the lives of human beings are a factor in the equation without bias, especially national bias fanned by propaganda and disinformation. ( think Yellow Cake, aluminum tubes and Fox News for a recent example)