|
Forgive me if this has been discussed here ad infinitum, but I did a lot of research on this before we attacked Iraq, from debating freepers. Here is an entry from Wikipedia about pre-emptive war:
Preemptive war
A preemptive attack (or preemptive war) is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat an **imminent offensive or invasion**, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (**usually unavoidable**) war.
Preemptive war is often confused with the term preventive war. While the latter is generally considered to violate international law, and to fall short of the requirements of a just war, preemptive wars are more often argued to be justified or justifiable.
The intention with a preemptive strike is to gain the advantage of initiative and to harm the enemy at a moment of minimal protection, for instance while vulnerable during transport or mobilization.
While the labeling of an attack (on strategic and tactical levels) seldom is controversial, it is much more so in regard to the initiation of a war. For propagandist reasons, and in the name of information warfare, an adversary's defensive dispositions may often be attributed offensive purpose alleging the necessity of the own attack.
One hypothetical example of a preemptive war would be an attack staged against enemy troops, massed at a state's border, that were preparing to invade.
Me again. In other words, a preemptive war is one that is ONLY justified if your country is ABOUT to be attacked. There must be incontrovertible evidence of that imminent attack.
Lurking freepers read this slowly: WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD AND STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO PRE-EMPTIVE WAR, IF AND ONLY IF WE ARE TRULY UNDER THE THREAT OF AN IMMENENT ATTACK.
That means, usually, the other side has guns/bombs aimed at us, are mobilizing to attack us, have STATED they are going to attack us (and that statement cannot have been years ago), etc.
You know what this means right? Ironically, when we had ALL our weapons and troops amassed on Iraq's borders before the war, when we were engaging in all our war talk against them, IRAQ would have been justified in an all-out pre-emptive attack on US.
Ironic, isn't it?
What we did to Iraq doesn't qualify as pre-emptive. What we did is called PREVENTIVE, and THAT is immoral and unjust.
A preventive war is a war in which one state attacks another under the proclamation of preventive self-defense. Preventive war and preemptive war differ in the certainty of an attack. While a preemptive war concerns an imminent attack, preventive war takes place with **no military provocation**. The justification often used by states engaging in preventive war is that another state may attack them in the future – thus an attempt to prevent it.
Sound familiar? We engaged in a preventive war on Iraq. Preventive wars are not just, they are not justified, they are not moral. They are not legal. They are just WRONG.
When Kerry said we always reserve the right to preemptive war, he was right. We always have had that right and still do. But the reasons for it MUST pass a stringent test first. The war on Iraq did not and does not.
He was not in any way, shape or form endorsing bush style preventive wars (which is officially called pre-emptive doctrine, but it is not) nor was he saying we have to get other countries' permission to do what we need to militarily.
He was speaking the truth. Pre-emptive wars have to pass some pretty stringent tests.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
