Reply #50: No it isn't. - not according to the UN or history of US policy [View All]

[Selwynn]

In the history of the Unite States, we have always reserved the right to respond to a "clear and present" danger - if someone's bomber planse are fueling on the runway, and and we can strike them before they get a chance to strike us, there is no probelm with this, either in terms of US's historical position with the United Nations understanding of acting in "Defense."

No, the problem with Bush is that he changed and distorted the rules, and so twisted the definition of "immanent" to mean any one we don't like" or to mean "someone who might one day want to do something to the US." That's what is wrong.

The doctrine of preemption according to Bush is that we reserve the right to attack a country that has done nothing agressive at all, on the grounds that it may one day do something agressive. It is a blank check to attack anyone, anywhere at anytime.

I am against that.

That is different than responding to a clear and present threat, especially when the United Nations agrees that it is indeed a thread and that something should be done. When there is multilateral agreement that a thread is real and that certain action should be taken, I feel a little better about that, and that is nothing like Bush's doctrine of unilateral preemption.

You're last sentence: by your definition, the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes has been US policy for fifty years, and by the way, it is UN policy as well (in cases of multilateral agreement and clear and present threat.) However, again by your definiiton, "pre-ventative" strikes, which Bush calls "preemptive" are indeed horribly bad policy.