Stop calling Iraq a "Pre-emptive" War

[Ian David]

People should stop referring to Iraq as a "pre-emptive war."

Pre-emption means you attack a threat before they attack you.

Iraq was not a threat.

Attacking Iraq was not pre-emption.

Attacking Iraq was mis-direction.

[ClassWarrior]

1. It was an unprovoked war.

NGU.

[knowbody0]

2. Shock and Awe

was orgasmic for the big boys with the big toys. They'd dreamed so long of it.

[wtmusic]

3. "Invasion" is a word they really don't like to hear

and far more accurate.

[Blue_In_AK]

10. That's my favorite. n/t

[peacebird]

4. but remember that the bush doctrine is "Pre-Emption" and tie the

collosal failure in Iraq around their necks as a war of CHOICE, not neccessity, every time you can.

[Maat]

5. Some call Iraq 'preventative war.'

A rose by any other name ...

I think that we all agree that the invasion was both illegal and immoral.

[Jai4WKC08]

8. No, the OP is right. It's an important distinction

Pre-emptive wars by definition are not illegal or immoral. If another nation, or presumably non-national entity, poses an "imminent threat," the target is justified in striking first. We're not in some 1930s cowboy movie--you don't have to wait for the other guy to shoot first.

Saddam's Iraq posed no such threat. The Bushies want us to believe that either it did, or that we had ever reason to believe they did, which justifies the war. But they are lying.

[Maat]

12. What you said is what I said.

I'm merely saying that my legal friends are referring to what Booosh did as 'preventative war,' which is the greatest 'NO-NO.'

We are not disagreeing in concept; my lawyer-friends merely refer to what Booosh did as 'preventative war.'

[Avalux]

6. It was a deliberate, long-planned war of agression.

Bushco decided before 9/11 ever happened that we'd go into Iraq; they are still desperately tring to justify what amounts to nothing more than war crimes on their part. I laughed out loud when I heard Condi Rice say that Iraq had been sponsoring terrorism for years and that Zarqawi and Saddam were buds. Even when Blitzer told her that wasn't true, she still kept insisting.

[sam sarrha]

7. a stupid foolish delusion of a wet brain alcoholic drug addict narcissistic

moran..

the Emperor has no Brain..!!!!

[CarlVK]

9. It's called "Agressive War" and the Nuremburg Accords ruled against it

We need to start using the proper terminology, and note at every turn that this type of thing was SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED in an international accord, to which the US was a signatory, that came about as a result of the Nuremburg Trials after WWII.

[Jack Rabbit]

11. Preventive war

The Bush doctrine of pre-emption is a misnomer.

A pre-emptive war is, you you say, a case where a nation face with the imminent threat of attack of attack strikes before waiting to be attacked, that is a pre-emptive war. Under the UN charter, this is perfectly legal. No one should expect a nation's leadership to allow its people to be pulverized just to escape possible war crimes charges.

A preventive war in one in which a nation strikes in order to prevent a threat from arising sometime in the distant future. This is a war crime on its face.

Ironically, going to war against Saddam to prevent him from obtaining a biochemical or nuclear arsenal (one of the fall backs the neocons have used since they found out he didn't actually have any) would have been a preventive war. On the other hand, if Saddam had launched a missile attack on the US/British forces assembled on the Iraqi border in Kuwait and wiped them out, that would have been a pre-emptive attack.

Here is an excerpt from Mr. Bush's address to the graduating class at West Point on June 1, 2002 (emphasis added):

For much of the last century, America's defense relied on the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment. In some cases, those strategies still apply. But new threats also require new thinking. Deterrence -- the promise of massive retaliation against nations -- means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend. Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies.

We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.

Homeland defense and missile defense are part of stronger security, and they're essential priorities for America. Yet the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act.

Our security will require the best intelligence, to reveal threats hidden in caves and growing in laboratories. Our security will require modernizing domestic agencies such as the FBI, so they're prepared to act, and act quickly, against danger. Our security will require transforming the military you will lead -- a military that must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives.

Okay. You tell me if he's talking about prevention or pre-emption.