When should U.S. attack first? Only as last resort.

year after Sept. 11, 2001, the USA was still smarting from the horrific blow, and the national mood was one of apprehension. Even though the United States had successfully routed the Taliban regime from Afghanistan, along with the al-Qaeda training camps they harbored, mastermind Osama bin Laden had gotten away. Fear of terrorists striking again on U.S. soil was high.

Into this heightened sense of vulnerability, President Bush introduced what would become known as the "Bush Doctrine" - the idea that the United States should strike at enemies before they strike first. As in sports, Bush said, the best defense is a good offense.


That idea, known more formally as "pre-emption," had always been a part of the U.S. defense arsenal. But rather than keep it where it needs to be, as a rarely mentioned and rarely used alternative, Bush made it central to his approach to the world. He trumpeted it, in September 2002, in a wide-ranging review called the National Security Strategy.


What happened next was a blunder of historic proportions that has made Americans less, not more, safe. The Bush Doctrine became the rationale for invading Iraq, a foe unrelated to al-Qaeda, three years ago this weekend. Better strike at Saddam Hussein, was the message, before he could strike at us with the weapons of mass destruction that, the intelligence showed, he was developing.

more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060317/cm_usatoday/whenshouldusattackfirstonlyaslastresort

Nobody says that you cannot prepare, that you cannot be ready, but if you want not to be the aggressor, you must wait until the other fellow shows his hand. But it has long since been clear that all of this Bushite blather is about justify their desire to conduct aggressive wars, and has nothing to do with any moral scruples about their conduct.

would be the equivalent of me punching anyone in the face because I feared they might say something "wrong" about me...Bush is a sociopath and has no idea what his fucked up world view really implies.He says "kill" because he doesn't know how to live in peace with others. I will dance the day someone gives him his just dessert...

Any country on earth might become our enemy one day so the time to hit them is now, while the threat is weak! We should start bombing everyone and make sure that glorious America will be safe for all time!

(and we've got plenty of ICBMs to do the job right this time. )


Yeah!

Without 9/11 there would've been no political will for a pre-emptive policy.

it's complete and utter incompetence at responding to any type of threat

contrary to the Geneva Convention.

Bush is guilty of crimes against peace, most of the clauses in the Geneva convention deal with war crimes and treatment of civilians and PoWs but at the end there are clauses that deal with acts of aggression against other sovereign nations. These clauses were used aganst the German leaders at Nuremberg with respect to the invasion of Czechoslovakia and Poland.

War crimes happen when an armed conflict is already proceeding, crimes against peace are commited when there isn't a war yet but some fool whips up a media frenzy and goes storming in anyway.

Whine as they might ALL the 'coalition of the willing' national leaders are definitely guilty of crimes against peace. They couldn't even wait to get it rubber stamped by the UNSC. As ye sow so shall ye reap.