2007-05-22 17:03:20 · 6 answers · asked by steve h 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Depends on the situation.
Of course, I would want clear evidence that the war would prevent something worse, at the very least.
2007-05-22 18:31:43 · answer #1 · answered by The First Dragon 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pretty vague question.
Pre-emptive though implies that the situation is leading to a war, but is being started before an atrocity is committed by either side.
I would say that if there is enough evidence to suggest that a country was planning an overt military attack and there was no alternative, then yes.
Without specifics though, there is no real way to say one way or the other.
Please refine the question.
2007-05-23 01:35:24 · answer #2 · answered by Talen 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you don't support it. You are willing to accept many more 9/11.
Would you fight someone you know that will come to kill you before they have a chance to do so?
It's just common sense.
2007-05-23 05:10:52 · answer #3 · answered by Andrew 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Let's ask those who died on 9/11. Shucks, we can't...
2007-05-23 00:08:20 · answer #4 · answered by shaffner 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
well are you going to let someone shoot you frist before you shoot them, are do you just like being shot
2007-05-23 10:10:52 · answer #5 · answered by Ibredd 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no
2007-05-24 00:05:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋