When is pre-emptive action justified ?

Question

I ask because many people in regards to Iraq say it wasn't justified . Iran , people say we are not justified either , so I ask you when is pre-emptive action justified ?

Please remember pre-emptive action is not attacking someone after they attack you , pre-emptive action means we attack them before they attack us .

Answer 1

That is called an unprovoked attack, and is against both common sense and the law.

If you assert that we have the right to attack those who have not attacked us, then do they not have the same rights? Or do Americans get a pass that nobody else is entitled to?

If you see somebody in a bar and you're afraid of him, does that give you the right to coldcock him from behind when he's on his way to the bathroom?

The only times I can see preemption being legal is when it's carried out by a police-type force acting on reliable information. The important thing here is that if they find no evidence on their forcible inspection, they LEAVE.

Other than that, preemptive strikes are cowardly acts of aggression, not legitimate defensive measures.

Answer 2

When you have reliable evidence that a country that presents a credible threat to you is planning an imminent attack on you... Neither Iraq or Iran fall into this category, pre-emptive military action shouldn't be allowed to take the place of diplomacy in acheiving political goals. It is the sure sign of a poor leader when the most powerful nation on earth can't accomplish it's goals without resorting to warfare against a vastly inferior enemy.

Answer 3

A preemptive strike on a sovereign nation is only justified when we have absolutely indisputable evidence that 1) they are a direct threat to the security of the United States. 2) there is certain danger that they will attack us.