Under what circumstances, if any, should the U.S. act to "pre-empt" potential military or terrorist threats?

Answer 1

When the leader say they are going to attack them once the time is right..such as finishing their nuke program.(wonder who I am thinking of).
Or the country harbors terrorists and condones such acts....in the case of Sadddam when the families of suicide bombers were being paid compensation.
Unfortunatly the U.S. has history of waiting untill something happens...at least it used to and I hope it continues to premptively strike countries that are a threat or threatening.

Answer 2

Preemptive action should be taken once the threat is known to be both serious and imminent. Sometimes the intelligence will be incorrect but to allow anyone to continually threaten you because you are not 100% positive is foolish and, in the long term, suicidial. I wound use the "beyond a reasonable doubt" rule; not beyand any doubt or and unreasonable doubt. Inn the case of WMD's being wrong and not doing anything could cost millions of lives but being wrong and acting on it would cost hundreds; which is preferred.

Answer 3

When US interests are at serious risks. To prevent attacks on US soil. To protect US civilians. To protect US allies who, in turn, support US interests abroad.

It is necessasry. Sad, sometimes. But necessary. We all benefit from it. We can live in peace, raise and educate our kids, run our businesses or go to work, listen to music, watch tv, waster time on YA, etc.... All while families loose loved ones and lives are destroyed. And, often BECAUSE of it.
The vast majority of us, including the world population, benefit when people like Saddam are ousted, when peace is allowed to flourish. Future generations benefit. The impact that military people have on the world when fighting a war is enormous. And the goal is that it always be a positive influence for generations to come. That's why military members who fight in wars can never be fully repaid.

Again, it's not easy to understand and it's sad. It is sad and frustrating and difficult sometimes. But it's true.

Answer 4

The President, needs to get the Congress on board, if it's going to be something big.
Smaller scale deals like our recent attacks into Somalia, and not so recent predator drone hellfire missile attack in Yemen, usually don't need to be micromanaged from Washington.

We face an asymmetric threat from non state actors supported by rouge regimes. It's the fourth generation of war baby, we need to get into and disrupt the enemies OODA loop, before they get into ours!!!!!!!!

Answer 5

After 911,I think we should stop any could be threat from any nation.I want my children to enjoy this country like I did.Not under some other nations rules.We should destroy any threat to us no matter how small.

Answer 6

Always pre-empt when the government determines it is necessary.

Answer 7

Never, if it means invading a country -before- they've done something, on the theory that they -might-. We've seen how well that works.

Besides, it's wrong. If it's right for us to invade someone we regard as a danger, is it right for them to invade us for the same reason?

We kill our own people at the rate of about 40,000 a year on the highways, and it doesn't much bother us. We can live with a little terrorism, just as people around the world have been doing.

Answer 8

As soon as it becomes known that US lives are at risk.