Quote:
Originally posted by Love_Spell_6
I do not consider this war pre-emptive..considering we had been attacked on the USS Cole, the World Trade Center, and 9-11...this is primarily where u and I..and many others will disagree. I think our past policies of not being on the offensive against terrorists (not limited to saddam and bin laden) were silly. And I would hardly say its little evidence being that ALL credible intelligence said the same thing at the time..and the Russian President personally called Dubya TWICE to tell him he had proof we were going to be attacked..so again....many look at what i've said and will still default to the same ol rhetoric bush lied people died...or we're ignoring the war on terror because we haven't caught bin laden...but I and the majority of people in America..disagree.
|
The Iraq War is not pre-emptive strike. For a country to envoke pre-emptive strike, the country must feel an imenent threats by another country. The opposing country must present credible threats to the country or its allies. It must also show an intent to strikes the country. This will give legitimacy to the pre-emptive strikes. Does Iraq fulfil any of this criteria. No.
Iraq did not have the means to attack the United States. Its military is in dissaray and it has no missile that could even reach the UK, let alone the US. So, it does not have the means. As for Putin saying that he had information about Iraq wanting to do it, this is also the same Putin which was against the war. A senior inteligence agent in the US said that he was "not aware of any specific threat information we were told" about Iraqi activities before the March 2003 invasion. Putin also admitted that he has no evidence, whatsoever, that Saddam's regime has committed any terrorist acts.
Threaded Mode