posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 09:37 AM
I haven't seen a thing for justification on preemptive anything.
Funny how quickly people have come to follow the Bush Doctrine on overall defense policy (Including our sitting President) without really seeming to
give it much thought.
Prior to 9/11, this preemptive war business was called what it was. War Mongering. The U.S. was more likely to be leveling the charge at others than
be committing the offense itself. First strike war against an otherwise peaceful nation? Unthinkable!!
....and what isn't peaceful about North Korea at the moment? I didn't say nice, attractive or happy as a place to live. I just said peaceful. Are
shots being fired? Have they been recently? Are combat forces massing on the border of the DMZ? (and even if they were....that was NOT enough in 1990
against Saddam..nor SHOULD it have been. He still had to cross into Kuwait for international law to kick in)
What I see...and ALL I SEE....is a pint size tin pot dictator blathering threats he can't even back up with known technology. ICBM eh?? SO when did
they make the VERY SIGNIFICANT leap of development from successful detonation to compact, solid state and hardened warhead for actual ICBM launch to
Thats not some "small upgrade" like clicking a box in an RTS video game. He could have BOMBS.. I'd believe that. Intercontinental Missile
Technology WITH Nuclear Warheads to fit and function? Yeah... right.... not even CLOSE, given the level of technology and testing currently on display
by the DPRK.
So...what would the basis of preemptive war be again? I'd have totally missed it....aside from "You pissed us off, so now you must die!". That does
seem to be enough sometimes recently.