Illuminati,

I would respond except I believe you are acting like a raving lunatic in this post, correct me if I am wrong. You have quoted me incorrectly, adding your own words, attributed things to my posts I have not ever said and I cant get a grip on your argument except telling me Im a peace loving hippie pacifist which everyone here knows already, and I dont consider insulting, except by people who cannot maintain thier debate intellectually and make things up to go on an unintelligible bash fest.

Why dont we start over. Why is what I said bothering you? It is important to follow the thread and keep my words in context with the thread then, object all you want. But please, keep your personal psychosis to a minimum.

Preemptive war as defined by the current administration? No.

Anticipatory Self Defense? Yes, and that has been lawful under international law for quite some time. Pre-emptive war is akin to the rationalization the Japanese used to justify, internally, their attack on the US.

Classic statement of the requirements for anticipatory self defense made by Secretary of State Daniel Webster in correspondence relating to the Caroline incident (a US Ship was attacked and sunk by the British in 1837): self defense in anticipation of an actual attack should be confined to cases in which “ the necessity of that self defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation."

The further you get away from that definition the closer you get to an aggressive war.

The 67 Arab Israeli war is a classic example of this in Modern warfare. The outer edges of this doctrine are the Israeli attack on the Iraqi Nuke reactor and the 86 attack on Libya by the US.

The current Iraq war is not self defense under international law.

B