Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tambourine-man
they know that the flak will always shoot in the direction of the US (simply because they were the first to advocate such a policy).
|
Negative - the USA is not the first to advocate such a policy - One example from 1981, The Israeli Attack on Osiraq Iraq. Destroying a French Nuclear Reacture or let us go back to 1941, Pearl Harbor was regarded as a preventive strike by Japan.
I had to find out the difference between pre-empted and pre-ventive, I thought they were the same thing, but they are not, for anyone who wants to know - "pre-emptive" action refers to times when states react to an imminent threat of attack. For example, when Egyptian and Syrian forces mobilized on Israel's borders, in 1967, the threat was obvious and immediate, and Israel felt justified in preemptively attacking those forces. The global community is generally tolerant of such actions, since no nation should have to suffer a certain first strike before it has the legitimacy to respond. -"preventive" military action refers to strikes that target a country before it has developed a capability that could someday become threatening. Preventive attacks have generally been condemned. For example, the 1941 sneak attack on Pearl Harbor was regarded as a preventive strike by Japan, because the Japanese were seeking to block a planned buildup by the United States in the Pacific.
There as been a few times in history when the US was thinking of using a preventive strike but did not, one example would be against Cuba in the 60's, the Bay of Pigs.
So your Blame the USA re-mark is false.