Let's reread this quote:
Japan has warned it would launch a pre-emptive military action against North Korea if it had firm evidence Pyongyang was planning a missile attack. Defence Minister Shigeru Ishiba said it would be "a self-defence measure" if North Korea was going to "resort to arms against Japan".
What does this have to do with Bush's intention to attack Iraq?
Who would disagree with this statement?:
America has warned it would launch a pre-emptive military action against Iraq if it had firm evidence Baghdad was planning a missile attack. Defence Minister Donald Rumsfield said it would be "a self-defence measure" if Iraq was going to "resort to arms against America".
I wouldn't disagree--that's a "well duh!" statement. Self-defense is not controversial. Launching a preemptive attack without firm evidence of an impending attack is very controversial.
--Robert
Current Events » in reply to Preemptive attack threatened
Comparing apples and oranges
The whole thread (21 posts)
- Preemptive attack threatened
- I'd dial "I-800-NEO" and be aghast at a cosmic accident at their nuke plants
- The clinton-carter appeasement strategy is shown for the bad theatre it was.§ (n/t)
- Re: Preemptive attack threatened
- Comparing apples and oranges
- Where's all the angry Democrats attacking this unilateral action...
- I'd say that the North Korean situation
