Quote:
Pre-emptive strike ok only when US survival at stake
Q: Under what future conditions would you support a pre-emptive military strike against another nation without wide international approval?
KERRY: Only when the US is so threatened that it is required for the survival of our country or for the accomplishment of some extraordinary humanitarian goal. Look, this administration misled the American people, abused the power that they were given, and has run an ineffective war on terror. Saddam Hussein was way down the list, with respect to the targets, even on the Pentagon's own list of targets. And what they did was supplant Iraq for the real war on terror, which is Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and terror across the world. The war on terror is less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering and law-enforcement operation. And we deserve presidential leadership that knows that and knows how to make America safer, and I will do that.
Source: Democratic 2004 Presidential Primary Debate in Iowa Jan 4, 2004
|
Hmmm, so unless the US's very existence is threatened or there's a humanitarian reason it won't happen. That kind of goes against pre-emption in my eyes. Pre-emption keeps the threat of our very existence at arm's length rather than at the door knocking.