Originally Posted by politicophile

I am not a hawk: don't get me wrong on that point. I am, however, a realist enough to believe that countries are sometimes justified in preemptively attacking each other.

The only legitimate justification for starting a war is self-defense: I do not buy the idea of humanitarian wars. I'm sure you will admit, however, that there are many instances in which self-defense requires preemptive offense. In the example of Iraq, it was certainly not the case that harm was reduced by preemptively going to war, as our intelligence was totally false. Had the scenerio been exactly the same however, with the only difference being that all the intelligence reports were accurate, invading Iraq would have been justified.