humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 19, 6:32 pm, Charles Bell wrote:

> By the way, why do you think that the Bush doctrine is *necessarily*
> though "preemptive" as in anticipatory of grave acts of violence
> against the U.S., irrationally and easily construed as aggressive and
> not self-defensive?  Bush used the the word "preemptive" but look at
> the context in which he used it:

. . . . should be "is necessarily [...] irrational and easily
construed as . . ."


What I would like to emphasize is that preemption in war or quasi-war
is a good thing, not a bad thing, in order to actually win that war.
Hence, my example of the '67 War. Moreover, there is no reason to
believe that Bush intended to use preemption outside the context of
clear and present danger of WMD, or in the case of an entrenched
terrorist encampment within a host state, and that most means of
peacefully settling the issue would be tried first; Look at N. Korea,
and Iran, where clearly war has been the last and still untried
option.