Is Iraq still considered a defensive attack?

[Bandit]

Are we creating Democracy or Defending America? We launched a Pre-emptive attack because we were in imminent peril. Mushroom clouds and all. WMDs and alliance with Al Qaeda were justifiable reasons if they were true but apparently were not true. So if the reasons for attacking Iraq are not true how can we say the troops there are defending America? Maybe they are defending Iraqis, I don't know but they are not defending America from imminent peril. Neither are the Israeli soldiers defending Israel from imminent peril but yet are using American weapons in an offensive manner directly against US Law. Does no one follow law any more?

[mmonk]

1. The US has made it clear it follows no laws.

It's veto in the United Nations should be stripped until it agrees to follow the UN charter.

[htuttle]

2. Legally, it was NOT a 'pre-emptive' attack

The legal definition of a pre-emptive attack is attacking a nation who is JUST ABOUT to attack you (ie., attacking the Japanese fleet as it was en route to Pearl Harbor, for example). There was no evidence whatsoever that Iraq was doing anything like that, and in fact, the Bush admin never accused them of that (though Tony Blair almost did with his '45 minutes' statement that he's since retracted).

What Bush said he did to Iraq was a 'preventative attack', which means, "Someday, somehow, we think this country might attack us some day."

While there are provisions under international law that allow 'pre-emptive' attacks, there is NO, absolutely NO legal justification under international law for a preventative attack. The Iraq war was illegal under international law no matter how you look at it. It was a classic 'war of aggression' according to all the Nuremberg judges who are still alive. Kofi Anan also agreed it was an illegal war.

So no, we do not follow the law anymore (and since our own Constitution REQUIRES us to obey treaties that have been duly ratified by our Congress, we don't follow our own laws, either).