Your question actually illustrates the problem with GW Bush's "First Strike" policy. It sets a bad precedent for other nations. Really, there are nuclear armed nations with serious beefs with each other [see India v. Pakistan] and if the US pioneers this First Strike policy it would be hypocritical for it to prevent other sovereign nations from doing the same.
Quote:
Originally posted by mika
Assumptions
1. Iraq is threatening USA
2. USA believe that the Iraqi threat is a threat against US interests and sovereignty
3. USA has a right for "preventive" attacks against Iraq
Now, further assuming, that all nations have a right to sovereignty, you would assume that North Korea and Iraq have right to develop nuclear weapons. But USA is threatening these countries because of their (possible) nuclear weapons. Thus, we have
1. USA is threatening North Korea
2. North Korea believe that the USA threat is a threat against North Korea sovereignty
3. North Korea has a right for "preventive" terrorist attacks against USA
See the similarities of both arguments
I will not start debating unless you can show some intelligent reasoning why USA has a RIGHT for preventive offensive wars while other nations do not.
|