[Dog Gone]

Pre-emptive strikes are justifiable in a host country that is unwilling or unable to act in coordination with the threatened country to eliminate the threat. One would hope that a country that is merely unable to act on its own initiative would be willing to cooperate, of course.

But this is merely an extension of the doctrine of striking at terrorists and those who harbor them. In most cases, it is not a strike at the host government, but where that is necessary, I don't have a problem with it.

The nature of warfare has changed in the past 100 years. In the past, aggression would manifest itself as an invasion across an international boundary or on the high seas. Today, weapons of mass destruction can be launched from within a country against another without an invasion, or infiltrators can instigate attacks in a neighboring country using the element of surprise. We call those infiltrators "terrorists."

It is unreasonable for a country to have to absorb a blow before acting against a particular threat, especially when those responsible can simply disappear into a civilian population after an attack. The only means to protect against such attacks is to destroy the people who are planning them wherever they may be.

[winner3000]

I don't think you're disagreeing with me Dog Gone. If the relevant nation is not taking care of the problem, then they are "harboring terrorists". At this point, it's as if they are the ones who attacked. At this point, this means that they are the ones who violated the sovereignty of another country. It becomes a nation on nation problem, just like the way we intend to take care of Saddam (much more fun to say his name backwards!)

In the same vein, Israel should have no moral problem going after Syria and Iran.