Why WMD matter, the difference between preemptive war and prevenative war

Up until recently I thought that the WMD situtation didn't matter. Given, it wont be enough to defeat Bush, but it does matter. Bush pushed the attack on Iraq as a preemptive war. What is a preemptive war? It is a war against an enemy who posses a danger so great and so immediate that a quick response is necessary. Now, if where WMD being built in Iraq, then this would qualify as a preemptive war and be justified. But, there where no WMD. Now, if Bush minipulated the data to suit his agenda, what we have is something much more sinister. What we have is a prevenantive war. A prevenantive war is a war in which you say to the other side that you know your two sides will go to war eventually, and that right now I am stronger than you, so I'm going to go to war with you now while I am still stronger. This is not much different than downright agression. If Bush knew that Iraq had no WMD, and if the reason for going after Saddam was that he was a bad guy, then he did not pose a danger so great and immediate, this was simply a matter of attacking him now while he was still weaker.

and why we HANGED them.

preventive war = war to prevent future war :crazy:

:hi:

peace

history has a habit of repeating itself.

Historians repeat each other.

OK, history does repeat it self: The first time as a tragedy, the second time as a farce.

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it; those of us who do know history are doomed to watch it be repeated and say 'I told you so'.