That's a reason to bomb the boomers, not a backwards country half way around the world.

Pre-emptive Defence is a euphemism for offence and is an illegal act of war.

> What about pre-emptive defensive? Defense from uncertainty? Defense from economic hardships?

Each of this items, alone, would justify many countries in the world to suddenly attack US.

Better not confuse the concepts of attack and defense.

Those are very easy argument to make. But its very hard to find cases where they apply.

Once in a while you have a case where it makes sense, but very seldomly.

Most of the time you are much better at defending against uncertainty and economic hardship by putting some money assied rather then building a bunch of tanks.

I am sorry to say that in my view, such an answer implies that you are either extraordinarily naive or nationalistic. In both cases, I see no way that we could ever agree.

By which you mean attack before someone can attack you? Attack if you’re feeling uncertain about the prospects and outcome of diplomacy? Attack to acquire/open new markets to keep fueling the pipe dream of unfettered and constant economic growth?

Each of these notions are but rationales used to start a fight, not defend against one.

Man, you defy logic.

Saying who deserves something automatically answers who doesn't.

Because we have due process for American citizens we don't like, but not for Syrian civilians who are a bit too close to people we don't like because they hurt Syrian civilians.