Originally Posted by patteeu
Iraq attacked our aircraft in the no fly zone on a regular basis.
The Bush administration made it clear that they believed in a world where nation states no longer necessarily mass troops on a border before waging war on their neighbor, traditional analysis that requires an imminent threat to justify preemptive war can no longer satisfy the security requirements of a modern nation. Agree or disagree, your focus on imminent threat is a strawman. No one claimed that Iraq was a direct and imminent threat to the US homeland.
The focus on an imminent threat is not a strawman. It's charity on my part. In the absence of an imminent threat, then there's not even the possibility for a justifiable preemptive attack on another country. Instead, it would simply be a supreme crime.
Escalating into a war an armed conflict against a weak and contained country because it is attacking planes that fly over it is financially irresponsible, besides being morally bankrupt.