In laymans terms, it means "Get them before they get us"

There WAS no danger of Iraq attacking us. So why did we go off and attack them?


>So if no strike from Irag was believed to be imminent, and part of the definition is "an enemy strike is believed to be imminent", how can the strike then be pre-emptive?
>
>(This is basically a rhetorical question, and the argument gets a bit absurd at this point. I just feel argumentative for the sake of just "stirring the pot".)



>>First, while the UN has no real power, they do represent the world
>>body. As such, we had no problem using them against Iraq in 1990.
>>
>>Second, preemptive is defined as "Relating to or constituting a military
>>strike made so as to gain the advantage when an enemy strike is believed to
>>be imminent"
>>
>>No enemy strike from Iraq was believed to be imminent.
>

>
>>>>Why the US?
>>>>
>>>>The point is that the United States, for the first time in her history,
>>>>premvtively attacked another sovereign nation - and without justifiable
>>>>cause. It was a criminal act. Even the UN said so.
>>>
>>>Oooo... now there is a moral compass. I don't think I would be tossing around the "UN" as a credible and relevant yet moral organization. What authoritative body labeled it a pre-emptive attack?