Let me just add that I was there during Operation Just Cause and it was anything BUT pre-emptive. Study the history more. There were many, many justifications for that action not the least which were our responsibilities for the canal, our U.S. military there, and the many citizens in the Canal zone. I recall quite clearly Noreiga declaring war on the U.S. Not a good feeling when you are a soldier in Panama...

I'm going to disagree strongly with the wikipedia's leanings on Grenada. I was serving in the military at that time and my daughter's father went to Grenada. You may find it interesting that LTC Oliver North was a key planner of the action. There were many problems during the action and it could have failed very easily. Some paratroopers were dropped by accident right into enemy aircraft fire and none were injured (except one with a broken ankle after landing). During the entire process, we lost 19 soldiers and over a hundred were injured. The airstrip was built to accommodate Russian and Cuban aircraft, period. It was built to military grade, not civilian. The PRA was led by Cuban and Soviet instructors/advisors. The island was used as a base for training latin american terrorists. That was found out when we captured the headquarters where most of the supposed instructors were located. Supporting commercial airlines carrying tourists was a secondary benefit. I know that. The primary goal was to evacuate the American medical students and that was accomplished. Additionally, there were those political goals as well. Seven countries that I know of cooperated in the Grenada invasion. If Britian didn't want the U.S. to perform that task, then IMHO Britain should've rescued our citizens for us. I resent Thatcher's opinion that the U.S. should've stayed out of Grenada's affairs when we had 600 American medical students on the island. I still hear from a couple of the then students every year at christmas time. The primary military leaders onsite at the time were the Soviets - no matter what the wikipedia states. When going door to door in almost all cases those present 'reported to' their Soviet 'advisors.' The invasion was extremely popular among the locals and the U.S. was actually seen as a liberator at the time (believe it or not). If there was anyway to evacuate the Americans without invading, I believe it possibly would have been done. As it is, both the locals and our government gained politically from the invasion. There were deficiencies yes, but help was requested (even if politically garnered) and it was provided. I don't think Grenada should be used as an example of pre-emptive strikes.

>>>>Morality is an individual concept, not governmental. When it's taken to the governmental level, it goes beyond what is and isn't right. A government cannot legislate morality. When it attempts to, it is no longer a democracy, but a theocracy.
>>>
>>>Hi George. I wasn't referring to governments, but liberalism and conservatism as movements. As ideas that individuals subscribe to. Some examples where liberalism has taken the morally right side and conservatism has taken the morally wrong side:
>>>- slavery
>>>- civil rights struggle
>>>- struggle for the equality of women
>>>
>>>> However, this is the first instance where we involved ourselves in a pre-emptive war.
>>>
>>>I'm not so sure. The following wars were pre-emptive
>>>- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada
>>>- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Panama
>>>- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_Haiti_%281915-1934%29
>>
>>Evan,
>>
>>In none of the above did we even pretend that Haiti, Panama, or Grenada was a threat to the region, much less to us. Here, we did. When it turned out that there was no threat, it became a part of the "War on Terrorism".
>
>That's my point. With Iraq, they pretended that there was a iminent threat to the US or at least to the region. With Grenada was a threat to the US sphere of influence in the western hemisphere during the cold war. A weaker threat to the US, so more reprehensible. Same with Panama, it was threat to the US because Noreiga was involved in the drug trade and he threatend the stability of US usage of the Panama canal. Once again a weaker threat than what they pretended the threat from Iraq was. So once again worse.