>>>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.

Evan,

By definition, none of the three instances were "pre-emptive". In each case a real danager existed. Here, there was none.