Do Repubs support "pre-emptive war" more than Democrats?

[kentuck]

It seems to this observer that many Democrats, including myself, have a big problem with "pre-emptive war". Especially so, when there is no conclusive proof that the other nation is a threat to us. There is something about that that we find very disturbing and "un-American". It's something our nation simply does not do.

This has stuck in the craw of many Democrats since Bush decided to invade Iraq. We knew that Saddam was no angel. We knew he was a dictator and had done some terrible things to his people. But, he was no threat to us, nor it appears now, to his neighbors either.

But it seems that Repubs do not have that much a problem with the pre-emption policy. Maybe because it was done by a Republican makes a difference to them? They would argue that Kosovo was a "pre-emptive" military campaign by Bill Clinton. But isn't there a difference? I don't recall that Bill Clinton lied about Kosovo just to send our troops into that country.

[H2O Man]

1. Kosovo is not as good an example...

...as is Cuba with the Kennedy Administration. In Cuba, some 40 years before the Iraq "war," there were weapons of mass destruction that posed a very real "potential threat" to this country. The record is very clear: some military people demanded that President Kennedy bomb Cuba, then invade with troops. Robert Kennedy, the greatest Attorney General in history, stated clearly that the United States should NEVER take that approach. Ever.
In Iraq, there were no weapons of mass distruction. Iraq had used almost all of the ones that the reagan/bush1 administration(s) in their war with Iran. Most of the world recognized that Iraq had none left. Of course, Saddam was/is an evil being. All Donald Rummy's old friends are evil.And obviously the US attacked Iraq.
Thus, I believe that Cuba is a better comparison than is Kosovo. True, neither of these has the oil reserves that Iraq has. But the weapons argument that bush& co are pushing can be deflated with the Cuban missle crises ... the Kennedy brothers defined the proper use of military power then. (Think: any of the two presidents either before or after JFK would have started the war...Harry, Dwight, Lyndon, and Dick would have started WW3. Lucky we had people with a military background and democratic values at that time ... another reason to support Clark today!)

[Philosophy]

2. Preemption is just a Neocon cover story

Because it requires no proof, only propaganda and fearmongering which can be completely fabricated as long as no one finds out until afterward. Preemption can then be used to justify invading any country they want for whatever the real reason might be - imperialism, war profiteering, pillaging, personal vendettas, CYA, etc.

[lcordero]

3. We need to drop the term "pre-emptive" war and call it

a first-strike, aggressive, looting and robbing illegal war.

The anti-war conservative that wrote this article makes a good point:

http://www.indiemediamagazine.com/article.php?story=20040110230201215

Criticism of Bush and his ever-shifting pretext for a first-strike war (what exactly was it we were pre-empting anyway?) has proved...

I found this in this DU thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=308484

[ma4t]

4. Actually, it looks like it's the other way around

It looks like Democratic protests against preemptive war is something new.

I think one would be hard-pressed to make a convincing case that the war in Iraq is any more preemptive than that in Kosovo or the invasion of Haiti under the Clinton administration. Likewise, it seems to me that the Bay of Pigs invasion was pretty much a preemptive action as was LBJ's action in the Dominican Republic. Invading Panama under the elder Bush looked preemptive to me. One could even make a weak case that FDR's undeclared naval war against Germany in early 1941 was preemptive.

The argument that the "preemptivness" of Iraqi war is some new development is one that cannot be sustained by anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of U.S. history over the past 50 years.

[rman]

6. Bay of Pigs was CIA, not military

military is for overt war, CIA does covert war.

JFK first blocked a much bolder plan for invading Cuba, and later did regret listening to his advisors at all. Interesting detail is that the plan was in the US newspapers, so Cuba knew what to expect, of course CIA knew this but went ahead anyway.

[rman]

5. what they did wasn't really pre-emptive

pre-emptive is when in a time of peace (no war going on, no declaration of war), i.e. enemy bombers are en route, and you strike them before they strike you.

What Bush did is "he *may* strike me, so i'll strike him first" (and then i rob him blind).

[snippy]

7. Only when there is a republican president.

It is a matter of honesty, honor, integrity, and principle. Lacking all four, republicans base their morality on who is president.

[lotteandollie]

8. Yes.

[Toots]

9. As an American who grew up with probable cause laws and

Constitutional rights against such a thing being done to a citizen I find it difficult to treat other peoples and nations in a lessor manner. Republicans seem to have fewer scruples I guess.