Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
It was a “preemptive strike” so they were simply preempting any reason to start a war with Iran by starting a war with Iran. Just the kind of three dimensional thinking the world needs from one of its fiercest protectors of peace in the region.
|
Under international law, it would be tough to justify this attack as "preemptive" and more so "preventative"
Preemptive strikes are legal under international law as a means of self defence. Preemptive strikes address an immediate and undeniable danger.
Preventative strikes are to "prevent" a potential future threat.
One is clearly more justifiable than the other. The Iraqi invasion was arguably a preventative war (if the claim of WMDs was correct); but so were most of Nazi Germany's invasions in WWII, like Norway and Denmark.
When you have the complete backing of the US, Russia is inept, and China doesnt seem to care, then no sense crying over international law