That WAS ugly...

Okay, I see the mistake. I wasn't, at any point, implying that we target civilians... only that we are routinely accused of targeting civilians when we try to "selectively" or "surgically" strike indivudal targets like Saddam's bunkers or his psychotic son's palaces. By declaring, loud and clear to all that will listen that we INTEND to strike ANY military or industrial target of our choosing in retaliation for attacks against US interests, we eliminate this from the anti-American, pro-radical press and media that does nothing but feed the terrorists more slogans to shout as the kill innocents. If you don't want to run the risk of getting your civilians killed by American bombs... don't support terrorists.

Also, I really do see your point about STOPPING an attack before it has a chance to kill Americans. Obviously, if I knew that I could, I would. It is the times where there is only a chance that I am right... not a certainty that I am right... that would give me pause. If my saying "shoot down that plane" might save 100 Americans, but will certainly kill 300 Saudis... all based on an unsupported claim of a bomb or a hijacking... do you shoot? What if the "odds" given are only 1 in 3? Even 1 in 2?

An extreme example, I know... but is it so different than what you are saying is justified in the pre-emptive policies of the Iraq invasion?

Now, I will go one step further. Let's use Iran for an example again. Let's say that we have proof, real proof, that they are building the two brand-new nuclear reactors for the specific purpose of refining uranium to a weapon-grade state. The US, UK and Israel all know it. Who does what?

Well, if it is MY policy we are talking about again, then the US hits BOTH reactors with as much HE as is needed to fuse them into flat glass... and I don't care how expensive cruise missiles are! Why us, and not the Israelis or the Brits?

The Israelis would only start a fight that we'd have to finish anyway... if they launched, the rest of the Arab world would ignite and we'd have our pan-regional conflict anyway. The Brits have every right to act, but they haven't been the target of Iranian hostility since 1979 the way we have. We have been putting up with Iranian crap for nearly 30 years, and if they don't want to comply with established international regulations on the propogation of nuclear weapons, then that is their problem, and the can make electricity with some of their oil instead of a nuclear reactor. This is NOT pre-emptive policy. This is dealing with an established threat by a nation that has a history of non-compliance and an agenda of violence and hatred of all things American.

Sound familiar? It's no coincidence. The difference is the consensus and the proof positive. We have varied and different nations agreeing on the threat level and the kind of response needed. Bush didn't have that in '03... but he did in '01, and his father did in '91.

Does that make my position any clearer?