Has concept of 'pre-emptive war' has made America safer. What is the effect on world peace?

Good Question.

No it has not. Before this war the international view was that US foreign policy was heavy handed, but tolerable. Having travelled very extensively I found most people found the US intrusive and meddling, but essentially tolerable. Now many people internationally find the US (and Americans generally - as unfair as that may seem) to be bullying and not concerned with issues such as human rights (Abu Graib did more damage to perceptions of the US than Americans realise) or with the killing of innocent civilians.

For anyone who has a child, seeing Iraqi children die at US hands is a massive problem. These are the seedbeds in which the harvest of hatred grow. From these actions more terrorism grows. And that's where the safety story really falls to pieces. America has lost so many friends due to the idea of 'pre emptive war' that it cannot be safer.

There's also a fundamental problem with the fact that Iraq was invaded at all. Many people fail to tie in the Iraqi nation and 9/11 - it's really never been shown to be linked. Sure, Al Quaida was to blame - but that's a bit like saying 'Communism was to blame' and then declaring war on South Africa which has a government which is and ANC/Communist alliance. The point being - just because Iraq had some Al Quaida members the average Iraqi just wasn't involved. Teh whole thing has just made the US look insensitive and stupid - which is sad because the average American is neither insensitive or stupid.

If this was a financial problem it would be easier to solve. Rather than just spending more money, you'd ask - what caused someone to attack the US? 'Overseas perceptions of the US' - ok, so fix that and then there's no need to go to war as the root cause of the threat would be removed.

You are making two assumptions: First, that pre-emptive war was related to something about aggression or peace, and Second, that there ever was such a thing as peace. The world has something like 4 wars going on all the time. Usually fought with weapons that are sold by the same countries that proclaim their righteousness as 'peacemakers'.

It's always about the money.

The better question should be "How does preemptive war affect globalized economics." Or even, "Does globalization encourage peace or war overall?"

The only thing preemptive war has done, is give our enemies carte blanche to draw first blood in future conflicts. Notice that our enemies, who are well educated, despite what their detractors may say, use our history against us. In justifying heinous acts against civilians, Osama Bin Laden always refers to the United States use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to illustrate the fact that the US is not above attacking civilians in order to achieve its political objectives – in other words the United States has resorted to terrorism but on a much larger scale.

Similarly our insistence on attacking a nation preemptively will be used for many generations, by our enemies to prove that acts of aggression are warranted even if they are based on groundless paranoia. America’s aggressive preemptive posture may have caused us to relinquish the right to the moral high ground. As a result the likelyhood of sustained world peace is highly unlikely.

War is not 'pre-emptive'. As Von Clausvits said "War is dimplomacy by other means".

Not the concept but the practice. George Orwell thought of it a long time before George Bushes advisers told him to implement it.

America invades any country even when it is only on its planning stage. This is a good method unlike what happened in Pearl Harbor when America declared war after being bombed.

What scares me more beneficial is a user-friendly-weight baby-kisser like Obama, who's in all probability to commence believing his personal press. it truly is scary. Little issues tell lots about someone. for instance, even if lots has been made up of Obama's notorious lack of recognize in the course of the nationwide Anthem (the position, in accordance to the Flag Code, one is meant to position one's supply up one's heart), Obama stood there, probably bored or distracted. He appeared like a pampered newborn who feels positioned upon for having to undergo a uninteresting dinner with the father and mom with the intention to get dessert. learn this with Ronald Reagan. even as the nationwide Anthem became performed, he became immersed interior the prompt. you may want to tell, there became no the position else he had to be at that second. He felt deeply about the greatness of the U.S. In sharp evaluation, Obama has that demeanor about himself, that he only is above all of it. via ways, maximum Iranians despise the stupid, backwards, illiberal Mullahs. particularly than a protection rigidity attack on Iran, we choose a psy ops frame of mind to help the Iranians overthrow the dictatorship of those bearded relics. Already, Iranians privately mock them, as if they are semi-retarded babies. What Iranians want is a why to upward push up en masse, only because the French did in the time of their vaunted revolution. Iranians only choose a touch nudge to help them eliminate those idiotic Mullahs. as quickly because it truly is carried out, Iran will favor to be on solid words with the West. They traditionally are very innovative people, and apparently, they have continually popular dealing with the Republican party. it truly is a reality. So, a vote for the Republicans in '08 is a vote for non violent kinfolk with Iran.

I don't know what preemptive war you are talking about.

Remember 9/11?

Remember Kuwait?

Remember the UN resolutions?

Invading a soverign nation is terrorism. At least that's what they call it when someone invades the U.S.

If there are no global restraints on one country doing this to another, then what you end up with is barbarism, not civilization.

The concept - NO

The action - YES

It is the responsibility of our leadership to do whatever it can to protect the lives of American citizens.