Originally posted by MrFatBooty
Bone up on the reading comprehension skills, because you're twisting around my statements into words that were not used. I was very specific in my word choice. "It is not U.S. policy to strike first," is very different from "The Constitution does not permit the U.S. to strike first."
Think about the various conflicts we have been involved in during the 20th century. WWI started in Europe and we did not enter until our allies asked for help. We didn't enter WWII until after Pearl Harbor. The Korean War started when the North tried to invade the South. Vietnam started after the Gulf of Tonkin incident (the existence of which I would rather not debate). The first time we went to Iraq it was because they invaded Kuwait. The trend is there, and it's a well-known precedent. I'm not going to find some document to prove what is common knowledge.
the only reason that that precedent was set is the mere fact that none of those wars/conflicts (with the exception of WW2) were a direct threat to american soil. as a matter of fact, if you take circumstances into account, in this situation that "precedent" you talk so highly of holds no weight. this is the first time in the nation's history that it has been faced with this type of issue. the fact of the matter is that ever since 9/11 this country has been treading on uncharted political territory. we are setting the precedent on this type of situation as we speak. there was no previous precedent.