Preemptive attacks. Is there anyway to justify this line of reasoning?

Test

>>507347625 (OP)
If Cuba declared it was building nukes to use against America you can bet we'd preemptively strike them too.

>>507347625 (OP)
yeah, it had to happen, Iran was planning a shoah, trust us bro

>>507347866
Cuba can't even build a car.

>>507347866
Is this actually stated anywhere or is it all "Israel sources say"? Where is the IAEA? Why are we still funding an MIA UN?

>>507347625 (OP)
Preemptive when Israel or it's golems do it.
Unprovoked when someone else does it.

>>507347980
>Cuba: no industrial ability
>Kike: so what you're saying is they are the perfect bystander to attack?

>>507348101
Make Israel Greater Again

>>507347625 (OP)
>Preemptive attacks. Is there anyway to justify this line of reasoning?
"Rules based order" is a fucking joke and always has been.

You are "allowed" to attack another nation under two circumstances:
article 42 (un mandate) and article 51 (self defense). Neither of those covered yugoslavia, iraq, afghanistan, syria or lybia. You are also not allowed to just sanction anyone you don't like.

The truth is "might makes right" on the international level and I feel beyond fatigued pretending it's any other way.

>>507347625 (OP)
Yeah I've justified it, don't worry

yes, they are necessary to prevent more loss of life in the future. it is important for example, that we learn from israel here in the uk and make sure to stop all pakistanis from making bombs by pre-emptively attacking our neighbours.