The U.N., in reaction to the pre-emptive action Bush began against Iraq, is meeting to lay down guidelines for nations to go to war pre-emptively. I'm not sure exactly what that means in this context. Some might even say that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was not pre-emptive, but merely a re-declaration of war as a continuance of the first Gulf War. Some might also say it's merely an extension of our efforts following 9/11 to clean up the world a bit.

Pre-emption needs to be defined before we can go any further. What about Israel? They've been attacked too many times to count by too many enemies. If they suddenly decided to launch a massive air strike against Iran, they would be pilloried by the world, but is that fair? Iranian officials have made anti-Israel speeches numerous times, they've sponsored protests where people carry signs that say things like "Death to Israel" (and "Death to America"), and now they want nuclear weapons. Basically Iran has stated several times that they want Israel to go the way of the mastadon. If some guy I meet in a bar starts talking about how he's going to shoot me as soon as I leave the bar, I'd say I'm justified in kicking his ass if I see him follow me out. Iran with nukes strikes me as very similar to that guy following me out.

Heck, Israel has been attacked by Palestinian suicide bombers, yet the "world" denies Israel the right to defend itself. They ignore the world and protect themselves, and get more flack for it. How can we trust the UN to decide when a country has a justified reason for war, and when it doesn't? I have a feeling that any such discussion, whether there are guidelines or not, will be based on the political leanings of the diplomats involved, and have little to do with justice.