We could pre-emptively attack many different countries that we perceive may be a threat in the future. In some cases that may prevent somthing worse happening in the future. In most cases though, nothing worse would have happened in the future and all we will succeed in doing is killing people and destroying other peoples homes and lives. The problem is that we can't see into the future and know which cases are which.

And what if, following the lead of the US and UK, India decides that Pakistan pose them a huge threat in the future (far more likely than the scenario that Iraq will pose a threat) - or vice versa, that Pakistan feel the same about India. All of a sudden, our governments will be cautioning restraint and dialogue. Why should they listen to those words rather than these arguments about pre-emptively striking a future threat? I think this issue is much wider than what to do about Iraq and is going to make the world a much less safe place.

Bagpuss