Less succinctly:

In Iraq - if there had been a UN resolution authorising military action against Iraq, this would have given it legitimacy. The only reasons for rushing an invasion seem to have been (a) to fit in with Bush's election timetable at home and (b)because it was feared that, if further inspections revealed that there were in fact no WMDs in Iraq, this would remove the grounds for an invasion, which was desired for quite different reasons.

In Haiti - providing help to the democratically elected government, instead of backing the vested interests engaged in overthrowing it, would have required no international issues. Moreover the reason Aristide's government was in serious trouble in the first place was as a result of economic sanctions sponsored by Washington.

So far as Al Quaida was concerned there had in fact been a number of unsuccesful preemptive strikes, and there is no reeason to think thta this was an effective way of countering the threat; at no time was Iraq involved in carrying out or planning any terrorist actions agains the US, so this id completely irrelavnt in relation to the Iraq war.

There is no reason whatsoever to see North Korea as a threat to anyone except perhaps to North Koreans. People who see "nuclear deterrence" as a good thing when the arms are in the hands of the USA, and to whom the possession of a massive nuclear arsenal by Israel is seen as stabilising, should see the possession of some nuclear weapons by North Korea as a good thing.