The doctrine of pre-emptive strike is a little contradictory, because it is always justified depending on who executes it first. A pre-emptive strike from the United States to a country considered as enemy could avoid many future deaths, but seen from the other part, to attack the United States preventively could be also advisable. However, it is clear that a preventive attack to the United States from another country would cause a long war. Therefore, the pre-emptive strike is apparently effective if it is the strongest who executes it and I don't find this very ethical.

I've been reading previous articles on this issue and I found that everybody has their own reasons. History shows us how by the use of a preventive strike it was possible to avoid bigger catastrophes. The really difficult thing in each case is to determine when it is advisable to apply the preventive strike or not.

The way I think, it is only justified when reasons exist to consider an imminent attack from the other part of the conflict. When there are countries dominated by such irresponsible dictatorships that don't even consider the destiny of their own people and the consequences of their own acts to the whole world.

However, I want to clarify that the preventive strike applied to Iraq was completely unjustified. Nobody was able to show up (before and later) proofs of the existence of mass destruction weapons and it was not reason to expect an imminent attack from Iraq to the United States. I believe that in this case the public opinion was completely manipulated for other purposes. In my opinion, the only ethical way to apply such a strike was with the consent of the UN and in the best interest of the whole world.