"Clear and Present Danger", though catchy, was not a prerequisite to committing troops. Can't remember when it actually has been, but I'm willing to be educated. One last time for those in the cheap seats -- Bush never claimed there was an imminent threat. In fact, if you read the text of his address, he said it would be a colossal mistake to wait until it was imminent. I type that for the 1000th time, like it's going to make a difference. The liberalist (new word?) rags in the US have had to issue retractions for their reckless claims that he'd said that (on page A24, in 6 point text; whereas their initial slander was front page, bold, above the fold). Strange silence from the NYT on the matter, though.
Cam-
Poland committed troops -- in fact, Polish special forces took key ports in the first few hours of the operation. Italy committeed troops (God bless Berlusconi). Strange that the bedrocks of democracy committed troops early -- many, many other nations committed intel. resources and logistical support. Turkey would've if we'd paid their ransom.
A collection of other countries has waged "war" elsewhere, w/o US screaming bloody murder (or much of anything else). The EU operated in the former Balkans for years w/o the US getting upset.
Pre-emption is a tenet of international law that only those who are against pre-emption in a given circumstance b!tch about. In fact, on a smaller level, if the US finds counterfeit operations in Canada (or Mexico, for example) it is legal to interdict such operations w/o prior approval of the host nation. Typically, for reasons of international comity, coordination is undertaken, but there's no prerequisite.
I'm not surprised others are angry -- but their stated "reasons" for anger fall apart; unless it's stated bluntly -- "you need a permission slip from us to do what you believe necessary to do, and you didn't get one, therefore, we're petulant." The end result is blathering condemnation of liberation of 25 million people, and a sea change in the region's attitudes.
The pre-emption actually took place with the passage of the Iraq Freedom Act -- in 1998, which passed by 98-2 (if memory serves -- feel free to Google me wrong) authorizing action by the United States to depose Hussein and liberate Iraq w/o further approval by the Congress. But everybody, and I mean everybody, knew Clinton didn't have the stones to take action, so it was taken as a symbolic, pro forma move. Bush went to Congress AGAIN, though he didn't have to, and received near-unanimous approval for action.
Cowtown -- you're swimming against the stream, brother.
But I feel your pain -- like debunking every fatuous, convenient-yet-deliberately-ignorant-of-fact claim made on these threads that I debunk or see debunked, only to have such claim made again, by the same proponent, sometimes seconds later.
JP