No way qana... you go on so well... but where in hell did your conclusion come from?

Firstly perceptions are important.. but substance is more... if you disagree we can discuss that... but really... if a perception differs from substance it's easy to find out... sooner or later it shows...

Then precisiely because logic is not a sure proof way of diminishing wrong is a point to favor war as alternative.

Then the fact that the threat did not materialise can be used to prove that preemption worked (but it was punitive... not preemptive).

However I agree that public support is not consensual. And less so in preemptive cases. You exagerate however in assuming most people would condemn valid preemption. It's the same as self-defense in fact... self defense is not waiting til he shoots to kill him... it's shooting before he does... sure we can discuss if his gun works or not, if he would shoot or not... but it's the same principle.

Then I agree that it may seem like the arrest are equal... but there is no torture and they actually release the ones they think innocent instead of killing them indiscriminately. As you see substance is different from perception... for those logical people that can be reasoned with this should be enough... for the others there are ways to keep them in line...

And sure again you are right that democracy must be fought for also without weapons... but that does not make war for democracy wrong, or unjust, or whatever... in fact there are many people doing humanitarian work, even if they dislike or condone war, there are many people caring for iraqui rights, for north koreans freedom... I'll dare say most people who think democracy and fredom is worth something were in favor of this war... even if they weren't surely they can't deny the outocome was positive?

So how exactly can you conclude that preemption is unjust, undemocratic and whatever?

Heck... if a majority voted for genocide it would be democratic... maybe it would even be just, depending on the idea of justice and equality you favor... I certainly would hardly call it right... and that is the deepest imperative that both justice and politics should serve.
Even if it's impossible to absolutise it.