A comment

Uh, seems pretty clear to me that pre-emptive attacks are exactly what the resolution is talking about...?

Labeling pre-emptive attacks as a prevention of war and not initiation thereof is a baroque side-step worthy of the Bushies.

Perhaps. However, the simplest research (Wikipedia) points out: The initiation of armed conflict: that is being the first to 'break the peace' when no 'armed attack' has yet occurred, is not permitted by the UN Charter (see 'Legality' below), unless authorized by the UN Security Council as an enforcement action. And you compare it to Bush policy. So my point remains, I don't see a lot of juice on the side that has to defend this position.