thoughts on preemtive wars

[beyoku]

How reasonable is this. i had an argument yesterday on this with a co-worker. As i am no fan of preemption i said "since we are arguing how bout i just punch you in the face as hard as i can NOW cause we may fight later." Is this a real exaple. Why is this a new policy in the US and how can this fly as "acceptable" or be seen as the "right thing to do." If you think about it we went to Iraq preemptivly based on a theat. (and thats ok to people) We now know that we were planning to go to Afghanistan before 911. i guess the destruction of the towers can be seen as a legit preemptive attack in a war. Shoud this ALSO be acceptable and be seen as something that is the "rigth thing to do" on their behalf? How chaoitc do you think this will get?

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: beyoku
How reasonable is this. i had an argument yesterday on this with a co-worker. As i am no fan of preemption i said "since we are arguing how bout i just punch you in the face as hard as i can NOW cause we may fight later." Is this a real exaple. Why is this a new policy in the US and how can this fly as "acceptable" or be seen as the "right thing to do." If you think about it we went to Iraq preemptivly based on a theat. (and thats ok to people) We now know that we were planning to go to Afghanistan before 911. i guess the destruction of the towers can be seen as a legit preemptive attack in a war. Shoud this ALSO be acceptable and be seen as something that is the "rigth thing to do" on their behalf? How chaoitc do you think this will get?

Do you have a history of getting in fights and punching your friends during an argument?

 

[lozina]

I am almost absolutely against this policy, because as we now know, mistakes can happen and threats can be exaggerated. We shoudn't allow anyone in our country the power to attack another country based on flakey threats. I cite the best example in our history of resisting the pressure of the war hawks to pre-emptively strike in a tense situation: Cuban missile crisis. I firmly believe I owe my very existence to the fact we worked that out diplomatically.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: beyoku
How reasonable is this. i had an argument yesterday on this with a co-worker. As i am no fan of preemption i said "since we are arguing how bout i just punch you in the face as hard as i can NOW cause we may fight later." Is this a real exaple. Why is this a new policy in the US and how can this fly as "acceptable" or be seen as the "right thing to do." If you think about it we went to Iraq preemptivly based on a theat. (and thats ok to people) We now know that we were planning to go to Afghanistan before 911. i guess the destruction of the towers can be seen as a legit preemptive attack in a war. Shoud this ALSO be acceptable and be seen as something that is the "rigth thing to do" on their behalf? How chaoitc do you think this will get?

Do you have a history of getting in fights and punching your friends during an argument?

He punched his friend once over a decade ago. So I guess he should go ahead and get pinched.

 

[tnitsuj]

I am all for it. It allows me to wrap myself in the flag and sit in front of the tv with a cold beer in one hand, my dick in another, and watch our high tech visions of American masculinity and strength take apart third world countries.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think it is the worse blunder that the US has made in foreign policy ever.

I believe we will see nuclear proliferation in countries who had only viewed this as an option before.

We no longer can say to another country that restraint or diplomacy ought to be the norm, at least with credibility

As far as long term security and stability, it stinks. The best use of power is done with subtlety. This is too overt, and now much of the world knows the danger of a unipolar world. In the next 20 years, effective efforts to oppose us will almost certainly come to pass. Twenty or even fifty years is a blink of an eye, and certainly it is something that will affect your children directly. It was meant to put people on notice, and boy has it ever done so. One part of my sig translates into the very basis for preemptive policy- Let them hate us as long as they fear us.- That kind of thinking will eventually undermine all past administrations, and indeed the past generations that have worked and died for what were American principles.

 

[cumhail]

It's almost a year old, now... and has probably been linked to here in the past. But I think it's still worth reading:

Terry Jones' Take on the Policy

 

[ElFenix]

the wilsonian liberal world view is a lie.

 

[Witling]

ElFenix, Schiller's statement below was coined for you. For those of us who don't think as fast as you do (and there must be many, me among them), could you flesh out the connection between your statement about the Wilsonian idea and preemption? How does this apply to the world's only 800 pound gorilla (the U.S.) with respect to the killer rabbit (Iraq)? I've seen Monty Python, but that was comedy.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: beyoku
How reasonable is this. i had an argument yesterday on this with a co-worker. As i am no fan of preemption i said "since we are arguing how bout i just punch you in the face as hard as i can NOW cause we may fight later." Is this a real exaple. Why is this a new policy in the US and how can this fly as "acceptable" or be seen as the "right thing to do." If you think about it we went to Iraq preemptivly based on a theat. (and thats ok to people) We now know that we were planning to go to Afghanistan before 911. i guess the destruction of the towers can be seen as a legit preemptive attack in a war. Shoud this ALSO be acceptable and be seen as something that is the "rigth thing to do" on their behalf? How chaoitc do you think this will get?

take your anology further in 2 ways. preemptiveness, and the naive idea that people will leave you alone if you are nice to them

someone is about to punch you, and you see it coming. do you just let them hit you? or do you use your reflexes to hit them first? or go through a lenghty mental debate ended only by the crunch of the other person's fist on your face?

there is a person who has a history of picking fights coming your way, you tell him you do not want to fight. he hits you anyway. you get up explaining that there is no reason to fight, that any differences you have can be talked through, he says "okay" and shakes your hand, in the middle of the handshake he hits you again with the other hand using the leverage of the handshake to pull you into the punch making it even harder. once again you shake it off and try to reason with this person, who not only hits you again, but comments on your stupidity.

you have finally had enough, the bully expecting another round of "talks" is surprised when you plant your foot squarely in his crotch then kick him in the head as he doubles over, crumpling him to the ground. right about that time the teacher sees what is going on, starts berating you for being the aggressor and lecturing you on how violence is not the answer and that issues can be talked through, all the other person's friends that were gathered around speak at length on how violent and dnagerous you are and point out the collapsed person as proof positive...not long after that the whole school is expounding on how mean and violent you are.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: beyoku
How reasonable is this. i had an argument yesterday on this with a co-worker. As i am no fan of preemption i said "since we are arguing how bout i just punch you in the face as hard as i can NOW cause we may fight later." Is this a real exaple. Why is this a new policy in the US and how can this fly as "acceptable" or be seen as the "right thing to do." If you think about it we went to Iraq preemptivly based on a theat. (and thats ok to people) We now know that we were planning to go to Afghanistan before 911. i guess the destruction of the towers can be seen as a legit preemptive attack in a war. Shoud this ALSO be acceptable and be seen as something that is the "rigth thing to do" on their behalf? How chaoitc do you think this will get?

take your anology further in 2 ways. preemptiveness, and the naive idea that people will leave you alone if you are nice to them

someone is about to punch you, and you see it coming. do you just let them hit you? or do you use your reflexes to hit them first? or go through a lenghty mental debate ended only by the crunch of the other person's fist on your face?

there is a person who has a history of picking fights coming your way, you tell him you do not want to fight. he hits you anyway. you get up explaining that there is no reason to fight, that any differences you have can be talked through, he says "okay" and shakes your hand, in the middle of the handshake he hits you again with the other hand using the leverage of the handshake to pull you into the punch making it even harder. once again you shake it off and try to reason with this person, who not only hits you again, but comments on your stupidity.

you have finally had enough, the bully expecting another round of "talks" is surprised when you plant your foot squarely in his crotch then kick him in the head as he doubles over, crumpling him to the ground. right about that time the teacher sees what is going on, starts berating you for being the aggressor and lecturing you on how violence is not the answer and that issues can be talked through, all the other person's friends that were gathered around speak at length on how violent and dnagerous you are and point out the collapsed person as proof positive...not long after that the whole school is expounding on how mean and violent you are.

Yeah, but the US should have known better than this bully. Evidently we didnt when we decided to play one.

 

[Orsorum]

Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it? How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves.

 

[Gaard]

<<...someone is about to punch you,...>>
<<...coming your way,...

I don't have to tell you what I'm thinking, do I?

 

[Witling]

ShadowHawk. Your entire argument depends on the accuracy of your observation that someone is about to hit you. Do you have credible evidence that Iraq was going to do something to us. OK, Shadowhawk, your assignment is to tie all three of these ideas together:

(1) Us, the United States
(2) Iraq
(3) Credible evidence they were about to attack us.

And baby, that's a tough assignment.

 

[DealMonkey]

I think pre-emptive wars are stupid. 'Nuff said.

 

[JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn]

I love analogies! Here's one:

Two kids are threatening eachother in school, teacher comes up to one of the kids and suplexes them into the ground claiming imminent risk

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: beyoku
How reasonable is this. i had an argument yesterday on this with a co-worker. As i am no fan of preemption i said "since we are arguing how bout i just punch you in the face as hard as i can NOW cause we may fight later." Is this a real exaple. Why is this a new policy in the US and how can this fly as "acceptable" or be seen as the "right thing to do." If you think about it we went to Iraq preemptivly based on a theat. (and thats ok to people) We now know that we were planning to go to Afghanistan before 911. i guess the destruction of the towers can be seen as a legit preemptive attack in a war. Shoud this ALSO be acceptable and be seen as something that is the "rigth thing to do" on their behalf? How chaoitc do you think this will get?

take your anology further in 2 ways. preemptiveness, and the naive idea that people will leave you alone if you are nice to them

someone is about to punch you, and you see it coming. do you just let them hit you? or do you use your reflexes to hit them first? or go through a lenghty mental debate ended only by the crunch of the other person's fist on your face?

there is a person who has a history of picking fights coming your way, you tell him you do not want to fight. he hits you anyway. you get up explaining that there is no reason to fight, that any differences you have can be talked through, he says "okay" and shakes your hand, in the middle of the handshake he hits you again with the other hand using the leverage of the handshake to pull you into the punch making it even harder. once again you shake it off and try to reason with this person, who not only hits you again, but comments on your stupidity.

you have finally had enough, the bully expecting another round of "talks" is surprised when you plant your foot squarely in his crotch then kick him in the head as he doubles over, crumpling him to the ground. right about that time the teacher sees what is going on, starts berating you for being the aggressor and lecturing you on how violence is not the answer and that issues can be talked through, all the other person's friends that were gathered around speak at length on how violent and dnagerous you are and point out the collapsed person as proof positive...not long after that the whole school is expounding on how mean and violent you are.

I believe your argument is misleading, you're talking about self-defense, not pre-emption. In your first example, you describe a person in the process of punching you- similar to if Iraq launched a missile at us. In that moment, you're in self-defense.

Your second example is similarly miscontrued. The character hits you first.

 

[XZeroII]

Just think, if some country had pre-emptively attacked Germany 5 years before they began WW2... Millions of lives would have been saved...


Your story is faulty. You would punch the other guy in the face for no reason. You are just saying, 'just in case' as a cover. We actually had reason to go into Iraq.


Hindsight is 20/20 people. It's easy to criticise the decisions someone else made after the fact.

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: beyoku
How reasonable is this. i had an argument yesterday on this with a co-worker. As i am no fan of preemption i said "since we are arguing how bout i just punch you in the face as hard as i can NOW cause we may fight later." Is this a real exaple. Why is this a new policy in the US and how can this fly as "acceptable" or be seen as the "right thing to do." If you think about it we went to Iraq preemptivly based on a theat. (and thats ok to people) We now know that we were planning to go to Afghanistan before 911. i guess the destruction of the towers can be seen as a legit preemptive attack in a war. Shoud this ALSO be acceptable and be seen as something that is the "rigth thing to do" on their behalf? How chaoitc do you think this will get?

take your anology further in 2 ways. preemptiveness, and the naive idea that people will leave you alone if you are nice to them

someone is about to punch you, and you see it coming. do you just let them hit you? or do you use your reflexes to hit them first? or go through a lenghty mental debate ended only by the crunch of the other person's fist on your face?

there is a person who has a history of picking fights coming your way, you tell him you do not want to fight. he hits you anyway. you get up explaining that there is no reason to fight, that any differences you have can be talked through, he says "okay" and shakes your hand, in the middle of the handshake he hits you again with the other hand using the leverage of the handshake to pull you into the punch making it even harder. once again you shake it off and try to reason with this person, who not only hits you again, but comments on your stupidity.

you have finally had enough, the bully expecting another round of "talks" is surprised when you plant your foot squarely in his crotch then kick him in the head as he doubles over, crumpling him to the ground. right about that time the teacher sees what is going on, starts berating you for being the aggressor and lecturing you on how violence is not the answer and that issues can be talked through, all the other person's friends that were gathered around speak at length on how violent and dnagerous you are and point out the collapsed person as proof positive...not long after that the whole school is expounding on how mean and violent you are.

You are exactly right but just to add, im sure everyone in the world wold agree that WE are that person in history.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Just think, if some country had pre-emptively attacked Germany 5 years before they began WW2... Millions of lives would have been saved...


Your story is faulty. You would punch the other guy in the face for no reason. You are just saying, 'just in case' as a cover. We actually had reason to go into Iraq.


Hindsight is 20/20 people. It's easy to criticise the decisions someone else made after the fact.

Well I was one criticizing the thought of going to war with Iraq. We had no reason to believe they threatened us. Their best missile can barely reach 100 miles. Washington DC - Baghdad != 100 miles. Rhetoric aside, we now know the CIA, IAEA and the inspection agencies disputed Iraq had nukes before the war started. They were ignored.

 

[roboninja]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Just think, if some country had pre-emptively attacked Germany 5 years before they began WW2... Millions of lives would have been saved...


Your story is faulty. You would punch the other guy in the face for no reason. You are just saying, 'just in case' as a cover. We actually had reason to go into Iraq.


Hindsight is 20/20 people. It's easy to criticise the decisions someone else made after the fact.

But who could have known for sure what Germany was going to become at that time? That is the problem. You cannot indict someone pre-emptively because you think they might become guilty in the future. That is what they do in countries with no freedoms.

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Just think, if some country had pre-emptively attacked Germany 5 years before they began WW2... Millions of lives would have been saved...


Your story is faulty. You would punch the other guy in the face for no reason. You are just saying, 'just in case' as a cover. We actually had reason to go into Iraq.


Hindsight is 20/20 people. It's easy to criticise the decisions someone else made after the fact.

You dont know WHAT would have happened because that caused somthing else. And out story is much....much more faulty than the example i gave. Dont you think iraq and afghanistan know that WE were more of a threat than they were to us. This is FACT look at what just happened. And like i said if they knew that we were going to attack them- then would the collapse of the towers in an attack be seen as legit??? They just puched us in the face. and accourding to what people are saying about preemptive attacks this is fully acceptable. As a matter of fact the SHOULD have done it because they had proof that we were going to attack them. THIS IS YOUR SAME ARGUMENT WITH PLAYERS REVERSED. If you understand how wrong this is............

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Just think, if some country had pre-emptively attacked Germany 5 years before they began WW2... Millions of lives would have been saved...


Your story is faulty. You would punch the other guy in the face for no reason. You are just saying, 'just in case' as a cover. We actually had reason to go into Iraq.


Hindsight is 20/20 people. It's easy to criticise the decisions someone else made after the fact.

I only now realized the complete contradiction you make here...

"Just think, if some country had pre-emptively attacked Germany 5 years before they began WW2... Millions of lives would have been saved... "

"Hindsight is 20/20 people. It's easy to criticise the decisions someone else made after the fact"

 

[beyoku]

this is a good thread, good topic and nobody has called anybody any names yet!:beer:

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Whitling
ShadowHawk. Your entire argument depends on the accuracy of your observation that someone is about to hit you. Do you have credible evidence that Iraq was going to do something to us. OK, Shadowhawk, your assignment is to tie all three of these ideas together:

(1) Us, the United States
(2) Iraq
(3) Credible evidence they were about to attack us.

And baby, that's a tough assignment.

i did not mention iraq. in fact iraq was probobly more about it's strategic location than anything else.