Of course you can't know ahead of time, but you can make logical assesments of the situation and think that something may go down soon. If you are working in a store along and see someone with gang tatoos walk in and their hands are behind their back and they are eyeing you every now and then, you might get pretty suspicious. Is it enough to act ahead of time...that's a matter of oppinion. And as I said, hindsight is 20/20.Originally posted by: 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.
Originally posted by: 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"
Originally posted by: chess9
XZeroII:
I'd say the chances of Iraq attacking the U.S. any time within 5 years of our attack against them were so low as to be approaching zero. We've yet to see the first evidence to support the notion they had enough military might to successfully attack even lowly Kuwait again. If the idea of preemption is going to have any validity it needs to be based upon some high degree of certainty of a possible danger. For instance, the situations in Iran and N. Korea are much more troubling. But, here we are wasting time and resources in Iraq while Iran and N.Korea arm themselves to the teeth. This is like attacking the A pawn in the chess opening. Only a patzer would do it. GW amply qualifies...sorry to say.
-Robert
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: 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"
Actually they compliment each other very nicely...
I think you are confused thinking that I am trying to argue that we should always pre-emptively strike. This is not the case. I am saying that there is uncertainty and you never know what will come out of a situation. What would have happened if we didn't attack Iraq? You can't say with 100% certainty that we wouldn't have been attacked by them. Same with Germany. If they had been taken out ahead of time, people would wonder if Germany ever really was a threat. Looking back, we did the wrong thing by not attacking Germany. Looking back, we might have done the wrong thing by attacking Iraq. But how can you know this ahead of time? WW2 could have been avoided, but we made a decision based on the evidence we had at the time. Same thing with Iraq, however, people will always look back and say, 'we made the wrong decision' and blame the leaders at the time for making that wrong decision.
Originally posted by: Whitling
Shadowhawk, Lame, Lame, Lame. Right, you didn't mention Iraq. You gave two schoolchild example of someone punching someone else. I'm sorry, I thought I recognized the description as relating to Iraq. The preemptive invasion of Iraq being such big news during the last year, you could see how I could become confused. My points still remain valid. Your examples depend on the accuracy of your perception that you're about to be attacked. That's OK for children perhaps, but not nation states.
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: 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"
Actually they compliment each other very nicely...
I think you are confused thinking that I am trying to argue that we should always pre-emptively strike. This is not the case. I am saying that there is uncertainty and you never know what will come out of a situation. What would have happened if we didn't attack Iraq? You can't say with 100% certainty that we wouldn't have been attacked by them. Same with Germany. If they had been taken out ahead of time, people would wonder if Germany ever really was a threat. Looking back, we did the wrong thing by not attacking Germany. Looking back, we might have done the wrong thing by attacking Iraq. But how can you know this ahead of time? WW2 could have been avoided, but we made a decision based on the evidence we had at the time. Same thing with Iraq, however, people will always look back and say, 'we made the wrong decision' and blame the leaders at the time for making that wrong decision.
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.
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.
Originally posted by: beyoku
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?
Originally posted by: syzygy
Originally posted by: beyoku
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?
it was not a mere threat. kay's reports verified saddam's continued holdings of dual-use facilites, clandestine wmd labs, and other
illegal weapons development programs, including evidence of a possible centrifuge enrichment program. these findings confirm
a number of pre-war assessments of iraqi capabilities and evasions, although the actual wmd may not have been produced for
fear of their discovery. this does affect the reality of saddam's obvious still existant desire to re-arm his police state with wmd
once the mood settled down. another brilliant calculation by the left's favorite mass murderer.
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.
Originally posted by: 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.