thoughts on preemtive wars

[Ballsack]

This is exactly why we need PRE-CRIME!

BALLSACK

 

[Witling]

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.

 

[XZeroII]

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.

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.

 

[chess9]

Beyoku:

Well, this post demonstrates that you are a peace loving man because as anyone who has done ANY street fighting will tell you, pre-emption is extremely important if you want to survive in the Blackboard Jungle. I was raised in a tough section of Cleveland as a kid and got my butt whipped on quite a few occasions just for giving some dude the wrong look.

Anyway, that's exactly what's wrong with preemption-it's an aggressive male approach to problem solving. I would really rather wallow in my own dream where logic, compassion, and patience are the dominant ethos. Testosterone can be so ugly....

-Robert

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[XZeroII]

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

As I said, hindsight is 20/20.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

Whoa now,
A LOT of knowlegeable people were arguing against this, and were shouted down before the war. If I make a decision based on intel which I select because it is supportive of that decision, that is dreadful reasoning.

Saddam is a threat and needs to be removed, therefore I will select intel that supports that. Now I have the "facts" I can see that Saddam is a threat and needs to be removed. This isn't a "whoops, my bad" it is calculated to give a predetermined result. Circular logic isn't.

You know, I am not 100% sure YOU aren't a threat. You might be. Some tortured reasoning can be constructed that justifies your permanent removal from this world.

Our involvement in WWII was not based on a guess. We were justified by confronting a demonstrated and then current threat. Not so with Saddam.

This administration wanted this confrontation, and it was bound and determined to have it. So it did.

 

[Shad0hawK]

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.

you can call it lame all you want. as far as "schoolchild" remarks, you can label things as you wish, i do not see you logically refuting the points i made which are very valid, nations behave just like people do. it is only a matter of course since people are what nations and governments are made of.

my personal opinions about iraq are a bit different than most:

was iraq a grave and immediate danger to the US? probobly not. although i think enough evidence has been found to indicate saddam was up to something, mobile chem labs and hidden chemical complexes that are found scrubbed are not being used for "legitimate" purposes. but WMD is not why i favored the war.

i think it is the right thing to do because it should have been done and finished the first time...it is settling unfinished business. i knew then it was a mistake to leave him in power and knew the shiites would suffer for it.

unlike the many hypocrites of today, i actually cared about the welfare of the iraqi's and thought it was an issue before this war started.

the reason we did not finish it then was because many Dems did not want to, many arab nations in the coalition did not want to. and france and a few other european nations did not want to so as not to lose a trading partner in saddam. bush sr. did not press the issue and that was that.

bush jr. is doing now what should have been done before, and it is the right thing no matter if the reasons at the beginning were possibly wrong or not quite as bad as we were led to believe.

i do not think bush is out to (totally)decieve the american people, if he were it would have been much easier to "plant" the evidence, and if he does in fact find a huge storehouse of WMD the far left will only accuse him of doing just that to push thier political agenda. they will be sure to make it a lose-lose situation so a dem will win the election next year, and probobly not give a damn if there is WMD or not as long as they can capitalize on the situation.

 

[lozina]

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.

Oh come on, you're dancing around- what do you call that, the two-step? At least have the balls to admit you wrote a blatant contradiction In one second you're critcizing countries in WW2 for not pre-emptively attacking Germany to save 5 million lives and in the very next second you critisize people for critisizing decisions someone else made after the fact

 

[Medicated858]

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.

Make Iraq a five year old girl and the U.S. Mike Tyson and then your analogy would work.

 

[B00ne]

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.

The emphasis is on would, many things could have been done which could have led to a different history. You could also say if someone would have thaught out the treaty of Versailles better many millions could have been saved. The point is we dont know.

Preemptive wars are a dangerous path to take - in the age of nuclear proliferation too dangerous in my eyes and always hurting the wrong ppl for the most part.

 

[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.

 

[GrGr]

Funny how the Bush apologists cannot see past the Saddam the Ogre rhetoric served by the Bushies. The Bush doctrine of pre-emptive warfare goes way beyond Saddam. The Pre-emptive ideology does not fit with a society which prides itself as a society based on the rule of law, especially one where everybody are presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. The prinicples of vigilante justice (pre-emptive attacks) and the rule of law (presumed innocence) are mutually exclusive.

President Warlord Bush has promoted vigilantism to policy, yeehaw.

 

[beyoku]

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.

it was not a mere threat from US either, we were already planning to go into afghanistan before 9-11 , and we have much more nuke, bio, and chemical weapons. So in your theory they SHOULD have attacked us first because there was an imminant threat from us.

 

[hagbard]

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.

"we now know"? This has been known and reported for some time. People (ie: Americans) didn't care to see anything that run contrary to their presidents decision.

Anyway, the philosophy of preemption worked for Hitler until 1945.

 

[Kipper]

Preemptive strike is only applicable in just war theory when you have an impending threat...

"Possessing just cause is the first and arguably the most important condition of jus ad bellum. Most theorists hold that initiating acts of aggression is unjust and gives a group a just cause to defend itself. But unless 'aggression' is defined, this proscription rather open-ended. For example, just cause resulting from an act of aggression can ostensibly be responses to a physical injury (e.g., a violation of territory), an insult (an aggression against national honor), a trade embargo (an aggression against economic activity), or even to a neighbor?s prosperity (a violation of social justice). The onus is then on the just war theorist to provide a consistent and sound account of what is meant by just cause. Whilst not going into the reasons of why the other explanations do not offer a useful condition of just cause, the consensus is that an initiation of physical force is wrong and may justly be resisted. Self-defense against physical aggression, therefore, is putatively the only sufficient reason for just cause. Nonetheless, the principle of self-defense can be extrapolated to anticipate probable acts of aggression, as well as in assisting others against an oppressive government or from another external threat (interventionism). Therefore, it is commonly held that aggressive war is only permissible if its purpose is to retaliate against a wrong already committed (e.g., to pursue and punish an aggressor), or to pre-empt an anticipated attack."

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/j/justwar.htm

 

[hagbard]

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.

You're right, but not in the way you think.