wmw999 2,550 #1 January 25, 2005 There are people who say that preemptive strikes are never justified, and others who say they are (e.g. the US was entirely justified in going into Iraq, and that we'll be justified in going into Iran or Syria if decide to invade them). After all, a preemptive strike against Japan or Germany might have forestalled much of the second world war. One question. Since there are folks in reasonably high places who are talking about invading these sovereign nations, would either Iran or Syria be morally justified in launching a preemptive strike against the US? Obviously they'd be immediately creamed. But the justification for a preemptive strike isn't that you're stronger and can do anything you want to (I would hope). It's that you are in danger of being attacked. So -- would an attack against the US be justified or not? Yes, it's a forced choice, and I'm not including the option that I'm a JACKASS because that might skew the valuable scientific data Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #2 January 25, 2005 Well - it's happened already. Japan launched a pre emptive strike against the US Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbour. They did so KNOWING that at that point in the war, they would not be able to expand into the Pacific if that fleet were intact. I beleive that the 7th December is still regarded by many Americans as the "Day of infamy." That's probably the way the rest of the world sees the US. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #3 January 25, 2005 Pre-emptive strikes by US or our allies - good and always justified. Pre-emptive strikes by our enemies - bad and always unjustified. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #4 January 25, 2005 Quote"Day of infamy." it is "December 7th, 1941 - a date that will live in infamy..." Edit to fix quote... as pointed out by penniless The invasion of Iraq was far from a surprise sneak attack... perhaps Iraq's invasion of Kuwait is a closer match... The invasion of Iraq was not preemptive, but rather a culmination of 12 years of hostilities that was started by Iraq. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #5 January 25, 2005 QuoteObviously they'd be immediately creamed. Agreed, but i am thinking about the message it would send the rest of the world. Damned if you do (Iran), damned if you don´t (Iraq). So North Korea may decide to launcho a full scale attack (Nuclear) against U.S or U.S allies for fear of being the next. In any case, many countries could decide to get nuclear capabilites just in case making it easier for terrorist to get hold of a WMD. To answer your post, Iran could attack an invade the U.S based on the premises for a preemptive attack. -The U.S has nuclear capabilities and has used them in the past. -It has attacked and occupied a sovereign neighbour country. -Has said to the world that Iran goes next. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #6 January 25, 2005 QuoteQuote"Day of infamy." it is "A day that will live in infamy" J If you quote someone at least get it right. FDR said "A Date That Will Live In Infamy" (I've had dates like that). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #7 January 25, 2005 A straight answer: No. Preemptive strikes are wrong no matter who does them. The right thing to do is negotiate, garner international support and apply sanctions. If all that fails, get UN approval for military action, put together a multinational force and only then use force. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #8 January 25, 2005 That's what the US did in Gulf one - and the world loved them for it. Why do you think it was it so important to do it differently this time? tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #9 January 25, 2005 QuoteA straight answer: No. Preemptive strikes are wrong no matter who does them. The right thing to do is negotiate, garner international support and apply sanctions. If all that fails, get UN approval for military action, put together a multinational force and only then use force. Ha Ha Like the UN sanctions did anything to stop Saddam from profiting. Hell the UN was lining its own pockets from the Oil for Food deal. The UN is by no means a neutral entity. Why would the have ever approved any military action in Iraq when the were making so much money off the suffering of the average Iraqi. Saddam didn't suffer and was thumbing his nose at the US. He got what he deserved and so did the people that supported his regime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,550 #10 January 25, 2005 QuotePre-emptive strikes by US or our allies - good and always justified. Pre-emptive strikes by our enemies - bad and always unjustified. I'm hoping you're saying that tongue-in-cheek. Otherwise -- does who does it really determine whether something is right or wrong? That's pretty subjective. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pleifer 0 #11 January 25, 2005 I don't think pre-emptive strikes are justified... 9-11 was a pre-emptive strike, so going after al-quida is justified IMHO. Going after the terroists is justified, but going after the countries where the terroists live is wrong, unless they are conspiring with them. Iraq was not justified, much more intelligence was needed IMHO On that note, Lets invade Canada _________________________________________ The Angel of Duh has spoke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #12 January 25, 2005 QuoteHa Ha Like the UN sanctions did anything to stop Saddam from profiting. Hell the UN was lining its own pockets from the Oil for Food deal. The UN is by no means a neutral entity. Why would the have ever approved any military action in Iraq when the were making so much money off the suffering of the average Iraqi. Saddam didn't suffer and was thumbing his nose at the US. He got what he deserved and so did the people that supported his regime. This is a really interesting question so why not try dealing with it rather than turning this into yet another thread about the pros & cons of the Iraq2. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freethefly 6 #13 January 25, 2005 Ha Ha Like the UN sanctions did anything to stop Saddam from profiting. Hell the UN was lining its own pockets from the Oil for Food deal. The UN is by no means a neutral entity. Why would the have ever approved any military action in Iraq when the were making so much money off the suffering of the average Iraqi. Saddam didn't suffer and was thumbing his nose at the US. He got what he deserved and so did the people that supported his regime. So who are lining their pockets now and as far as "suffering of the average Iraqi" goes, hell they have never had it so bad. Iraq is a blood bath and will remain so for years to come. So some were getting rich from the oil for food program, far less was dying. Over time Saddam would had eventually die and his empire most likely would had collapsed due to infighting amongst sons. The attack on the least of the world's problems was, IMHO, unwarrented. Now the POTUS is asking for another 60-80 billion dollars for the war in Iraq and Afgahnastan. 120,000 troops to remain untill the end of 2006 and most likely beyond. There is good chance that Bush will have this country at war on other soils before he is through. Bush and his band of minions are on the warpath and the future is bleak on that front. To make matters worst it is suppose to snow this weekend, DAMN, I need some air!"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #14 January 25, 2005 Quotefar less was dying. All those mass graves they've uncovered in Iraq, how old are they? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #15 January 25, 2005 QuoteOn that note, Lets invade Canada Excelent.....---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #16 January 25, 2005 QuoteIraq is a blood bath and will remain so for years to come. So some were getting rich from the oil for food program, far less was dying. Over time Saddam would had eventually die and his empire most likely would had collapsed due to infighting amongst sons. With that logic you could justfy not helping out a someone getting mugged "because they won't be getting mugged all day, right?"---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tbrown 26 #17 January 25, 2005 With that logic you could justfy not helping out a someone getting mugged "because they won't be getting mugged all day, right?" Your logic doesn't follow, at least you didn't drag a comparison with child molesting into the equation. In point of fact, the US mobilized and led a worldwide coalition in 1990 to come to the assistance of Kuwait when they were mugged by Saddam. The coalition also saved Saudi Arabia from a similar fate, as the Saudis can't fight either, unless it's among themselves. After driving the Iraqis out of Kuwait, we then partitioned off two safe zones out of Iraqi territory for the protection of Kurdish minorities and enforced "no fly" zones in those regions to keep the Iraqi military out. Bush Sr. understood that actually invading Iraq would cost America too much in blood, lives, and treasure, but frat boy likes to show his dad up whenever he can. In fact he just dropped the latest installment of the Iraqi bill on congress' lap this morning - another $80 billion. When your interest rates go through the roof and the Saudis start selling oil for Euros instead of dollars, we'll see what "costly" means. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #13 January 25, 2005 Ha Ha Like the UN sanctions did anything to stop Saddam from profiting. Hell the UN was lining its own pockets from the Oil for Food deal. The UN is by no means a neutral entity. Why would the have ever approved any military action in Iraq when the were making so much money off the suffering of the average Iraqi. Saddam didn't suffer and was thumbing his nose at the US. He got what he deserved and so did the people that supported his regime. So who are lining their pockets now and as far as "suffering of the average Iraqi" goes, hell they have never had it so bad. Iraq is a blood bath and will remain so for years to come. So some were getting rich from the oil for food program, far less was dying. Over time Saddam would had eventually die and his empire most likely would had collapsed due to infighting amongst sons. The attack on the least of the world's problems was, IMHO, unwarrented. Now the POTUS is asking for another 60-80 billion dollars for the war in Iraq and Afgahnastan. 120,000 troops to remain untill the end of 2006 and most likely beyond. There is good chance that Bush will have this country at war on other soils before he is through. Bush and his band of minions are on the warpath and the future is bleak on that front. To make matters worst it is suppose to snow this weekend, DAMN, I need some air!"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #14 January 25, 2005 Quotefar less was dying. All those mass graves they've uncovered in Iraq, how old are they? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #15 January 25, 2005 QuoteOn that note, Lets invade Canada Excelent.....---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #16 January 25, 2005 QuoteIraq is a blood bath and will remain so for years to come. So some were getting rich from the oil for food program, far less was dying. Over time Saddam would had eventually die and his empire most likely would had collapsed due to infighting amongst sons. With that logic you could justfy not helping out a someone getting mugged "because they won't be getting mugged all day, right?"---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #17 January 25, 2005 With that logic you could justfy not helping out a someone getting mugged "because they won't be getting mugged all day, right?" Your logic doesn't follow, at least you didn't drag a comparison with child molesting into the equation. In point of fact, the US mobilized and led a worldwide coalition in 1990 to come to the assistance of Kuwait when they were mugged by Saddam. The coalition also saved Saudi Arabia from a similar fate, as the Saudis can't fight either, unless it's among themselves. After driving the Iraqis out of Kuwait, we then partitioned off two safe zones out of Iraqi territory for the protection of Kurdish minorities and enforced "no fly" zones in those regions to keep the Iraqi military out. Bush Sr. understood that actually invading Iraq would cost America too much in blood, lives, and treasure, but frat boy likes to show his dad up whenever he can. In fact he just dropped the latest installment of the Iraqi bill on congress' lap this morning - another $80 billion. When your interest rates go through the roof and the Saudis start selling oil for Euros instead of dollars, we'll see what "costly" means. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #18 January 25, 2005 >With that logic you could justfy not helping out a someone getting >mugged "because they won't be getting mugged all day, right?" Well, it would be sorta silly to stop a criminal who was beating someone else up, but then beat up the victim a bit more because "at least I'll stop sooner than the other guy would have." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #19 January 25, 2005 Hi Wendy I am a non-US citizen who is not liberal or conservative. I am one of the many people who does not agree with a preemptive strike. But I do think it is justified against a country who has been known to use preemptive strikes. Israel, The USA, and the UK. I did not include Japan, or Germany because I do think those countries and there governments have changed a considerable amount from there past administrations.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #20 January 25, 2005 IMHO this is one of those gray areas. Each situation will be different. The perfect example is when Israel took out Saddams nuclear plant or reactors in the early 80's. That in my view was justified. Of course Israel launched this attack after all avenues had been explored. The French built this reactor for Iraq and Israel begged the French to halt its efforts in helping Iraq. The French basically told them to f-off since Iraq was a major buyer of French military hardware. America also turned its back on Israel since I believe we did not grasp the threat a nuclear powered Iraq would pose. Of course back then we were buds with goog ole Saddam. After Israel attacked Iraq we and the rest of the World basically crucified them. We delayed shipment of weapons and aircraft to them. It was only some 10+ years later after Gulf War 1 that we and the world finally realized what they had done. I wonder what the outcome of that war would've been if Iraq had nukes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,550 #21 January 25, 2005 QuoteI am a non-US citizen ... I am one of the many people who does not agree with a preemptive strike Interestingly enough, so far that appears to be the closest correlation -- the non-US folks generally think it's wrong, whether they're liberal or conservative. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #22 January 25, 2005 Quotemuch more intelligence was needed IMHO On that note, Lets invade Canada excellent point, for more intelligence you need to turn to Canada. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #23 January 25, 2005 I find it interesting that 84% of US conservatives think a pre-emptive strike against the US would be justified - especially considering how it would be immediately classified as a terrorist attack. Would another 9/11 really be justifiable to these people? It almost makes me think they didn't read your question before replying. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,550 #24 January 25, 2005 QuoteI find it interesting that 84% of US conservatives think a pre-emptive strike against the US would be justified No more interesting than the fact that 64% of the US liberals think the same way. Of course, there are probably some conservatives who really only think the rules apply to other guys, but, well, the poll doesn't get that out very well. I didn't think to include a "a preemptive strike is not justified, period" option. Ah well, more valuable science shot to hell Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwslut 0 #25 January 26, 2005 QuoteWell - it's happened already. Japan launched a pre emptive strike against the US Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbour. They did so KNOWING that at that point in the war, they would not be able to expand into the Pacific if that fleet were intact. I beleive that the 7th December is still regarded by many Americans as the "Day of infamy." That's probably the way the rest of the world sees the US. t Perhaps. I think the US is viewed as beating up on a little kid that nobody liked cause it's citizens were fearful and outraged. It provided (for a while, at least) increased feelings of unity for our citizens, a more lasting false sense of security, vastly increased a political power base and pretty much ensured some very scary ultra-conservatives would tighten their grip on American politics. All in all, a pretty slick move by those who would destroy our country from within. OBL wanted to destroy the freedoms and liberties that made our coutry great ...he is succeeding.What could possibly go wrong? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
