Kennedy 0 #26 January 26, 2005 Quote Quote it is "A day that will live in infamy" If you quote someone at least get it right. FDR said "A Date That Will Live In Infamy" If you're going to be a smartass when you correct someone, at least make sure you get it right. Quote December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamywitty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #27 January 26, 2005 Quote 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. The receiving end of an attack will rarely see it as a good action, but it's hard to argue against in the abstract, unless one believes the UN actually serves some value. I don't fault al Queda for being at war, but I don't begrudge Bush's efforts to retaliate against them and any like minded nations either. 9/11 wasn't the first time that outfit hurt us. Just the first time on our side of the world. Preemptive and surprise are two different forms that should be considered. A clearly superior force might be expected to give notice and warning before starting, whereas an outmatched foe can righteously resort to sneak (terrorist) methods since they can't possible win in a stand up fight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #28 January 26, 2005 Quote It almost makes me think they didn't read your question before replying. I read it, but I misunderstood it, and answered incorrectly. I suspect that's likely in several people's cases. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #29 January 26, 2005 Same here as far as not understanding the question. I didn't vote because there is no option for "U.S., conservative, I don't have enough info on Iran and Syria to make a decision." Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rwieder 0 #30 January 26, 2005 Quote Preemptive strikes and justification "you can paint a trash can gold, but it's still a trash can" justification for any type of violence is pure rhetoric at best.-Richard- "You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Erroll 80 #31 January 26, 2005 Quote 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. It would surely still be preemptive force. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #32 January 26, 2005 Quote Quote Quote it is "A day that will live in infamy" If you quote someone at least get it right. FDR said "A Date That Will Live In Infamy" If you're going to be a smartass when you correct someone, at least make sure you get it right. Quote December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy I expect you're right, but McMillan's Book of Quotations gives "that", as does the DoD www.defense.gov/news/Nov2001/n11292001_200111291.html and the US Navy in Pearl Harbor http://www.hnn.navy.mil/archives/010525/review_movie_052501.htm Interesting that FDR would have chosen a typical British English usage ("which") rather than typical American English ("that"). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #33 January 26, 2005 Quote Quote I 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. That post advocated preemptive strikes against the US, UK and Israel specifically, even though that's not the complete list and I doubt the reasoning was logical in pulling that list together. It was astonishing to say to least. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #34 January 26, 2005 National Archives and Restoration Administration http://www.archives.gov/digital_classroom/lessons/day_of_infamy/day_of_infamy.html First Draft of FDR's message to congress http://www.archives.gov/digital_classroom/lessons/day_of_infamy/images/infamy_address_1.gifwitty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,088 #35 January 26, 2005 >I read it, but I misunderstood it . . . Fair enough. So now that you've reread it, how would you answer the question i.e. "Would either Iran or Syria be morally justified in launching a preemptive strike against the US?" (if they believed it could stop an invasion) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #36 January 26, 2005 Quote "Would either Iran or Syria be morally justified in launching a preemptive strike against the US?" (if they believed it could stop an invasion) If they want to stop an invasion (not saying that one is iminent), a preemptive strike would not be the way... as any strike would ensure an invasion... any strike that would stop an invasion, would result in something worse, and they know it. If they want to stop an invasion, take away any remote justification... stop supporting terrorists for example. 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
billvon 3,088 #37 January 26, 2005 >a preemptive strike would not be the way... That's not the question. The question was not about whether it would be effective or not. The question is "is it morally acceptable?" (And I sure hope you don't think those are the same question!) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #38 January 26, 2005 Quote Of they want to stop an invasion (not saying that one is iminent), a preemptive strike would not be the way... as any strike would ensure an invasion... any strike that would stop an invasion, would result in something worse, and they know it. Iran knows that the only way to guarantee no invasion is to follow North Korea's lead and get a viable nuclear option. Syria, on the other hand, has no options if their goal to ensure no attacks. I doubt they could get rid of all our enemies there if they wanted to, and the risk of assassination (see Egypt) is pretty discouragig to even try. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #39 January 26, 2005 I know they are not the same questions... A preemptive sneak attack al la Pearl Harbor or 9/11 is not acceptable... a "back off or your gonna get hit" preemptive strike against targets that are threatening them (say a division massing for invasion) could be. 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
livendive 8 #40 January 26, 2005 Quote Quote "Would either Iran or Syria be morally justified in launching a preemptive strike against the US?" (if they believed it could stop an invasion) If they want to stop an invasion (not saying that one is iminent), a preemptive strike would not be the way... as any strike would ensure an invasion... any strike that would stop an invasion, would result in something worse, and they know it. If they want to stop an invasion, take away any remote justification... stop supporting terrorists for example. Alternately, if the US wants to avoid a preemptive strike, take away any remote justification... stop threatening/rattling swords for example? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,088 #41 January 26, 2005 >A preemptive sneak attack al la Pearl Harbor or 9/11 is not acceptable... If a country/group/army declared war on the US, and then attacked it, that would be therefore acceptable? If the US does not warn Iran when we're going to strike, that's unacceptable? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #42 January 27, 2005 Quote Alternately, if the US wants to avoid a preemptive strike, take away any remote justification... stop threatening/rattling swords for example? I do not believe we should engage in sabre rattling... we should be up front and honest in our expectations and what our interests are... for that matter I think we have been with both Iran and Syria. 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
jdhill 0 #43 January 27, 2005 Quote If a country/group/army declared war on the US, and then attacked it, that would be therefore acceptable? Only a country can declair war in a legal sence... if a country declairs war then attacks "legal" targets yes... they should also be prepaired for the consequences. Quote If the US does not warn Iran when we're going to strike, that's unacceptable? If we were to attack them without warning, that would be unacceptable... It would be hard to say Iran has not been warned. Edit to add... that said, I don't think we should be posturing as we are with Iran at the moment, at least not on the nuke issue (terrorism is another issue)... we should continue to work diplomatic channels... Syria should understand very clearly that their support of terrorism has put them on the edge and the ball is in their court to back away from it. 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
Michele 1 #44 January 27, 2005 Quote So now that you've reread it, how would you answer the question i.e. "Would either Iran or Syria be morally justified in launching a preemptive strike against the US?" (if they believed it could stop an invasion) I really am not sure. JDhill put some parameters on it that I think are interesting, but I'll have to think about this a bit more. Hey, I'm just being honest here. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
