Pre-emptive Strike - Who decides?

This thread is probably a bit of a touchy subject. The reason I created this thread is to rationally discuss the morality of such a doctrine, when it should and shouldn't be used, consequences of faulty intelligence and whether other countries would be justified in similar actions based on past use of said doctrine.
For example, media coverage is reporting at the moment that a preemptive strike would be justified against Iran because they are enriching Uranium with the intent to construct a weapon. This weapon is admittedly years away from completion, they haven't even tested a low yield device. Israel is a nuclear power but this seems ok because they are allies of the US. What happens when a nuclear power decides that they don't want to be an ally of the US? Pre-emptive strike? What is your opinion?

Well considering how Iran has already threatened to destroy Israel several times while at the same time trying to seek nuclear weapons would be enough to justify a pre-emptive strike. And I'm sure the next country on their list is the U.S....after all they gather about in the thousands and chant "death to America" on a weekly basis. The U.S. would be very well justified in attacking Iran, because it must look after it's own security and cannot simply dismiss these constant threats.

All you have to do is look at the mess Iraq has become and that will give you and idea of what kind of preventive strikes our nation's leaders are doing to pursue personal and corporate agendas.

Remember the Rambo movie: 'First Blood' ?

Remember the lengths Rambo went to, to 'pay back' those who hit him first? Movie-goers considered those to be the bad-guys.

Pre-emptive strike translates to: ' I get in the first hit'. All the rest -- i.e., the 'justifications' and 'excuses' are just that: excuses.

How about this scenario: Three car-loads of terrifying armed thugs roared up to your home. They killed your pets, maimed and killed your children, raped and beat your wife and daughters (and afterwards dragged them away to torture, enslave and murder them). The thugs smashed and burnt your house to the ground. They took your family's valuables. They ferociously beat and permanently crippled you. They warned your neighbours not to intervene, or they'd 'be next'.

Several weeks later, the same thugs were awarded contracts by your local authorities to live in the ruins of your house, in order to guard against postential reprisals against them by you and your relatives.

The murdering thugs were also awarded lucrative contracts to 'rebuild' your house, reinstall the electricity, plumbing, gardens, etc. They lined their own pockets. The work was shoddy.

So there you were, bleeding and enraged, surrounded by the thugs responsible for the misery that was now you life. They lived in your bedrooms, used your bathroom --- and when you needed to go up the street for medical care or to buy food, the thugs supervised your every move, pushed you around, threatened you more of the same and insisted you be inside your home by six every evening.

You took it to court. You laid out the crimes against you before the judge and jury. There was no doubt you were telling the truth; you had photos, X-rays of your injuries, video of the thugs raping and killing your family and destroying your home.

Then it was the thugs turn to take the stand.

They smiled insolently at the judge and jury and simply said: " Your Honour. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. We were justified in doing as we did --- in profiting from it -- and in our continuing harassment and brutalisation of this individual and his family and neighbourhood."

The thugs' continued: " We did as we did and continue to do, because because we reached the conclusion the individual was planning to attack us. "

The judge asked: " Did you have proof? "

The thugs replied: " We don't need proof. All we need is suspicion. "

" You'll need to have more than that." said the judge, " You can't just go around killing and burning, based on suspicion."

The thugs stepped down from the stand and brushed the guards aside, saying as they left: " We attack based on 'suspicion'. We call it 'pre-emptive strike'. Whenever we plan to attack and rob someone, we simply need 'form a suspicion' about the victim's intentions. We don't need to prove a thing. Sometimes we set up scam and attack ourselves, in order to blame the victim. But we've established a precedent now, which largely legitimises the concept of 'pre-emptive strike'. Genius plan, you'll have to admit. Oh, by the way Your Honour --- we don't recognise your claim to judge our actions. We don't recognise this Court as having any power or legitimacy. So up your nose with a rubber hose. "

Then, with triumphant cries of 'Abu Gharib !!', the thugs sauntered out of court.

A week later, they attacked and burned another home and killed and maimed its occupants, contaminating the entire area with poison in the process.

You got your wife's and daughters' remains back two years later. They were simply a collection of bones in a plastic bag. You never knew if they belonged to your family. No-one helped you. By now they were terrified of the thugs. Your one surviving son died of multiple cancers shortly afterwards. Doctors told you it was because of the poisons spread by the thugs when they attacked your home.

You already had your legs and arms amputated by the thugs and now you're dying of cancers too. You have nothing. The thugs live in your house. They order you around.

Every time you try to hobble down to the little holy shrine you built in a corner of what was once your rear garden, the thugs beat you bloody. They claim you are an 'insurgent' and thus their hostile enemy. To punish you, they subject you to tortures such as water-boarding, etc.

You don't understand why people are allowing the thugs to get away with it.

The thugs have become more callous and arrogant. They claim 'pre-emtive strike' provides them the power to do anything, to anyone at all, any time they damn well please.



[edit on 11-6-2007 by Dock6]

Excellent post Dock6, this was exactly what I was hoping for, people thinking about more than one point of view and discussing. A few questions I was hoping to have answered is "Who decides when a pre-emptive strike is warranted? What evidence/intelligence is required to make this decision? How would the US feel if another country (Say Russia or China) were getting a bit nervous about the US occupation of the ME and decided to pre-emptively strike US infrastructure in the area?(Justifying their actions based on past actions)"

Is there a set of rules that must be followed or can any chump rig an election and decide? Scary stuff in this day and age.....

[edit on 11-6-2007 by orthisguyoverhere]

In the example of Iran I would say when the evidence indicates only one possible intention.

I would also say when the pre-emptive use of force would have a deterrent effect or cause a debilitation of the threat.

In the case of Iran, you do not need to destroy the whole country nor occupy it.

You target the enrichment at Netanz and the reactor at Busher and this will set the Iranian nuclear threat back for another decade.

There would be other consequences naturally, but the outcome has to be measured against the risk of not acting.

The assumption that doing nothing will result in peace is wrong. That is Chamberlain's thinking.

If the Iranian nuclear program has moved into underground bunkers then occupation will be inevitable. The nuclear program on the surface IS for civilian power but the underground labs would contain the illegal weapons program. So, is there any other way? Negotiations? More sanctions? Tehran now has an underground command center based on its US and Russian counterparts. It is becoming increasingly difficult to pre-emptively cripple Iran. Destroying the reactors on the surface may not set back the nuclear program too far. I'd bet money they have an underground reactor or reactors. I have a feeling they may have learned that trick after the Israelis took out Saddams gear.

Dock6: Iraq and Iran are two different things. I have actually agreed several times that Iraq was mishandled, and seemed to lack planning. Whether there was or wasn't other motives behind it cannot be determined at this point. What can be determined is that prior to invading Iraq everyone from both parties had agreed that Iraq was an imminent danger and intelligence repeatedly confirmed they had WMD.

Iran is another story...this country DOES have the resources to create havok. And they are pushing an agenda against Israel and America...they have already spoke and soon they will be taking action on their words. They are determined to destroy Israel and America. The U.S. should look after itself and its own interests. Simply because Iraq did not go as planned does not give reason to dismiss Iran's consistent threats.

laiguana, I don't think we agree on much.

You describe Iraq as 'mishandled'. Most regard it as the culmination of a decades'-old plan by US politicians and Israeli thugs, finally put into action and beginning with the massacre of 3,000 innocents, described as 'terrorist attack' which served the masterminds in a number of ways, all of them evil and highly lucrative.

The 'intelligence' you refer to is not taken seriously by anyone, not even by those who tried to sell it as 'true' back in the day. Ritter was screaming to any journalist who'd listen, long prior to the consciousless 'war on terra', that Iraq did NOT have WMDs.

Once again, the gullible public, fanned by shill Ahmadinejad, is being assured that Iran --- to quote you:

'DOES have the resources to create havok. And they are pushing an agenda against Israel and America...they have already spoke and soon they will be taking action on their words. They are determined to destroy Israel and America

Determined to destroy Israel and America ? Really? You know this how? From the same whore media that convinced you that Iraq had WMD's ?

Have you ever stopped to consider *why* nations world-wide are arming themselves?

Has it occurred to you that Israel and it's puppet-clone and primary source of dollars --- the US --- have 'empire' ambitions? Have you read the history of the US's association with Mid-East nations *prior* to Bush 1 and Bush2 ? Were you aware that the US was supplying Saddam with the latest weaponry right up until (and some claim 'during') the US's claimed 'war on terror' launched against Iraq? Have you read the claims by those who were there, concerning the fact that US military were being shot at and killed by, US weapons recently supplied Saddam by the US?

And by odd coincidence, this echoes the Bush family's forked-tongue involvement in WW2, when Prescott Bush (Dubya's grandad) was supplying the Nazis with weaponry which was being shipped back to the US in the dead bodies of US military.

Sure, it would be SO nice if Life was like a movie. Where the bad guys wear black hats and the good-guys win and everyone gets to munch popcorn and go home feeling all warm and safe, knowing Good has triumphed over Evil.

Don't know about you, laiguana, but I stopped believing in such simplistic scripts when I was younger than ten years of age.

I agree -- the script-writers for Bush and his gang, and the War on Terra, and the transparently false lies about 9-11, and the childish rot practiced by shilll Ahmandinejad -- are on a level with those shoot-em-ups and flag-waving movies of the 50's. Probably penned by the same half-wits, when you think back to the 'Mission Accomplished' screenplay featuring the draft-dodging, padded-jockstrapped Dubya. Oh, and who could forget the leather-jacketed Dubya and his latex-turkey, there to hang out wid' da boys over there in smashed-to-bits Iraq? Sure, feed them faux-turkey as reward for raping, murdering and burning Iraqis as part of that Glorious Pre-emtive Strike Mentality.

Sorry. Not buying it. Didn't buy it back on 9-11 either. Don't buy Sylvester Stallone's fake muscles, don't buy Schwarztenegger's BS ---- don't watch ANY US-made situation comedy in fact.

For those who weren't aware, the US comprises less than 5% of the world's total population. Not 50%, not 25%, not even 10%. A mere 5%.

The politicians un-elected by that 5% of the world provide untold trillions to Israel out of US-taxpayers' pockets. Israelis/Khararian jews/Zionists or whichever term they prefer this week, have US politicians by the nose and are destroying the US population's quality of life and security by the hour.

They also own and control the whore media which feeds those US citizens it idespises the ridiculous 1950's-type screenplays which so many US citizens still wish to believe are 'the truth':- i.e., 'terrorist attacks', 'terrorists generally', 'the Commies' (themselves an invention of the zionists), ' Anthrax attacks' (remember those? Remember how Dubya ordered millions of doses of 'antidote' from his good Big Pharma buddies and companies in which he and his other buddies had shares), 'the Threat of North Korea', the ' Poor Israelis being 'suicide bombed' by those nasty Palestinians', etc. etc.

All good old fashioned entertainment, posing as 'latest news'. Enough to make you feel all virtuous and warm, isn't it, as you snuggle down in your comfortable living room and enjoy the 'news updates' of US bombings and destruction of Iraq. 'Make me a coffee too, honey', you call, as you sit rivetted before the screen, eyes devouring the sight of those huge-booted US military with their mighty tanks and sexy weaponry, blasting away at the mud houses of people who *just happen* to live on the other side of the world and who *just happen* to be the US's 'target' this month.

Just as long as YOU don't have to lose your air-conditioning and driving privileges, huh?

Pre-emptive strike is the name used by the slick jew-owned and controlled media when describing MURDER to couldn't-care-less US citizens (not ALL US citizens. The world is well aware that the US contains many people who are not in agreement with the current US government's empire-building-via-murder ambitions).

But there's another side to the coin. Always.

Those who condone 'pre-emptive strikes' cannot expect to receive sympathy when other nations follow the same strategy. And if the US proceeds with pre-emptive strikes against Iran, then the US can sit there and cop it sweet when the same pre-emptive strikes (using the same excuses) are launched against the US.

That's fair. We like 'fair', don't we ?

[edit on 12-6-2007 by Dock6]

There's not doubt that there are cover-ups in the realm of politics, but while you rant about our politicians and our system of government there is a legitimate threat growing. You assume that Ahmadinejad isn't being serious when he clearly conveys a message regarding the destruction of Israel and his blatant hatred of the U.S and ‘The West’ in general? As seen in these clips:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

When you see crowds of thousands gathered to chant "death to America" it sends a clear message. Iran's government is determined to 'annihilate' America. You can dive into a mass of conspiracy theories and you can spend a life time trying to trace the validity of each and every one of them…only to find that the majority are nothing, but rubbish with the sole purpose of pushing a preconceived agenda. People that are fixated on their hatred of President Bush fail to take notice when there's definite risk. Yet because these Bush-bashing crowds are determined to find everyway to tear into Bush, Republicans and the American government, to the point they will be willing to take side with terrorists and further their anti-America propaganda. Our conflict with Iran will happen now or later, it’s not a matter of –if– it will happen, but when. The confrontation is inevitable. Iran wants an Islamic rule, on a worldwide basis; this can easily be interpreted by the rhetoric that is spouted by their leaders. The U.S. should make it a priority to put Iran’s terrorist goals to an end.

Gee, I wonder why they hate us?

Couldn't have anything to do withe the fact that we've been screwing their country over for more than half a century?

That we overthrew a popular democratically elected government in 1953 because they had the nerve to assert that they owned their own oil?

The US shouldn't complain too much about the theocracy in Iran, awful as it may be, as we and the UK are pretty much directly responsible for it's ascendancy.

As far as Iran's "threats" against Israel, you know perfectly well that they are intentionally deceptive translations courtesy of MEMRI, an Israeli propaganda factory, as the fact has been pointed out on these forums dozens of times.

The supposed "genocidal threats" are in reality calls for "regime change" - again not something the US has a right to complain about, as we haven't been particularly shy about constantly calling for regime change in Iran.