It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

McCain Won't Rule Out Pre-Emptive War

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Did I say you hate America? I must have missed it....I also love once again how people here say they are 100% correct and nobody else is. Perfect forum to do that!

I wouldn't vote for Obama or Clinton if my life depended on it. I think the problem here lies deeper than this.

How many here believe that Osama was responsible for 9/11?

And by the way, I have a good amount of education, you do not know me, what I do for work, or anything else. So do not sit here from another country and insultingly call me ignorant. I did not insult you but obviously you have to drop down to that level.



[edit on 9-4-2008 by Comsence2075]

[edit on 9-4-2008 by Comsence2075]




posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Comsence2075

I understsand your reasoning 100%. But the qoute says, ""If someone is about to launch a weapon that would devastate America."

If someone is really about to launch a weapon, I would hope we do something to prevent it. Iraq was not even close to being about to launch anything.


So, whose word do we take for it that someone is 'ABOUT' to launch a weapon? The government's? Or their 'official' agencies? Umm...after all the LIES they have told, how could anyone believe anything that they have to say?


Then there is the problem with pre-emption, at least I have a BIG problem with it.

Now I'm not saying that I would do this to you, but humor me here, o.k.

Say we were both standing on the street and you raised your hand, but I some how got the idea you were 'about' to hit me, so I hit you first...pre-emptively. However, all you had intended to do was scratch your head.

One cannot strike out because of what one thinks is about to happen. You need much more solid of a reason to act against another then that.

It's the same thing if considering attacking a country because you think something is 'about' to happen.

That's simply not good enough.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Parabol
I have a problem with it because that's exactly what they said about Iraq. They had WMD's and were a threat to America because of their ties to Al Qaeda. Both of which were admitted to being false. The idea of pre-emptive war is for dictators and despots. People are building arms and tension against us because of our actions. If we weren't so concerned with snuffing out anything that disagrees with us maybe certain people wouldn't have a reason to hate us.


One of the more foolish and naive posts I've ever read. Did you get that from a recent sociology lecture?

Worse, you would have the U.S. give up the right and responsibility to its citizens to preemptively (only if necessary) defend itself?

And that part about the rest of the world being armed only because of the U.S.? Another example of the revisionist history drivel that passes for education these days.

Like I said, foolish and naive ...




posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowEyes

Say we were both standing on the street and you raised your hand, but I some how got the idea you were 'about' to hit me, so I hit you first...pre-emptively. However, all you had intended to do was scratch your head.

One cannot strike out because of what one thinks is about to happen. You need much more solid of a reason to act against another then that.

It's the same thing if considering attacking a country because you think something is 'about' to happen.

That's simply not good enough.


So, to you perhaps millions of people (nuclear attack as an example) would have to die before you could say I guess they mean us harm - even if all the prior signs pointed to the attack? There must be millions of real examples of what can happen in the history of the world to counter your grossly simplistic head scratching scenario.

With views like this, please do not ever run for political office in the U.S. or any other democracy. The lives of more people are possibly at stake than you can pretend were lost in the iraq war.

[edit on 4/9/2008 by centurion1211]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SoundFX

I think the problem lies in the way we were fear mongered into Iraq with the WMD's, Al Qaeda in Iraq, etc, etc. Then there is no accountability for the lies, and false intel we were given.

So how are we to trust McCain where anytime something comes up we just play the WMD card and invade some random country and then give no proof of said WMD's?



McCain has gone to great lengths to distance himself from Bush. I think the OP is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

It is common sense, if you could prevent yourself from being shot, by taking the first shot, would preemption be a bad thing still?



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Parabol
 


OMG! The leader of Iran said the same thing, almost word for word, " If America pre-emptively Awe's to Shock my country..."

Wow! I guess leaders really are expected to protect their people, culture and interests from outside aggressors.

I'm sure glad I found the internet, because now I can read and see things from everybodies point of view.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

So, to you perhaps millions of people (nuclear attack as an example) would have to die before you could say I guess they mean us harm - even if all the prior signs pointed to the attack? There must be millions of real examples of what can happen in the history of the world to counter your grossly simplistic head scratching scenario.

I agree with this....to a point.
If there are sign that there will be an attack, nuclear or otherwise, I think they should make DAMN sure the 'signs' are accurate and well read before jumping in. I think shadoweyes has the right idea in that you shouldn't retaliate (or pretaliate if thats a word) on a hunch. If however the 'head scratcher' in the analogy has a history of being an agressor and there was prior conflict between the two, the pre-emtive strike would be if not correct at least somewhat justafiable.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Next time you call me foolish and naive, I'd ask that you provide some information to explain why. I have work today but I'll be back for an explanation later.

EDIT: I mean my explanation of what I said earlier.

[edit on 10-4-2008 by Parabol]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
No world leader would rule out pre-emptive war. Ever. The very fact that a reporter asked this question is just lib spin. Blah, crap. I wish at least the left could figure out how to play the spin game. The dems suck at it
This is why the dems are going to loose the election. They forgot how to win them.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   
I think we have to start being alert. I am watching Fox News with Sheppard Smith and when they have the General on what his voice was saying didn't match up with his mouth movement, did anyone see this?

I think they are using the Japanese Godzilla technique.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   
More Americans have died in Iraq than died on 9/11/2001 and 100X as many Iraqis have died than Americans on 9/11, and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or posed any threat whatsoever to the United States. Premptive war is insane. Is it the logic that your neighbor has a weapon in his home and he might use it to hurt you or your family so you have the right to go over and kill him first because he said if your dog urinates on his lawn again he is gonna shoot you? Right...tell that one to law enforcement when they arrive.

BushCo lied right through their teeth to get this war happening. I remember the intelligence not being wrong. The intelligence I remember was warning Bush before the State of the Union speech to not make the case for yellow cake because it was wrong. He did it anyway because it furthered their agenda and got the public lathered up for revenge.

What lies has Obama told? I don't recall those. I know Hillary has been caught in more "political embellishments" but they are hardly lies of the scope and nature that the neocons have been dealing out the last 7.5 years. They are more the type of crap someone says to get elected. I deplore it but it hardly equal to the lies of the Republican party. Yes ALMOST the whole Republican party. Most of them have tried to back Bush up and spew the same lies and rationalizations and fear mechanics, we have been smothered in for 7.5 years.

McCain is a war hero and should be respected as such but he can hardly even function. He obviously has no idea at all of what is going on in Iraq. (Al-Quida is a #e group?...Iran is training Al-Quida and sending them into Iraq?) He makes these same mistakes over and over again. He doesn't have any idea what he is talking about, it is painfully obvious. I sure hope you reconsider voting for this stooge even if he is a war hero. He is just parroting the same ole rhetoric that the BushCo has been using for the last 7.5 years.

Lord above man, what has to happen for some to see what these chaps are up to? No bid contracts, personal wealth rocketing through the ceiling, caught in outright lies and they have people focused and worried that some single mother is going to get food stamps to feed her children? With the money they have already blown on a war with a country that is/was no threat to us they could have had health insurance for every person in the US. YET THEY ARE STILL REFUSING TO STOP THE WAR against these people. I promise you they will continue to drain every drop of revenue they can until they are shown the door or completely collapse the US economy.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   


Well it is going to be tough for you to swallow when he wins...and he will win.


What an arrogant statement but amusing nonetheless, and for reasons that would not flatter the person who stated it.

This whole pre-emptive doctrine is luciferian and 99.9% of the people who go along with it and peddle it have no idea that it is and how dangerous it is. If mutual assured destruction will not keep WMD from being used, then NOTHING will. Many luminaries from the past understand this. As horrible as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, a VERY important precedent was set and has kept things in check well. But going into territory I feel most of you will not be able to discern, this is also a -spiritual- battle that can't be won by conventional means. You can NOT defeat a supernatural enemy with natural force. To attempt to do so is nothing but a path of judgement.

Go ahead and vote pre-emptive doctrine. You are voting your own destruction.


[edit on 10-4-2008 by ViewFromTheStars]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Comsence2075
"If someone is about to launch a weapon that would devastate America, or have the capability to do so, obviously, you would have to act immediately in defense of this nation's national security interests."


I have no problem with this.

I DO have a problem with any potential POTUS who says that he/she wouldn't launch a pre-emptive strike in order to safeguard us.



[edit on 4/10/2008 by FlyersFan]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars


Well it is going to be tough for you to swallow when he wins...and he will win.


What an arrogant statement but amusing nonetheless, and for reasons that would not flatter the person who stated it.

This whole pre-emptive doctrine is luciferian and 99.9% of the people who go along with it and peddle it have no idea that it is and how dangerous it is. If mutual assured destruction will not keep WMD from being used, then NOTHING will. Many luminaries from the past understand this. As horrible as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, a VERY important precedent was set and has kept things in check well. But going into territory I feel most of you will not be able to discern, this is also a -spiritual- battle that can't be won by conventional means. You can NOT defeat a supernatural enemy with natural force. To attempt to do so is nothing but a path of judgement.

Go ahead and vote pre-emptive doctrine. You are voting your own destruction.


[edit on 10-4-2008 by ViewFromTheStars]


Wow, please don't get into "spiritual" battles. You keep fighting your spiritual battle voting for people that will not even vote against partial birth abortions. Good Luck


And I don't know how stating (in my opinion) that McCain will will the election is arrogant. Obama has almost no experience and they are destroying themselves. McCain is laughing right through it. Lets check back on this thread come January.


[edit on 10-4-2008 by Comsence2075]

[edit on 10-4-2008 by Comsence2075]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Comsence2075
"If someone is about to launch a weapon that would devastate America, or have the capability to do so, obviously, you would have to act immediately in defense of this nation's national security interests."


I have no problem with this.

I DO have a problem with any potential POTUS who says that he/she wouldn't launch a pre-emptive strike in order to safeguard us.



[edit on 4/10/2008 by FlyersFan]



Good to see there are sane Americans left in the world that don't think all republicans are part of a secret satan group to destroy makind.

Liberals will get a quick awakening should we quicky pull out of Iraq. They will be heroes for a while until terrorists have an endless training ground and free reign.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Comsence2075
Good to see there are sane Americans left in the world that don't think all republicans are part of a secret satan group to destroy makind.


You haven't been here long ... I'm not a left-winger.

And Comsence .. it's the DEMS that are the secret satanic group that wants to destroy mankind .. well .. America anyways.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Comsence2075
Good to see there are sane Americans left in the world that don't think all republicans are part of a secret satan group to destroy makind.


You haven't been here long ... I'm not a left-winger.

And Comsence .. it's the DEMS that are the secret satanic group that wants to destroy mankind .. well .. America anyways.


Well I was just pointing it out because even if I ask questions on a thread, people lash out and label me instead of answering the questions at hand. "Deny ignorance," does not seem possible to me when people will not look at anything except from a very FAR leftist view.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   
In a nation that is worry about economical problems and foreclosing McCain is using the wrong rhetoric to win the harts and minds of the American people, wars and pre empty ones are the last thing that Americans wants right now.

He is nothing more than a Dinosaur and just like his counterpart the dinos he belong in extinction.

He can say anything he wants but the only way he will win the presidency is by the help of the Republican friendly voting machines.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by observe50
 


Could you look for a video or something for us to see if at all possible?



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Watching from north of the border, it is most interesting to see how the Bush/Cheney team have managed to arrogate all the power they wanted in order to create a unitary Executive that is not bound by the Constitution in the least.

This all-powerful Executive has a predisposition to warfare just as the Legislature has a predisposition to avoid warfare.

McCain is merely another placeholder at the top ... a sort of Queen figurehead. The real power bosses aren't to be seen in the flashing lights of the paparazzi.

Pre-emptive war is a Nazi doctrine. Those who hold it are happy to pitch out the carefully nuanced Just War paradigm. Since it is a Nazi doctrine, I am not surprised that the Bush family embrace the idea. But I am surprised by how many U.S. citizens are happy to uncritically embrace a Nazi doctrine like Pre-emptive Warfare.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join