United States Preemptive Strike imperative

Yes, imperative.

We are compelled to act before evil doers act against us, and the other free nations of the world. We can no longer allow rouge nations to arm terrorists to attack us.

So years from now, after the war is won, how will history look back on those who did not support the Global War on Terror?

I've said it before and I'll say it again; A pre-emptive attack is like having sex with someone to keep your virginity. It doesn't work. Going to war to prevent war? There's still a war so you accomplished nothing. By staging pre-emptive strikes America is essentually commiting acts of terrorism. This is why the world hates the US right now.

Ok GD, what if we thought the same way during the Cold War???

How do you think that would have turned out?

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Ok GD, what if we thought the same way during the Cold War???

How do you think that would have turned out?

This is a differnt animal. We could see what the warsaw pact countries were up to. We could see mass military moves. We had diplmatic ties with them. Al Qaida is way differnt from the Cold War. We have to "root them out"

Then I would suggest we start with the biggest terrorists of them all, but should we give them a trial, or just hang them?

Originally posted by NotTooHappy
Going to war to prevent war?

you got it all wrong! It's...

"Going to war to prevent TERRORISM on US"

Originally posted by GD

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Ok GD, what if we thought the same way during the Cold War???

How do you think that would have turned out?

This is a differnt animal. We could see what the warsaw pact countries were up to. We could see mass military moves. We had diplmatic ties with them. Al Qaida is way differnt from the Cold War. We have to "root them out"

Fair enough, I can't say I know much about the politics surrounding the Cold War. It's a sticky situation though fighting an invisible enemy. And I'm not so convinced that Saddam was active in using terrorism against the US as he was against opposition within his country and within the Middle East. I still haven't seen evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction except for the herbicides which don't really do such, but that is a different subject entirely.

But anyway, not to deppreciate the value of your thread, but this just seems like another thread advocating the War in Iraq, and I can assure you there are plenty around here. Just as there are plenty for the vice versa. I guess its easier to start a new thread with fresh ideas than dwell in old ones, but you should take a look on the other threads out there anyway.

[edit on 29-8-2004 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by GD
So years from now, after the war is won, how will history look back on those who did not support the Global War on Terror?

History will show them to be the only sane people on the planet.

What if the terrorists were to commit pre-emptive strikes against the US. Attacking us before we attack them. Would that be alright with you? Attacking someone for what they might do doesn't make sence because, they haven't done anything. It's like arresting somebody for a crime they may commit.

Originally posted by NotTooHappy
What if the terrorists were to commit pre-emptive strikes against the US.

Did you just crawl out from under a rock? Have you heard of 9/11 or do you really believe that was carried out by the US government?

Yeah, I've heard of 9/11 and, no I don't think that the US government perpetrated it. But, how do you know that it wasn't just a preemptive strike against the US? We hadn't done anything to Al-Queda yet but, we might have eventually and to stop it they had to attack the US.

don't forget it didn't start with 9/11 - that was just the last straw. Ever heard of the bombing of the marine barracks, the USS Cole, the forst attack on the world trade center ect ectt ect.

The point I believe is trying to be made here is that in order to prevent, or at least make as hard as possable, another major terrorist attack, we must be on the offensive. The obvious place to start are those countries which allow terrorists to train, or those countries that in any way help/condone terrorists or terrorism.

It will also send a clear message to the leaders of countries around the world... "Don't allow terrorists to do anything in your country, or you will not be the leader for long." In most cases, the leaders don't want to give up their power (human nature is so predictable), so they will cut their ties with terrorists out of selfishness.

Originally posted by GD

We are compelled to act before evil doers act against us,

two questions:

who are [we] supposed to act[t]ack?

are you related to Rove or Rumsfeld?


*edit s3ppln

[edit on 30/8/2004 by PublicGadfly]

Pakistan: Nuclear capable, Dictatorship.
Saudi Arabia: Lord knows what all they are capable of, Osama's place of origin, Cruel, murdering and raping Dictatorship.
Israel: Nuclear Capable, Documented otrocities against ethnics in their own country and other nations, like 50 years of non compliance with numerous international resolutions, democracy.

Thats just 3 of the nations I can think, of the top of my head, the US has daily dealings with, that are 100x more dangerous then Iraq ever could be.

Fight the real enemy. War costs lives and loads of cash, don't let them goto waste to serve the needs of a nasty bug like Israel.

Originally posted by PublicGadfly

who are supposed to acctack?

May I suggest Rockall ?

Originally posted by NotTooHappy
I've said it before and I'll say it again; A pre-emptive attack is like having sex with someone to keep your virginity. It doesn't work. Going to war to prevent war?

There's still a war so you accomplished nothing. By staging pre-emptive strikes America is essentually commiting acts of terrorism. This is why the world hates the US right now.

Beside the point at this time. After the strike it is impossible to be "preemptive". Those who are the enemy are well known, those who assist, train, supply and finance the enemy are not hidden.

If, by preemptive, you mean acting before each upcoming assault, NTH, when are we supposed to strike? What you are referring to is capitulation, and I'm not in favor of that.

Originally posted by NotTooHappy
Yeah, I've heard of 9/11 and, no I don't think that the US government perpetrated it. But, how do you know that it wasn't just a preemptive strike against the US? We hadn't done anything to Al-Queda yet but, we might have eventually and to stop it they had to attack the US.

They had to stop the US attacking them because :

• WTC bombing
  
• African embassy bombings
  
• USS Cole
  

So come on, enough with this warped BS.

I think Bin Laden said he was attacking the USA because of the first Gulf war, when the USA forces where deployed near sacred places, so in his view, he was replying to a first action by the USA.

You seriously are suggesting that a terrorist attack that kills thousands and cost the nation billions was justified because of that? Especially considering the terrorist ilk will hide in their "holy sites", placing into jeapordy the site as well as any other people around, when their enemy is about to spank them? If that is so, if that is their defense, they have no defense. Neitehr do all the other groups and countries that have aided them.
The fact is, however, the war against the West was initiated long before then, this is just another part of the Jihad, that is all.

Violence: the supreme authority from which all other authority derives...
Naked force has resloved more issues than anything else in history.

Starship Troopers



[edit on 30-8-2004 by rustiswordz]