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.

 

United States Preemptive Strike imperative

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by GD
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?


Supposedly Catholic conservative are you?

Hummmm as long as the evil does are not Christians and close ties with you and your family I guess lets kill them all. Right?

Hummmm probably on another life you were one of the inquisition that committed atrocities in the name of the church and god.

How history calls the years of the inquisition now.?

You most be in same religious group as president killer bush.

I will like to be as a good catholic as you are.




[edit on 30-8-2004 by marg6043]




posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 06:35 AM
link   
you dont fight a hand full of people by invading entire countries!!



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Going to war to prevent war??
or Going to war to prevent TERRORISM on US"

Well, you might wanna do some research on what the IISS is saying (International Institure for Strategic Studies, considered the most important strategic thinktank in the world). 'Despite the loss of Afghanistan as a training ground for its recruits, Al Qaeda has “fully reconstituted, set its sights firmly on the USA and its closest Western allies in Europe and established a new and effective modus operandi that increasingly exploited local affiliates.”

so explain this: the more you "root out" terrorist organisations, the more people join these groups, so the more the US fights them, the stronger they get... looks like a nasty vicious circle to me



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by GD
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?


They'll look back at the US and how they supplied terrorists with weapons and funds and only realized how dangerous it was after being the target of terrorism themselves.

Read up on the Reagan Doctrine
The “Reagan Doctrine” was used to characterize the Reagan administration’s (1981-1988) policy of supporting anti-Communist insurgents wherever they might be.

The US supported the fighters in Afghanistan, Nicaragua and many other places.

The US also supported Kosovo insurgents in the 1990s.

The US helped overthrow the government of Iran in 1953:
Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran

The US helped to overthrow government of Guatemala in 1954:
CIA and Assassinations: The Guatemala 1954 Documents

In South Vietnam in 1963:
JFK and the Diem Coup

Brazil in 1964:
BRAZIL MARKS 40th ANNIVERSARY OF MILITARY COUP, DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS SHED LIGHT ON U.S. ROLE

In Chile in the 1970s:
Chile and the United States: Declassified Documents relating to the Military Coup, 1970-1976

There have been numerous other instances of US support for insurgents and for coups.


[edit on 30-8-2004 by AceOfBase]


GD

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by GD
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?


Supposedly Catholic conservative are you?

Hummmm as long as the evil does are not Christians and close ties with you and your family I guess lets kill them all. Right?

Hummmm probably on another life you were one of the inquisition that committed atrocities in the name of the church and god.

How history calls the years of the inquisition now.?

You most be in same religious group as president killer bush.

I will like to be as a good catholic as you are.




[edit on 30-8-2004 by marg6043]


Yes, of course. Not only do you liberals put your blinders on and ignore the cold hard facts of life, now one of you shows an anti catholic bias. I served to defend Kuwait. I fought along side Muslims in that liberation. Do not put words in my mouth to push your agenda of anti catholic bias and prejudice.


GD

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomashi
Going to war to prevent war??
or Going to war to prevent TERRORISM on US"

Well, you might wanna do some research on what the IISS is saying (International Institure for Strategic Studies, considered the most important strategic thinktank in the world). 'Despite the loss of Afghanistan as a training ground for its recruits, Al Qaeda has “fully reconstituted, set its sights firmly on the USA and its closest Western allies in Europe and established a new and effective modus operandi that increasingly exploited local affiliates.”


What do you want to do, let them destroy our way of life?
so explain this: the more you "root out" terrorist organisations, the more people join these groups, so the more the US fights them, the stronger they get... looks like a nasty vicious circle to me



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Firstly, I've learnt not to trust people who put their mood as 'patriotic'. Now onto the main argument.

The US is just using 'terrorism' as an excuse to conquer and occupy more and more countries. During the Cold War it was, 'we are invading to stop the communists' and now it is, 'we are invading to stop the terrorists'. The US's excuses for global domination always change don't they?

Secondly the US has commited more acts of terrorism and killed more innocent people than Al-Qaeda ever has and you could argue that the US is getting what it deserves and the universe is indeed balanced.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 11:08 AM
link   
I find it apalling that the US needs to kill and maim tens of thousands and invade sovereign countries just because of terrorism. Considering that for 30 years the UK put up with Republican/Loyalist terrorism and didnt bomb the crap out of Ulster did they? Or the Spanish? They don't roll into the Basque region with 100,000 troops, tanks and airplanes and destroy their way of life?

The only way to effectively deal with Terrorism is to sort out the root causes through dialogue and work for a common good, whilst at the same time using existing law enforcement to try and prevent/or capture those responsible. That is why in the UK we have one of the best anti-terrorism setups in the world.

The current American trend to "blow stuff up" (actual words of a US marine when he was asked why he was in Iraq,shown on BBc news,2003) is sure to backfire and will only breed more resentment.

Any "patriotic" American who insists on revenge is infantile, and completely blinkered as to why the terrorists have a problem with you. They are a manifestation of a wider swelling of distrust, fear and hatred felt for the US, due to self serving foreign policy and hypocritical double standards.

I can speak of personal expierience of no less than 10 bomb plots (my entire extended family,around 20-25 people, have served or serve in the UK armed forces), and the way we british dealt with it is far more mature, and far more rewarding in the long run, than the current "Them Vs Us" bollocks coming out of the White House. (By rewarding, you only have to look at the fact that the IRA is on the verge of disarming,and that Ulster is a prosperous peaceful place now)

[edit on 30-8-2004 by stumason]


GD

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
The only way to effectively deal with Terrorism is to sort out the root causes through dialogue and work for a common good, whilst at the same time using existing law enforcement to try and prevent/or capture those responsible. That is why in the UK we have one of the best anti-terrorism setups in the world.

[edit on 30-8-2004 by stumason]


Yeah, and car bombs still explode in Ulster- so it's worked real well. We will not let that happen here.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Do they really? Care to provide links? Or are you confused with Baghdad? I can think of one car bomb in the past 5 years, and that was down to gang related violence, between rival drug lords.

My point seems to have been entirely missed though..... We didnt go shooting up Ulster, and no one else goes killing civilians and invading countries just because of a Terrorist attack. You Americans are so easily led, and into something which has nothing to do with Terrorism!

We have a peace process, and yes there have been hiccups, but the violence has stopped and the terrorists are on the verge of disarming, because we have sorted out the root cause of the problem, rather than just blow s**t up!!

[edit on 30-8-2004 by stumason]



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GD

Originally posted by stumason
The only way to effectively deal with Terrorism is to sort out the root causes through dialogue and work for a common good, whilst at the same time using existing law enforcement to try and prevent/or capture those responsible. That is why in the UK we have one of the best anti-terrorism setups in the world.

[edit on 30-8-2004 by stumason]


Yeah, and car bombs still explode in Ulster- so it's worked real well. We will not let that happen here.


How many deaths would there have been on both sides if there had been a war in Ireland on the scale of the Iraq war?

You can't say the style of war on terror that the US is waging is the better solution yet.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 12:28 PM
link   
It is the worst solution....



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 12:32 PM
link   
ummm.... terror is a crime, and is fought accordingly. not via war. war, as we are seeing in iraq and afghanistan, only engenders more terror.

to think you can defeat terror through war (or "preemptive strikes") is just plain wrong. should the UK declare war on Ireland to solve the problem there? (Think about it... why is there an IRA in the first place?) Should Spain declare war on itself to root out ETA? And what country is left for Italy to declare war on to root out the Red Brigades? And when the US has conquered the last inch of soil on this Earth, what about home-grown terror?

why as americans are we not capable of solving problems without declaring war on them? wars on crime, wars on drugs, wars on cancer... really succesful undertakings, all.



-koji K.

[edit on 30-8-2004 by koji_K]

[edit on 30-8-2004 by koji_K]



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 12:34 PM
link   

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.
Wars will never vanish as long as humans run the planet. The human mind is warrior-like in nature. Thus like Saman from DXIW said, 'Military power will never vanish'. If military power will never vanish neither will wars.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Once more, via the theory of pre-emptive strike, we fall into the question of the War in Iraq, and once more the thread splits evenly into two camps. Fascinating.

AceofBase - Congrats on your research and thanks for the links you provided, friend! Now that is in-depth posting!


GD - You see, the big problem with the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes is two things.

A) It establishes a dangerous precedent where the United States can decide to invade any country on the grounds that it "may" become a threat, either because of terrorist activities, because of its weaponry or simply because its people are known to oppose the United States. Can you see how that can spiral out of control? The evidence for supposed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was everything but solid, and even today it's still being put in question. If a precedent is established for invading a country when evidence to back up the threat of that country isn't judged credible... you see where this is going?

B) If the United States can do it, other countries will feel they can do it too. Obviously, Israel may choose to conduct "pre-emptive strikes" against Jordan or Syria and occupy some of its territory to colonize it, and then say that those countries posed a threat to its security. Russia may decide to conduct a "pre-emptive strike" against Ukraine for the same reason. And China may conduct a "pre-emptive strike" against South Korea. Again, establishing precedents like this is dangerous.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 12:43 PM
link   
GD, the originator of this thread, is not a sophisticated person. He/she is a trigger happy "screw them all" type. A valid question "who exactly should the US attack" was never quite answered.

When asked "why did the US ivade Iraq", a person answers "because Iraq perpetrated 9/11" they clearly demonstrate utter lack of mental capacity. Yet I hear this argument (unfounded, of course) over and over from the likes of GD.

I agree with the British poster that it's quite instructive to hypothesize about Great Britain rolling tanks all over Ulster. It's ludicrous, but occupation of Iraw is even more so.

Somebody said that terrorism is tactics, not a nation. In that regard, "war on terror" is the same as "war against airplanes".




[edit on 30-8-2004 by Aelita]


GD

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   

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.


USS Cole

I am editing because I quoted the wrong thing. This is in regards to Al Qaida striking first.

[edit on 30-8-2004 by GD]



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 12:53 PM
link   

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?


Poorly perhaps but as only idiots are left still conflating war on Iraq with The War Against Terror (TWAT to use its most apt acronym), that is irrelevant to the discussion.

Attacking Iraq has - as we were warned by MI6 here and the CIA there - only served to increase the terrorist threat to US and UK interests. Attacking it so BADLY even more so.

I dont think you'll find many countries who dont support efforts to address the threat of international terrorism. You'll find plenty of countries though with leaderships and populations too intelligent to support US/UK imperialism in Iraq which merely hides behind the skirts of TWAT (like Bush hid behind the skirts of the Texas National Guard).



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.


This is indeed true but not only used 'Holy land' but also - as is a habit with the US military - stayed there when the job was finished.

Not a first action though, as pointed out earlier installing Saddam is a more valid starting point - or overthrowing Mossadeq in Iraq leading to the growth of fundamentalism there - or training 50,000 religious loons to fight in Afghanistan. All are FAR more relevant starting points to the current conflict than those offered up by the historically illiterate - US Cole, embassy bombings, yadda, yadda, yadda. Tens of thousands of Arabs had died with the help of US support in the region before these few lives were taken but ignorance is apparently bliss to some..



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Aelita - war against terrorism = war against airplanes... BRILLIANT!


Speaking of which... the United States has been successful in invading Iraq, occupying it for a year and fine-combing it to find WMDs... the US has also been very successful in holding Afghanistan. So please tell me... how come the mighty US Army hasn't been able - in three years - to capture its enemy #1, Osama bin Laden? Also, a few months ago, bin Laden's #2, Ayman al-Zawahri, was apparently cornered by Pakistani troops... but nothing happened and we never heard anything about his capture. I guess he escaped by a tunnel and outwitted the troops.


www.freerepublic.com...

Let's revise the facts:

1) 9/11 happens, Osama bin Laden is blamed
2) Afghanistan is invaded, Osama escapes
3) Iraq is invaded, Americans invoke 9/11 as a justification
4) Osama bin Laden, first seen as the author of 9/11, is still free

I smell a rat.


GD

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Do they really? Care to provide links? Or are you confused with Baghdad? I can think of one car bomb in the past 5 years, and that was down to gang related violence, between rival drug lords.
[edit on 30-8-2004 by stumason]


From www.pais.org...

History of conflict in Northern Ireland (or "Ulster") can be traced to the 17th century, but Northern Ireland's political separation from the rest of Ireland didn't come until the early 20th century, when Protestants and Catholics divided into two camps fighting over the issue of Irish home rule. More than 3,000 people have died as a result of this conflict, which has inspired violent acts of terrorism by the Irish Republican Army and Protestant paramilitary groups that continued into the 1990s.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join