Bernie Sanders. Worse than Isis?

a reply to: buster2010

Your off topic.

You spit out a lie and leave me to disprove it. I don't play your games.

The bottom line is everything you say about Bush and Cheney , you make Sanders and the rest of the left culpable as well by their support and non-action. it is the only proof needed that your full of s**t

a reply to: nwtrucker

Says the chicken hawk.....cluck cluck cluck



You steared the conversation this way now you cant handle it so your trying to cover yourself.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
We will keep the right of pre-emption thank you very much, oh biased one...oops sorry , oh , brilliant one....

The right of pre-emption is such a joke, if that applies to the US then it also applies to every other country and group. That means preemptively attacking the US is automatically justified which means 9/11 among other things was a perfectly legal action.

If the US has the right to invade another country on the grounds of what it might do in the future, Russia reserves that same right to invade us, just incase.

a reply to: Aazadan

Exactly. Why should we fetter ourselves and let them do as they please?

a reply to: Aazadan

Look, do you really believe the option for a pre-emptive strike isn't already written up by the military? That that scenario hasn't been looked at six ways from Sunday? That it wouldn't be implemented if ordered by the president??

We've already seen, at least in movies, where the nuclear option is used in the U.S. to prevent an infectious disease spreading, aliens and predators...LOL, ...seriously. That option is very likely in existence as we speak. It's 'legality' not with standing.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Aazadan
We've already seen, at least in movies, where the nuclear option is used in the U.S. to prevent an infectious disease spreading, aliens and predators...LOL, ...seriously. That option is very likely in existence as we speak. It's 'legality' not with standing.

Are you seriously arguing that because something exists in the movies then it must exist in real life?

a reply to: crazyewok

I wish you had a fraction of the cojones you think you have....

a reply to: nwtrucker

I would suggest to you that you give up.
This thread was a flop. For very good reasons.

But, that's just my two-cents worth of immaterial advice that you did not ask for nor solicit.

Just saying.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Aazadan

Look, do you really believe the option for a pre-emptive strike isn't already written up by the military? That that scenario hasn't been looked at six ways from Sunday? That it wouldn't be implemented if ordered by the president??

We've already seen, at least in movies, where the nuclear option is used in the U.S. to prevent an infectious disease spreading, aliens and predators...LOL, ...seriously. That option is very likely in existence as we speak. It's 'legality' not with standing.

Those are movies, they're fictional. While the Pentagon does have contingency plans for every circumstance written up, including preemptive attacks on just about everyone, what it comes down to is the willingness to implement those plans. Their job is to be prepared for everything, that doesn't mean we're supposed to go bomb some random Middle Eastern country because a terrorist might be born there some day. The US and every government for that matter has a lot of plans it's their whole job, I can guarantee you for example that there is a plan written up to spread a biological weapon through your local water system. That doesn't mean the government is going to do it, and it doesn't mean they would be right to do so.

a reply to: Aazadan

Of course. You make my point.

Here you have a Brit poster who almost invariably takes a thread off topic and interjects his hubris of when and where the U.S. should or should not engage in war on an obsessive repetition for literally years.

First, the decision process isn't a popularity process with agenda driven individuals across the pond.

There is, obviously, theoretical points where preemption would be valid and ethical. It is also obvious that individuals not constrained by any consideration of ethics would have no restraint from preemption whatsoever.

Add in the potential power of today's weaponry and I wouldn't vote for any leader that would not, at least, consider the option of a preemptive strike. A leader that would not and publicly stated as much would be disqualified by my standards.

Anyone who would amend the Constitution as suggested by this apparent enemy of the U.S. of A. would be mistaken.

Once again, elect the right people, those that hold the Constitution above isms. All isms. There is no deterrence like "all options are on the table" when one desires peace.....

a reply to: Aazadan

Let's end this with this question, let's assume a preemptive attack is planned on the U.S. by parties unknown but from a known site within the current mess that is the ME. Who would you rather have as your President? Obama or Bush?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Well bush knew about 911 soooo.

Obama would probably at least drone the site, I mean he does it for less then that.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Yah. I would rather have Obama too with his drones. George would have to wait for God or Cheney to tell him what to do.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Assertions made without proof can be dismissed without proof...sooo....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Aazadan

Let's end this with this question, let's assume a preemptive attack is planned on the U.S. by parties unknown but from a known site within the current mess that is the ME. Who would you rather have as your President? Obama or Bush?

Is rather have teddy Roosevelt

End of the day if people in the EM were planning a direct strike then Us action would be consistutional under tha

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Aazadan

Let's end this with this question, let's assume a preemptive attack is planned on the U.S. by parties unknown but from a known site within the current mess that is the ME. Who would you rather have as your President? Obama or Bush?

This scenario comes up time and again, the whole ticking time bomb scenario where we have to torture someone in order to get information on an imminent threat. It's so prevalent that Supreme Court Justice Roberts thought Jack Bauer was a real person that really took those actions to prevent a terrorist attack on US soil.

Here's the problem with your scenario. If they're planning an attack it means they likely have sleeper agents to carry it out. Those agents aren't going to be in the ME base, and even if they are... they're unknown agents, you have no ability to know if you've hit them in a strike. These organizations act mostly as decentralized groups so that an attack on one section doesn't impact any other group. Obama would likely drone the site, Bush would likely send troops on the ground (but to be fair, drones weren't as advanced under his term). Neither would actually prevent the attack.

In such a situation your best chance to prevent the attack is to watch points of entry and try to pick up communications intelligence from the main body to the cell. You get this intelligence in several ways:
1. Spy on their communications.
2. Befriend locals.
3. Background checks at points of entry.
4. Analysis of spending habits domestically.

To take an example that actually happened lets look at Bin Laden. If we had been drone striking Pakistan do you think someone close to him would have turned him in?

Also if we're just using the metric of a preemptive attack being planned, but no imminent threat of it happening I should inform you that the US government isn't the only one that makes plans. Every government has plans to attack every other government. The first wave of such an attack these days is cyber weapons which are cheap, plentiful, and easy to acquire. Every nation has these things aimed at every other nations infrastructure which balances out the ability to project force.

a reply to: Aazadan

Not any argument from me on that post.

Perhaps I'm a tad more honest about the potential of that scenario- and the rhetoric behind it- due to it giving possible pause to those that might otherwise push right up to that so-called Constitutional limit.

Clarify one point for me here, are you in favor of a Constitutional restriction-over and above what's already in place- in regards to a preemptive action?

a reply to: nwtrucker

I am. Presidential powers to commit troops on a whim have been expanded too much in previous decades. What we have today is a situation where Congress has effectively abandoned their duty to declare war and commit troops and placed it on the executive branch. A preemptive attack is the sort of thing that should only be brought about through a political consensus as it's less likely to be abused.

a reply to: Aazadan

Congress already has the Constitutional right to wage war. A Constitutional restriction on preemptive war would also restrict Congress as well. That would remove any option to preemptive strikes....

An exercise in futility...