Preemptive Strikes

What do you think of Bush's preemtive strike policy? Do you say 'About time!' or are you horrifyed? Do you beleve that the US has the right to take such actions? Why do you support/oppose this doctirne?



I personally think this is a big mistake. The US cannot deem it's self above international law, and violate other country's soverinty arbitarily beacuse we don't like what they are doing. Not only that, but the US military is just not equiped to do this job, as it would require massive numbers of troops to occupy contrys after we've 'changed thier regieme', and we just don't have the numbers.

 

There's a p missing, (not that I'm mister big on spelling )

However there are international presidents (one example is when Canada sank a US civilian ship), and techincally since Saddam never complied with the cease-fire, the gulf war never really offically ended.

 

Its PRE-EMPTIVE.

This is a tough one. We know that Saddam may or may not have a nuke already. If he doesn't...he is trying hard to get one. What would happen if Saddam got a nuke? One or more American cities would be a large hole in the ground.

Bush...aside from trying to get himself elected to a 2nd term, is going about it like this...

If we wait around and do nothing, Saddam can strike against us first. Should we take him out before he gets that opportunity? Or rely on negotiations?

America is truly "Damned if we do, damned if we don't"

But...we all know that control of the oil is the root of this matter, not freedom or anything noble like that.

 

It's spelled "preemptive".

And I think they're acceptable only if the threat is immminent.

 

I don't know if Saddam is really wanting to use a nuke on an American city as he is for wanting to use it to keep us frominvading.

When Pakistan and India were threatening each other India said it would not use its nukes as a first strike. Pakistan said it would since their conventional military is really bad. This gave India pause.

Saddam may want the same thing.

 

I personally think this is a big mistake. The US cannot deem it's self above international law, and violate other country's soverinty arbitarily beacuse we don't like what they are doing.

What's new?

Oh yeah, Bush

 

This is a tough one. We know that Saddam may or may not have a nuke already. If he doesn't...he is trying hard to get one. What would happen if Saddam got a nuke? One or more American cities would be a large hole in the ground.

This is laughable. Saddam would not use a nuclear weapon against America. It would be signing his own death certificate.

 

I really dont understand why people dont see it that way karde. Oh right the propoganda. Saddam is sooo crazy.

The man enjoys his power he enjoys running his country and most likely he enjoys the fact that his son will one day take over. Because of this he will not attack or give some other organization the means top attack america. He knows what will happen if such an attack were to occur.

 

Gutter_Monkey:

In this case, I have to think it is allowable - no, necessary - to hit first.

Saddam probably has some chemical and biological weapons. He does NOT have a nuke yet. I think that we need to hit now, before the cost of taking him out becomes much higher.

As Patrick Henry said on March 23, 1775, "The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come."

I'd rather we fight on our terms as opposed to Saddam's.

 

India and Pakistan have nukes. Why doesnt the US take them out.

 

I'd rather we fight on our terms as opposed to Saddam's.

What kind of reason is that for fighting a war.

 

Here's an interesting moral question I pose to all those in favor of a preemptive strike:

Saddam Hussein is a "potential" threat to the US (This is what our government heads are spouting). Therefore, we engage in preemptive strikes against Iraq, invading and seizing control of the government. During the siege, Hussein is killed, captured, or otherwise de-throwned.

But his son currently stands in line to the head of power. Does this then mean that he, too, is a current plausible threat to the US and that he, too, must be arrested, captured, and/or assassinated, even though he does not currently hold the power that would condemn him?

Logically, he is just as much a threat to the US as his father, as he stands to gain control of Iraq upon his father's death/retirement, and likely shares the same ideals.

 

Its laughable, Darth Karde, to think that Saddam will not fire a nuke at us.

Do you really want to to wait and find out?

You're forgetting...Its the dream of fanatical Islamists to die striking at the heart of the infidel....us!

We'll find out just how true to his words Saddam is if he gets a nuclear weapon.

I don't support Bush because the heart of his motives to strike first is so we don't lose all that oil.

 

first off Saddam is not a radical muslim. Secondly I have not seen any reason why Saddam would attack america.

 

India and Pakistan have nukes. Why doesnt the US take them out.

I don't believe either of the above countries publicly praised 9/11. Also neither of them have a state-sponsored appetite for revenge against the US.

I really dont understand why people dont see it that way karde. Oh right the propoganda. Saddam is sooo crazy.

The man enjoys his power he enjoys running his country and most likely he enjoys the fact that his son will one day take over. Because of this he will not attack or give some other organization the means top attack america. He knows what will happen if such an attack were to occur.

Why do people keep assigning rationality to this man, especially in the light of his irrational behavior? Saddam acts in his own interests, he does not answer to his people, he is a stupendous egotist.

Those who argue Saddam is too in love with being dictator of Iraq to ever upset the status quo are assigning a thought process to him that may be reasonable if you or I were in that position; but again I pose the question: why is the benefit of the doubt to be given to a power-hungry dictator's supposed mental stability?

Whether or not Saddam fits the psychological definition of insanity, I submit the man is mad as a hatter. And sitting on some pretty dangerous toys. The price of inaction may be just as high, if not higher than, the price of action.

Peace,

V-03

 

just glancing at the first post...

"The US cannot deem it's self above international law, and violate other country's soverinty arbitarily beacuse we don't like what they are doing."


Iraq's sovereignty rights are greatly constrained as a result of the cease fire agreements ending the Gulf War. Which they instigated.

The sovereignty angle is a poor one to take when talking about Iraq.

 

We know that Saddam may or may not have a nuke already.

 

Correct Sleazo!

Saddam is in fact NOT a radical muslum, nor a preticularly devout one. The fact that Islam is the offical state religion is lip service. Iraq is perhaps the most secular of all the Arab states, with the possible exseption of the UAE- I say this beacuse I don't know much about them, and don't want to diso**** the possiblity.



As Patrick Henry said on March 23, 1775, "The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come."

Applying a quote from before the revolutionary war to the current situation is false comparison. To compare the two is apples and oranges.

The revolutionary war was fought against taxation without representation and the oppressive presence of the Brittish Army, forceing civilans to house and feed them. That war was started beacuese a threat right here, right now. This war would be fought beacuse of a threat that may or may not exsist on the other side of the world.

Besides, how is Saddam going to deliver the nuke, even if he does get one? FedEx? He doesn't have missles with the range to hit the US. And he won't hit Iran, Saudi Arabi, or any of his other Arab nabhors beacuse then they'd allow the US to use thier bases for stageing points, something they won't do now. It is true that he CAN nuke Isriel, but he won't do that either, beacuse then the Israli Air Force would pound him back into the creater he crawled out of after Desert Storm. Also, the use of nukes for any reason would have severe political conisqueces, perhaps swaying Europe to support any US effort to remove him from power, and at the moment he's not about to do anything that would have that effect.

My big concern about this is that Bush is useing this for a way to get reelected. If he REALLY wanted Saddam gone, he would have let us forget about him, and Saddam would have quietly disapered- with the help of US SpecOps and Isreali assasins.

Someone said this may be about oil. Well, mabye, but not as much as it was during 91. This time it's about finishing what his daddy couldn't.


Good point Red-Seven. I suppose I should have made it clear, I am not concerned about the soverenty Iraq, but that of other countrys, and the precident of violation that this sets.

Oh, and thanks for all the spelling help.

 

There is a very great danger that if Bush goes ahead with this, other countries could use the same excuse to launch pre-emptive attacks against their enemies... Russia attacking Chechnia, or Pakistan and India attacking each other, for instance.

A very, very dangerous precedent.

Bush is a scary man to have as prez.

 

Wow, I bet NOONE has ever launched a pre-emptive attack before! It would be *sooooo* revolutionary.

 

There is a very great danger that if Bush goes ahead with this, other countries could use the same excuse to launch pre-emptive attacks against their enemies... Russia attacking Chechnia, or Pakistan and India attacking each other, for instance.

A very, very dangerous precedent.

Bush is a scary man to have as prez.

Oh please. Stop hating Bush simply because he is Bush. Im not terribly impressed with the guy. But you guys should step back and listen to yourselves.

Do you know how many Presidents have ordered an attack on a country without any aggression toward the US. Including Bill Clinton, GB1, Reagan, Kennedy...

All of them have and more.

It doesn't justify starting a war, but stop crucifying a person that is no different than others who have acted before him. There is no reason to single him out.

 

If the USA wants to remain in many people's minds as the good guys, they shouldn't launch pre-emptive strikes on any country.

 

Pre-emptive strikes can be legal under international law under the provision of self defense. Israel uses this alot.

E_S

 

A few points of common sense that Bush will never listen to anyway.

1. IT IS NOT SMART TO GO AGAINST ALMOST THE ENITRE CIVILIZED WORLD'S WISHES!!!

Bush has made it abudantly clear that he doesn't give a flying fig what the rest of the world says, he will go in if he damn well feels like it. Britian supports us in going in and that's it. Now consider for a moment, a few years down the line the US needs help [with Bush in charge it probably won't even take a few years] so Bush heads to the UN. They very rationally point out:
"You went against our wishes, you attacked without provacation or an act of war, and you said that you can pre-emptive strikes on anyone who gets in your way. Why should we help you?"

Oops.

2. LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WITH EXPERIANCE!!!

According to my latest issue of Newsweek there are around ten main players in the white house for each side of the debate. On the side of those who do not wish to go in six of the ten people have served in the millitary, including Colin Powell who is highly decorated as a soilder. On the side of those who want to go two of the ten have been in the service. Now I don't know about you but when the majorty of the people with millitary experiance are telling me not to invade I would listen to them instead of the paper pushers.

3. THINK AHEAD!!!

It is said that Sadaam has bio and chemical weapons. That seems like a fair assumption. For the sake of argument let us say that he has the ablity to somehow get one of these weapons right on our doorstep and detonate it. So why doesn't he?

Fear.

Saddam may be an evil bastard but he ain't stupid. He saw us bomb the ***t out of a country recently, and the message was clear "mess with the US and we blow you up real good". Saddam knows that if he tries ANYTHING we'll wipe Iraq off the map. However, if we attack this intimidation is gone. He would have nothing to lose and nothing to stop him from launching a weapon of mass destruction. As long as the anvil is hanging over his head Sadaam won't try anything, but the moment it dissapears he becomes very dangerous.

To qoute our old pal Tarkin:
"Fear will keep the local systems in order."

 

I agree with Pre-emptive strikes.

Food for thought if there had been a First strike on Hitler we could have saved what 35-40 MILLION people.