Rectitude of preemptive strikes.

Sorry Gon, I can't answer your question, Saucy doesn't allow it.

A pre-emptive strike is an attack, there is no proof of any eminent attacks by the other nation, the whole point of it is to attack before anything has happened.

I don't think it can be justified, no matter how you go at it, either someone attacks or they don't, it's pretty much black and white.


To be afraid of something doesn't justify going on the offence against it, that is the kind of reasoning that leads radical groups to genocide and persecution.

Well i hate spiders yet i dont kill them i put them in a glass and throw them outside, if most nations talked instead of go to war most could be unnecessary, unless one nation is unreasonable then most likely a war will follow, like that dead spider that ran at me 
*STAMP   

I don't like the concept of pre-emptive attack, especially if you are the more powerful nation.

Yeah, because wars should be fought fairly.

It's not a matter of fairness. I just think that if there is a possibility war can be avoided, then it is less justifiable for a nation who has no chance of losing to begin the war, because it is rejecting the possibility for nobody to die when there is no major loss if they do not get the first strike. In other words, rejecting the best possible outcome when none of the negative outcomes would severely hinder the nation's ability to act or win the war. Thus, while I understand the reasoning, I do not like it.

...

. . .

...

I wish I lived in Utopia

It's not a matter of fairness. I just think that if there is a possibility war can be avoided, then it is less justifiable for a nation who has no chance of losing to begin the war, because it is rejecting the possibility for nobody to die when there is no major loss if they do not get the first strike. In other words, rejecting the best possible outcome when none of the negative outcomes would severely hinder the nation's ability to act or win the war. Thus, while I understand the reasoning, I do not like it.

Ah, I misinterpreted.

whats with the quote from me it was true what i said in context, i forgot why i put the spider part 

My point still stands.

Elegy

You have a Cobra on your bed on top of you, do you throw it off before it bites you, or wait until it does ?

If you know for sure a threat could turn into a real attack I think you have every right to do some thing about it...

I mean if some one points a gun at you, are you going to let them shoot you before you shoot them ?

I am not saying it's right all the time, I mean North Korea is no real threat, Iraq was no real threat... But say if Russia or Iran was to make threats empty or not, it would be a threat worth considering to silence.

If Terrorist plans are found in a strong hold showing dates and times and details, they should be acted on... There's all sort of counter meassures that will be looked at by the governments, and one in the forefront would be a preempitive strike... It's the one most likely to be the one that wins the votes.

Right or wrong it's going to happen, cuz it works... and if it works so well then why is it wrong...?

It happens all the time in hostage situations...

Weird, I agree.

Why is that weird?

May i ask, why should wars be fought fairly?

It's weird that I agree.
Also I agree with shadowdude, it's a fucking war not a game of checkers.

lol seriously wars shouldnt be fought fairly, if they were then why would we have so many trained soldier in iraq when we could just send a bunch of dogs to go blow them to shit.

Because that would make America/UK look like egotistical butchers when it comes to attacking weaker places........

 hey wait a minute 

It is life and reality not to fight fair. If you fight fair then you have more of a chance of life and reality not existing anymore. In the Army they taught me to always take the advantage whether it be the high ground, the more superior fire power, or even flanking the enemy. We are not in the 1800's where men stood in lines while they took pop shots at each other with thier muskets. Gentleman fighting no longer exists.

What I think this whole debate boils down to, and this is something that has plagued me since I could remember...

Why do people hate each other so much that they would want to rob people of the most precious thing in the world, thier life? I am not a Christian, I am not a theorist, I am not the smartest man alive, hell, I don't even have a College Degree (yet). But I feel I am one of a handful of people in the world who actually see that killing each other really dosn't do anything.

What I do think is that if PersonA is attacked by PersonB, then PersonA has the right to use enough force to stop PersonB, even if it boils down to using lethal force.

I think I am rambling...Ill stop. lol.

lol seriously wars shouldnt be fought fairly, if they were then why would we have so many trained soldier in iraq when we could just send a bunch of dogs to go blow them to shit.

Because that decreases our popularity and indeed, our effectiveness, even more than it already was. Raping Iraq would just worsen the situation.

Why do people hate each other so much that they would want to rob people of the most precious thing in the world, thier life?

Some times Taking some ones life before they take your own is the only option you have... Take for example the Guns at dawn in the cowboy days... Or if some one came at you with a Knife... Kill or be killed situations call for counter-action or pre-empitive action, self presivation should be parramount...

I don't think away of life or any abount of possesions is worth a human life... Just your own life should be valued over those that wish to endanger it.

Why do people hate each other so much that they would want to rob people of the most precious thing in the world, thier life?

Some times Taking some ones life before they take your own is the only option you have... Take for example the Guns at dawn in the cowboy days... Or if some one came at you with a Knife... Kill or be killed situations call for counter-action or pre-empitive action, self presivation should be parramount...

I don't think away of life or any abount of possesions is worth a human life... Just your own life should be valued over those that wish to endanger it.

Yep, thats exactly what I said, I just split it up into two segments. (very bottom paragraph of mine) What I am talking about are these terrorists that are willing to die or kill for a belief. You see these idiots on TV decapitating innocent reporters, unarmed soldiers, and civilians. I'm not trying to just single them out, we have criminals here in America that would kill not to go to jail, or because someone was born 4 blocks in the wrong direction. Its rediculous.

But I feel what Bush did, going into Iraq was the best thing at the time. I'm not saying it dosn't have its consequences now and in a perfect world there would have been a better way but this isn't a perfect world and America needed someone to blame...Iraq was there and to me Saddam needed to be taken out of power for the things we KNOW he did to his people.

America needed someone to blame

You could blame Bush, for not acting on intelligence given that plans would be hi-jacked, or the rate of reaction from ground control for the planes diverting off course... Iraq and saddam had no tie's to Bin Larden, apart from being Arabs...

Iraq was there and to me Saddam needed to be taken out of power for the things we KNOW he did to his people.

Law is the Law in his country... he made the law's and he governed them, who are we to take the deccision to over throw him ?... There are worst atrosities going on in the world.

I think Bush made the right decission on declaring a War on Terror, and taking out Saddam sent a message that America ment business, I just think Iraq was an easy target to boost confidence amoungst the public in the USA, they wanted blood for blood Bush gave it... I think the time for Bush to have acted was before the 911 attacks on the intelligence he had on Bin Larden.

You could blame Bush, for not acting on intelligence given that plans would be hi-jacked, or the rate of reaction from ground control for the planes diverting off course... Iraq and saddam had no tie's to Bin Larden, apart from being Arabs...

Law is the Law in his country... he made the law's and he governed them, who are we to take the deccision to over throw him ?... There are worst atrosities going on in the world.

I think Bush made the right decission on declaring a War on Terror, and taking out Saddam sent a message that America ment business, I just think Iraq was an easy target to boost confidence amoungst the public in the USA, they wanted blood for blood Bush gave it... I think the time for Bush to have acted was before the 911 attacks on the intelligence he had on Bin Larden.

Bush was not the one who decided to kill people, ground control didn't decide to turn airplanes into suicidal missiles. The people who decided to do these horrible acts are the people to blame. But thats not what I am talking about, I am talking about the goverments and tyrants who oppress thier people. I don't care who you are, I don't believe you should be able to take someones life (I don't even like the death penalty, but like I said, its not a perfect world).

Law is Law eh? So if I was Saddam and I found out that you were talking bad about me in my country, you know what I am going to do? Stick the bottom half of you in a wood chipper so you can feel the pain I felt when you said "I don't like Saddam". Then, so you don't bleed out before I have my last say, I am going to cauterize whats left of your bottom torso, laugh at your pain, and then stick you head first back into the wood chipper.

Yes, he did do that to people who tried to start an overthrow or did not show devout loyalty. Hell of a law ain't it?

Law is Law eh? So if I was Saddam and I found out that you were talking bad about me in my country, you know what I am going to do? Stick the bottom half of you in a wood chipper so you can feel the pain I felt when you said "I don't like Saddam". Then, so you don't bleed out before I have my last say, I am going to cauterize whats left of your bottom torso, laugh at your pain, and then stick you head first back into the wood chipper.

And it's SO much better there now... May be the wood chipper is what kept order to chaos there.
(And where did you hear such crap any way... He didn't himself go down and stick people in wood chippers)

Besides... The USA uses tourture even now:- http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/321015/all

But this is the wrong place to debate such things... Unless Saddam was only killing those who he deemed as wanting to kill him... If he showed he was weak he would have been over thrown, and killed him-self... Look what his country is like without him.

I don't think you realize that all of this was going on without our presence there. I am sure the insurgents still killed people without us there. The only difference between now and then are the IEDs and the gunfire in the streets, but 90% of that is aimed towards the American Soldiers and any Iraqi trying to make a difference within his country.

The worst thing to do right now would be to pull out just because we would leave the place in turmoil. I mean we have done some amazing things. This is a letter from SFC. Ray Reynolds to his family back home.

As I head off to Baghdad for the final weeks of my stay in Iraq, I wanted to say thanks to all of you who did not believe the media. They have done a very poor job of covering everything that has happened. I am sorry that I have not been able to visit all of you during my two week leave back home. And just so you can rest at night knowing something is happening in Iraq that is noteworthy, I thought I would pass this on to you. This is the list of things that has happened in Iraq recently: (Please share it with your friends and compare it to the version that your paper is producing.)

* Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations.
* School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.
* Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur.
* The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-loaded from ships faster.
* The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.
* Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.
* The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.
* 100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35% before the war.
* Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place.
* Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city.
* Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.
* Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.
* Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers.
* Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever
* Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs.
* An interim constitution has been signed.
* Girls are allowed to attend school.
* Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years.

Don't believe for one-second that these people do not want us there. I have met many, many people from Iraq that want us there, and in a bad way. They say they will never see the freedoms we talk about but they hope their children will. We are doing a good job in Iraq and I challenge anyone, anywhere to dispute me on these facts. So If you happen to run into John Kerry, be sure to give him my email address and send him to Denison, Iowa. This soldier will set him straight. If you are like me and very disgusted with how this period of rebuilding has been portrayed, email this to a friend and let them know there are good things happening.

Ray Reynolds, SFC Iowa Army National Guard
234th Signal Battalion

PS - Landofshadows, your a good debater and one of few I have seen that can keep facts straight and argue thier side without emotions getting into the mix.

PS - Landofshadows, your a good debater and one of few I have seen that can keep facts straight and argue thier side without emotions getting into the mix.

Ta...

All the above you mentioned have been gained from a Pr-emptive strike, I guess is what you are saying... But that's a matter of opinion... I don't think Saddam had any plans in attacking the USA... And there are leaders world over killing their own people and restricting them...

* Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations.

Yep thats Good... But then again how many kids has the conflict killed or put in hospital

* School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.

And how many kids don't go to school due to gun fire in the streets...

* Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur.

And how many schools are deemed too dangerous, and how many have been blown to bits...?

* The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-loaded from ships faster.

And does it reach the people, or does it go to the insergents ?

* The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.

And how many oild fields got burnt... and who now proffits largely from that sale ?

* Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.

They had water before... and if you mean those in the slum like area's they only get bottled water, they hae no clean wells or pumps as yet.

I could carry on but you get the point... the stats are one sided... It's a better way of life there, there is no fear from the rule... but now there are street wars, people are too scared to leave their own homes in most parts of Bagdad... They only help they are asking for is help shifting the dead bodies from day after day of street fighting between factions...

Pre-empitive strikes I think are only good if they cause less fall out or prevent loose of life... Could Saddam have killed this many people before he died...?

I am not sure... If he could have his wood chipper would have been running 24/7...LOL

This is a letter from SFC. Ray Reynolds to his family back home.

If this wasn't written by someone in the government then it was written by someone who strongly supports them.

Most countries can fight fair it is that Iraq as a country is on our side and so are others but it is just the minor terrorist groups that decide to fight unfairly because that is the best way to do what they desire to do without using alot of money

Someone is getting fed propaganda....

Iraq wants us out...they just need the money and the support so they suffer us there. There are more terrorists than there are military forces at the moment...minor terrorist groups my ass.

Alq...*gah forgot the spelling, the one Osama Binladen is apart of* that's a major one, World wide lately.