<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...I believe it was a preemptive strike to eliminate any current or future threat of Sadaam...he was a threat to Israel, other Arab neighbors, the world's oil supply and his own people...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
"Thank you fellow citizens, God bless America"
"Thank you fellow citizens, God bless America"
I believe in preemptive strikes as well...
...I just don't think most people understand what that means. Hard to imagine how anyone could be against preemptive strikes.
Please understand though that preemptive actions presuppose that there is an imminent/urgent danger i.e. we are about to be attacked.
That's why the Iraq war had nothing to do with preemption. Many people confuse this with 'preventive' action i.e. Iraq may decide to attack to us so let's get them first. And legitimizing preventive wars is a slippery slope.
...I just don't think most people understand what that means. Hard to imagine how anyone could be against preemptive strikes.
Please understand though that preemptive actions presuppose that there is an imminent/urgent danger i.e. we are about to be attacked.
That's why the Iraq war had nothing to do with preemption. Many people confuse this with 'preventive' action i.e. Iraq may decide to attack to us so let's get them first. And legitimizing preventive wars is a slippery slope.
d2,
If you could, please define "imminent/urgent danger" much more specifically in the context of pre-emptive military action.
For example, we know it is a given that the 9-11 attacks were hatched and organized in camps in Afghanistan, so at what point would it have been acceptable under your paradigm of pre-emption would it have been corect for the US to invade Afghanistan to prevent the Al-Qiada attack on 9-11?
For what it is worth, in my opinion, I believe that the US should have given the Taliban an ultimatum to hand over Bin Laden & Co. just after the USS Cole was bombed in October of 2000. Had they refused, I believe the US would have been justified in invading in order to prevent future attcks on the US and its interests. Agree, disagree? Reasons?
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
If you could, please define "imminent/urgent danger" much more specifically in the context of pre-emptive military action.
For example, we know it is a given that the 9-11 attacks were hatched and organized in camps in Afghanistan, so at what point would it have been acceptable under your paradigm of pre-emption would it have been corect for the US to invade Afghanistan to prevent the Al-Qiada attack on 9-11?
For what it is worth, in my opinion, I believe that the US should have given the Taliban an ultimatum to hand over Bin Laden & Co. just after the USS Cole was bombed in October of 2000. Had they refused, I believe the US would have been justified in invading in order to prevent future attcks on the US and its interests. Agree, disagree? Reasons?
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
So you would have given the Taliban an ultimatum (like Bush gave to Saddam last March) even before the 9-11 attack and would have definitely invaded had they not complied (which of course they wouldn't have)?
What if the UN disapproved of the ultimatum?
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
What if the UN disapproved of the ultimatum?
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
I just saw the video. That "auto-range" feature is awesome, works like a f*cking charm.
Those three gentleman that were bagged were doing something they shouldn't have been doing, so what's the problem with it? It's a war zone and U.S. troops are taking on fire everyday. Was that pilot supposed to wait for those 3 guys to launch their surface-to-air missle at him first before taking action? Give them the benefit of a doubt, maybe? Get real.
Those three gentleman that were bagged were doing something they shouldn't have been doing, so what's the problem with it? It's a war zone and U.S. troops are taking on fire everyday. Was that pilot supposed to wait for those 3 guys to launch their surface-to-air missle at him first before taking action? Give them the benefit of a doubt, maybe? Get real.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Floyd Gondolli:
So you would have given the Taliban an ultimatum (like Bush gave to Saddam last March) even before the 9-11 attack and would have definitely invaded had they not complied (which of course they wouldn't have)?
What if the UN disapproved of the ultimatum?
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
NOT like Bush gave Saddam. Thee were inspectors doing their job in Iraq when Bush gave an ultimatum. If Afghan would have complied the way Iraq did then an invasion would not have been needed.
So you would have given the Taliban an ultimatum (like Bush gave to Saddam last March) even before the 9-11 attack and would have definitely invaded had they not complied (which of course they wouldn't have)?
What if the UN disapproved of the ultimatum?
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
NOT like Bush gave Saddam. Thee were inspectors doing their job in Iraq when Bush gave an ultimatum. If Afghan would have complied the way Iraq did then an invasion would not have been needed.
No, you're dodging again.
I will rephrase:
So you would have given the Taliban an ultimatum to hand over a specific list of Al-Qaida (Bin Laden, Khalid Sheik Mohammad etc.) even before the 9-11 attack and would have definitely invaded had they not complied (which of course they wouldn't have)?
What if the UN disapproved of the ultimatum (which of course they would have)?
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
I will rephrase:
So you would have given the Taliban an ultimatum to hand over a specific list of Al-Qaida (Bin Laden, Khalid Sheik Mohammad etc.) even before the 9-11 attack and would have definitely invaded had they not complied (which of course they wouldn't have)?
What if the UN disapproved of the ultimatum (which of course they would have)?
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
For sake of argument lets say it was the same plan Rumsfeld and Franks ran in the fall of 2001 (heavy bombing followed by a small amount of ground troops working with the Northern Alliance).
-- No UN approval (ie. "Unilateral").
-- No specific "imminent" threat.
-- 9-11 hasn't occurred yet.
-- Some civilian casualties unavoidable.
You would still have favored an ultimatum followed by an attack after the Cole was bombed?
Not to badger you, but I think this is the kind of question that should be posed to each of the Democrat candidates because they could very likely face a similar choice involving another country (say Syria or Lebanon as an example) if they become President.
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
-- No UN approval (ie. "Unilateral").
-- No specific "imminent" threat.
-- 9-11 hasn't occurred yet.
-- Some civilian casualties unavoidable.
You would still have favored an ultimatum followed by an attack after the Cole was bombed?
Not to badger you, but I think this is the kind of question that should be posed to each of the Democrat candidates because they could very likely face a similar choice involving another country (say Syria or Lebanon as an example) if they become President.
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
