Something just occured to me. We have now said that we feel justified, nay, compelled to attack any nation which realistically pose a threat to us in the future. Think about that for a second, and then let this sink in: We are therefore compelled and justified to attack every other nation on earth who thinks the same way. Logically, every other nation must see us as a potential threat; we have the most power, we have shown a willingness to attack other nations irrespective of what the world thinks, we have the mose WMDs, we have used them in the past. We have said that we will see any potential rival to our status as supreme military and economic power as a threat. As such every other nation can do one of two things; live in the hope that we will never see them as a threat, and content themselves with never seeking to gain enough military or economic power to make us feel threatened, or adopt the same attitude and see us as a realistic potential threat. Now reverse this...knowing that there are the two options open to every other nation on earth, we don't even need to know that any one has chosen the second...merely the possibility that they will see us as a potantial threat, given our attitude of pre-emption, therefore means that they stand as a potential threat. Having identified them as a potential threat, we can either A) Allow them to gain the power to realize their threat, or to attack us through less overt means, or B) Attack them. 9-11 has not altered this one simple fact: pre-emption is the path of the expansionist for the simple reason that the power nation adopting it cannot permit any other nation to do the same. As soon as another nation does the same, it becomes a threat. Yaken to it's extreme, logically, a nation which starts on the road of pre-emption has made a potential enemy of every other nation on earth.
Great point, MacBeth. By attacking without provocation, we have created parallels between us and every other nation that has gone down that road. Germany did it in WWII and Iraq did it in Kuwait. While we have not engaged in the evil acts which defined Hitler and Saddam, we have attacked and occupied a nation that was not able to threaten us directly. We have gone against a UN treaty and defied the rest of the world and relied on faulty intelligence to do it. I can only imagine the reaction of the rest of the world should Bush get reelected.
actually. the most famous/successful example of "pre-emption" in war in the 20th Century is: PEARL HARBOR Comforting to find such familiarities between Tojo and Bush... Actually, Israel in the Six Day War wasn't too shabby either.
No, we acknowledged the "little facts" that made Saddam (and Hitler, and Tojo) different from us. You still cannot dispute the fact that Bush and company have just done something that those men also did.
I disagree. I see two problems with your logic. First you are are assuming that US is only intrested in Pre-empting a threat militarily. There are numerous other ways in dealing with potential threats which the present administration is pursuing to prempt threats. A nation chooses the method it feels best to achieve its goals. The military is only one option Secodly, I would say the US would only attempt to pre-empt realistic threats. Therefore, I would expect other nations following this doctrine to do the same. The US is not a realistic threat to the majority of the nations of the world. In fact we have alliances, trade relationships, or positive contacts with the vast majority of the world's nations. I would say the fact that other nations maintain relationships such as these with us undercut the proposition that they see us as realistic threats needing military pre-emption. I do agree that you are going to, however, that you are going to logical extremes.
Logically, if you start your argument with the presumtion that we wear the white hats, you will likely conclude, after much thought, that we wear the white hats. For exampe. please counter all the conclusions of the entire U.S. intelligence community in the NIE repport, and define for me how Iraq was a "realistic" threat to the U.S.
Who said that? We attacked Iraq for a varity of reasons. This being ONE of them. Another being that they never did the things they were suppose to do as a resolution to the first Desert Storm war. Add to that the support Saddam gave to terrorists. Add to that the masacres commited in Saddams name to the people of Iraq (the sole reason we went into previous wars). There are a lot of other nations that pose a far greater threat to the US then Iraq. If your statement is true that we would have first attacked Saudi Arabia, China, India, Iran, Pakastan, North Korea etc. The rest of what you write is nonsense because your theory is incorrect.
It seems that you are operating under the assumption that Iraq posing a possible military threat to us was the only thing that lead to war. Talk about faulty reasoning. There are quite a few other nations that would deserve out attention long before Iraq if threat to the US was the only criteria. Mexico, Canada, Russia, England, and France to name a few. Obviously there were other factors in deciding that Iraq was a legitimate target for our armed forces. The left likes to argue against the straw man of WMD, but it is not really the position of most of us that unaccounted for WMD was the only compelling reason for war.
Dont forget the following preemptive wars the United States has participted in since its inception. The war of 1812 was the result of a dispute with Great Britian of the imprisonment of soldiers. The US invasion of Panama in 1989 The invasion of Granada in 1983. The Iran-Iraq war The Cuban Bay of Pigs Spanish-American war. Historians generally agree that the sinking of the Maine was US sabotage, intended to whip up popular support for the war. Vietnam was certainly preemptive (some argue that the Gulf of Tonkin was staged by the US military - I don't have evidence either way - sorry) Vietnam was a "police action", until military officers were killed, and JFK was assasinated.
Im been a rockets fan for years, although Im new to this side of the clutchcity bbs. Is it a mostly liberal crowd?.
