| Do you believe that Bush's pre-emptive strike strategy is a good strategy in the long term for America and its future relationships with other countries? | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Total Votes : 15 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 112
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:54 am Post subject: | |
|
okay, so now that we have a loose definition of what a terrorist is now for the next question. Should the U.S. ever support terrorists and their causes in any situation?
P.S. i know the question on the surface might sound very simple but think and re-read the question a few times. Ahriman |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 7:15 am Post subject: | |
| BG, Goodfella, USA... keep it on topic. | |
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 2110
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 7:49 am Post subject: | |||
Me thinks we're through with the BS anyways, slek. Thanks! 
|
|||
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 56
Location: southeast
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 12:32 pm Post subject: | |||
I understand the slippery slope you're setting up here, but I'll bite for the fun of it. We have little choice in how one group responds to another. Some are up front, some fight fire with fire. I do not believe we condone a terrorist style response in any case, but that doesn't excuse us from the need to help when one side is clearly due that help. Reguardless of what we do or who we help, some will always condem us. Our ability to respond directly as we did in Afganistan and Iraq is looked upon by some as terroristic, I don't agree. If you have a fear of waking a sleeping bear by hurting his cub, that doesn't mean the bear is practising terrorism. |
|||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 422
Location: Woosta
| Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2004 8:16 am Post subject: | |||
ok slek. this is your site, so we kinda have to respect you for that. but you're not from the usa. you're from canade, where everything is fucking perfect. where prostitution is legal, and where people can drink at 18.........god i love that country. what was my point again? |
|||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2004 4:08 pm Post subject: | |
|
What other countries think of us is not what should be driving our national security. Most of those countries rely on the USA to provide security to them in the first place and, if threatened, would be at the head of the line of those looking to us for defense and a handout. Saddam was a dictator that needed to be removed for the benefit of the entire world.
Please tell me. Other than other like-minded dictators and Saddam's loyalists whom he pampered and were swimming in his riches, is there ANYONE else in the world who is sorry to see him gone? I think not and therein lies the answer to the original question. Footsoldier |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2004 11:24 am Post subject: | |||
No. Speaking generally, preemptive behaviour boils down to a presumption. Even in the absence of reasonable doubt, presumptions, like assumptions, can be incorrect. Like its predecessor, English Common Law, US law recognizes that innocence prevails over the presumption of guilt. The value of such a perspective is self-evident. Any preemptive strategy, by nature, is an attempt to prevent a presumed future event. The future, by nature, can only be predicted. It cannot be known. A prediction based upon a presumption bears even less probability than the prerequisite presumption itself. Preemptive strike strategies bear too great a cost, in both lives and property, to justify ignoring even the smallest margin of doubt intrinsic to predictions and presumptions. The relative nature of presumptions also provides for a dangerous precedent should more nations take up the practice. Specific to the US, preemptive strike strategies are wholly hypocritical in light of the rights, freedoms, and protections afforded its citizens and embody the polar-opposite of the ideology that has sought for, fought for, and provided those rights, freedoms, and protections. At the risk of taking the topic into tinfoil-hat-land, a logical, though more personal, extension to preemptive strike strategies are thought crimes. |
|||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2004 1:41 pm Post subject: | |
|
sleK.....What happened in Iraq hardly qualifies as "preemptive".
1.) We warned for weeks that we would invade if Saddam didn't follow the UN resolutions, agreements that HE originally agreed to but wouldn't follow. 2.) President Bush went to the United Nations and spoke to the world (including the Iraqi delegation) about what would happen if the resolutions weren't adhered to. 3.) The US Congress PUBLICALLY voted overwhelmingly to authorize the President to go into Iraq. 4.) The world press printed this likelihood at nauseum. The entire world knew what we were going to do if he didnt' comply. For a better definition of preemptive, let me suggest the Japanese and their bombing of Pearl Harbor. Footie |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 933
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2004 3:01 pm Post subject: | |
|
The attack on Iraq was planned even before George W. Bush became president, regardless of whether Iraq complied with any resolutions or not. The Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz dream team was focused on regime change and nothing else.
So no, it was definitely not preemptive and it's way too early to judge its beefits/detriments IMHO. |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2004 11:10 pm Post subject: | |||
Uhh... I didn't say anything about Iraq. Nevertheless, it's interesting that you jump to defense of the invasion. Guilty conscience perhaps? 
|
|||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2004 12:13 am Post subject: | |||||
Are you aware of any other "strike" that GW Bush has been involved in? It went without saying you were referring to Iraq. If not Iraq, then who? "Footie" |
|||||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2004 12:45 am Post subject: | |||||||
That's irrelevant to the original question. Note that the question is about the strategy not a specific implementation of the strategy.
(emphasis added) You presumed that I was referring to Iraq. Ironic hey?
If you read my post again, you'll see that I was, and I quote, "speaking generally". A fitting example of the intrinsic ability of presumptions to be incorrect.
|
|||||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:00 am Post subject: | |
|
sleK.... me thinks we're mincing words here. Bush does not have a "strategy" that fits all situations. If that were the case, we'd have already had a "preemptive strike" on North Korea.
I believe Bush's strategy that WAS implemented in Iraq was arrived at after careful consideration of the options available for that situation. It was the right thing to do in the case of Iraq. It remains to be seen what the right decision is dealing with other evil dictators. I'll say this. Saddam Hussein is no longer in power and is in captivity. Sounds like a successful strategy to me.... IF, of course it is a strategy. 
Footie |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:09 am Post subject: | |
|
That's all fine and dandy Footsoldier, but it doesn't address the original question.
Perhaps you could tell us how preemptive strikes are good in the long term especially in regard to relations with other countries. |
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:21 am Post subject: | |
|
Preemptive strikes are appropriate when evidence shows we are in danger (immediate or reasonably soon) of being attacked or harmed by another nation.
In the case of Iraq, (which I've already stated was NOT a preemptive strike because the entire world knew we were coming), it would have been appropriate if intelligence told us Saddam had WMD, or the capability of getting them quickly. Two things to remember in regards to Saddam: 1.) He killed thousands of his own people. He'd never think twice about harming the United States or our citizens. 2.) While no WMD have been found to date, it is folly to think he never had them, or access to them. As far as other situations are concerned, if the intelligence evidence reflects North Korea is an immediate threat to our national security, a preemptive strike is appropriate. The alternatives to an immediate threat are unacceptable. We simply cannot allow ourselves to be attacked before we respond. Times have changed. The tactics of our enemies have changed. We must change our defense measures accordingly. Hopefully, you will find this an acceptable answer to your question. Footsoldier |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 933
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:52 am Post subject: | |
|
In the words of the man himself (kinda goes to show the man's state of mind really):
"... we prepared for our future in the past and in the future we will prepare for the past" - G.W. Bush ... and for proof, you should have come to Canada's PM at the time : "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." - Jean Chretien (former PM, Canada) |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2004 2:36 am Post subject: | |||||||||||||
Not so. I could tell my mother that I'm going to punch my brother in the nose because I heard that he had said that he was going to give me a noogie when he got home. Even after telling my mother, if I punch my brother in the nose before he gives me a noogie, it's a preemptive strike. Whether I tell my mother or the whole neighbourhood, I acted first on a presumption of his actions.
It's interesting that you feel the need to continually justify the invasion even when it's not topical.
How would you quantify "immediate"?
A response indicates that you've already been attacked. Preemptive strike strategies are intended to prevent such attacks. A more accurate revision of your statement would be:
This, of course, presents a number of difficulties. Some of which I outlined in my original post.
Preemptive strikes are an offensive tactic. To continue with the "brother" analogy: if, upon hearing about my brothers intentions, I wait by the door for him to come in and then, when he does, pop him one on the nose, I have assumed an offensive stance. My brother, and his bloodied nose, would be on the defense no matter what the accuracy of my presumptions. |
|||||||||||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2004 3:06 am Post subject: | |
|
You see sleK, you and I see the same event completely different. You viewed our actions with Iraq and an offensive tactic, while I view them as defensive.
We WERE attacked on 9/11 by a preemptive strike. There are clear links to tie Saddam Hussein to the attack, in addition to the threat Saddam already was to the region and to the world. We have to reevaluate what we're willing to do in today's reality. What worked the past 50 years just may not work today. Are you suggesting we just wait around for the next 9/11 to happen before we take any action.... offensive or defensive? "Footie" |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2004 3:53 am Post subject: | |
|
Why do you keep bringing up Iraq?
I've made it a point to address exactly what you've said. It'd be nice if you'd show the same courtesy. Continuing to raise straw men in defense of some point I've not made is rather odd behaviour don't you think? Is it safe for me to presume that you're incapable of addressing and sticking to the topic? The evidence suggests so. Would I be justified in issuing a preemptive ban intended to prevent you from driving potential discussions in the future off-topic? By your rationale, yes. |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2004 6:24 am Post subject: | |
| Maybye we can take this a slightly different direction. Is it moral to wait for an attack when one has the means of preventing it? | |
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2004 7:33 am Post subject: | |||
As morals are relative your question has no real application within the context of the topic. You could try and argue for, or against, preemptive strikes from a moral perspective but the implications of such actions deserve, IMO at least, a more pragmatic approach. |
|||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2004 12:40 pm Post subject: | |
|
slek, I NEVER waivered off topic. You raised a question about Bush's preemptive strike strategy, which more than implies it deals with Iraq. If it's not about Iraq sleK, then please tell me of other strikes the Bush Administration initiated that maybe I'm unaware of.
I continue to use Iraq because it's the only event that has actually occurred I can talk about that is even close to your topic question. I don't know what the strategy would be when it comes to hypothetical situations. I suspect his approach would depend on the circumstances. Ok... let me state that in general, I believe there is a place in our national defense plan for a preemptive offensive strike but it should ONLY be used because our national security has been, or is being threatened. Why don't you try addressing some of my specific positions I've taken on real issues that have really happened instead of pointing out each time YOU believe I waver off topic. Your threat of a ban means NOTHING to me. I had a life long before anyone thought of starting Retail-Worker.com and I will have one long after either I, or it, is gone. It's your site so you can do as you please. I think I do offer alternative views much of the time but I do try to be constructive in my opinions. If that meets your criteria for banning, then ban away my friend. Just curious, is that your practice, to ban someone who doesn't always align with your way of thinking? Footsoldier |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2004 7:27 pm Post subject: | |||||||||||||
No. Besides the fact that I've already addressed your presumption, preemptive strike strategies have nothing to do with Iraq. Please read the opening question again and tell us where it mentions Iraq.
Addressed previously.
Are you incapable of discussing a topic generally?
Yeah, you said that already. It still doesn't address the original question though.
Because they're not on topic.
That's nice. Apparently you can't distinguish a threat from a hypothetical question. Irony++ |
|||||||||||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:42 am Post subject: Re: Is Bush's pre-emptive strike a good thing ? | |||
I went back to the original question that ahriman asked. It is above. Based on this question, my answer is this: Since Bush has not issued a preemptive strike on any country, it is fair to state that he really doesn't have a P.S. strategy in place, or at least one that we know about. Answer: He has not indicated he has such a policy so this question cannot be answered yet. Next? Footie |
|||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2004 1:02 am Post subject: | |||||||
As addressed previously, this is false.
From GwB's Independance Day Speech:
Not waiting == preemptive. You'll also note that, contrary to your opinion, GwB understands that preemptive action is offensive. |
|||||||