Posted: 2/8/2003 10:25:20 PM EDT
|
Disclaimer: I am not being critical of the present administration's foreign policy. I am just bouncing an idea around with my peers here on Ar15.com If the United States changes its foreign policy to a strategy of preemptive strikes, especially one that is unilateral in nature, would this be justification for other nations to do the same. For example...we end the diplomatic nature of the our relationship with Iraq and remove its present leader. Our justification being a preemptive strike to protect our country from being a target of W.M.D. In turn, North Korea, seing the threat of force against its own internal interests launches a massive invasion into S. Korea, justified as a preemptive strike to protect their country from attacks based in S. Korea. I am not going to speculate what the results of that would be...other than most likely WWIII if nukes were not involved. Of course...this is all hypothetical but based on the theory that first strikes in order to protect your own interests and sovereinity will be condoned internationally. Any Thoughts? Very Respectfully, Travis |
|
Dangerous question to ask on this board... I'm going to have to agree that a pre-emptive strike is definately a gutsy and dangerous line to walk. Let me Play Devils Advocate ( No, not the member ) for a second here and turn this question on it's head. Suppose you were a member of a non-US friendly nation that was fed it's news via government filters, that skewed reality to promote it's own aims. Your hated enemy ( in this example, the US ) bombs a country near you for no apparent reason. This country has ties to your own and your filtered media portrays this country's leader as a great man. Wouldn't you be willing to reactively, pre-emptively attack your enemy because of percieved baseless aggression? ( I know, awkward wording. ) Who knows who could be next? Your filtered media is telling you that the enemy is planning to move on to other countries in the area soon. It's actually very scary. Who knows how much REAL unbiased news any of us are recieving? We all know how the new biases on Gun Control Issues. What gets selectively edited out that may or may not matter to the average person. Don't think news filtering only happens in other countries. We get it here too. Theirs by the government, our by massive news conglomerates. This message courtesy of AOL/TIME/WARNER, because we know whats good for you. [:D] - Nw - |
|
I figured it would be a dangerous question to ask on this board. However...it is thought provoking. The point about News Media was excellent. News whether labeled as conservative or the more common liberal type is nothing more than paid entertainment. The papers and networks will say almost anything that will raise their ratings or increase their circulation which in turn brings in more money. The valid question still remains for others to comment on. Is PUBLICLY having a preemptive strike policy a wise course of action to protect US interests at home and abroad or is it a policy that potentially brings more danger than it deters? Thanks for the answers so far...keep'em coming! |
|
The biases in the "mainstream" news media outlets is one reason I rarely watch them. The best way to get your information is from multiple sources and filter those sources against each other. "Truth", in most cases is subjective, but seeing events from multiple viewpoints gives one a "truer" picture. That's where the Internet comes into its own (and some countries try so hard to block or filter content). I’m going to have hang an antenna and dig out my shortwave receiver again. The Net does a pretty good job on delivering information but it’s informative to actually HEAR what is being said by the respective countries. Sometimes puts things in a different light. As for the question at hand, in this day and age there is no way NOT to have any major policy a matter of public record. There are times when you must go it alone and there are times when you need to do things cooperatively. Gulf War I was a great example of teamwork. This time around I believe there is too much, let’s all hold hands, sing Kumbaya and everything will get better. BULLSHIT. Letting Iraq simmer for a few more years will not make the problem go away. Somewhere in the future Saddam will run out of time and we could have another North Korea on our hands. The last thing that we need is an unstable Iraq sitting next door to Israel and major oil reserves. As much as I’d like to sit back and let Iraq do something really stupid with his WMD’s and be able say “I told you so!” to all the sheep, that outcome is far worse than what may come of our actions. There are still evil people and regimes out there despite what all the NWO, one-worlder’s, liberals and socialists try and tell us. Too many people are removed from history and have no real concept of what evil men can do. As the one remaining superpower we have a responsibility to use that power for not only our own direct benefit but for those peoples and nations that hold the same core values. |
|
Pre-emptive strike? How about a policy of "Kill at least 1000 americans so I can then be justifiably pissed" Any country that refuses to have a policy of pre-emptive strike is publically saying "I will do nothing to protect the lives of our citizens" Find me the first politician to denounce pre-emptive strikes and I will flay them alive. Countries will do whatever they want in their own self-interest. All the other countries are bitching about our policy simply because they don't have the means to pull it off. Our enemies will attack us whenever they feel like it, regardless of reason or circumstance. Why should we abandon the initiative to these fucking arab pieces of shit? |
|
I fail to see how this is "pre-emptive" at all. The Iraqis signed a cease fire that required them to relinquish all weapons of mass destruction. Through the last 12 years Hussein has done [i]just enough[/i] to keep from being attacked. He has been pushing the limits for years and finally resolved to expel the inspectors (I know he didn't actually kick them out, but he wouldn't let them do their jobs) in 1998. War after years of failure to comply with sanctions despite all kinds of economic restrictions is not "pre-emptive" in the least little bit. I think you guys are just starting to believe the tripe that is being peddled by the leftists to avoid dealing with this problem to maintain the myth of "peace and prosperity" for a few more years. |
|
Here's your problem: past precedents we have set or supported, or actions with which we have been involved even if we wre not in at the start. Combine that with the very important comments above about filtered news. Admit that our news is filtered; and, if we see the problem with reporting of subjects we know, think about the bias and distortion of past items we cannot verify. Add in a bias which has been inculcated by the education establishment, deriving from the victors writing history and leaving out a few important items. That's a recipe for a real problem. It has happened in the past, but is not even looked at as a good lesson in what can happen. I will not touch specifics so as to avoid the subject going off on a tangent, and a flame-war resulting from the brainwashing of some. It has all happened in the past, and only the last century, at that. We need to look at the forces around us. Not really talking armies, but the various competing and hostile groups. A small trigger is all that is needed. An action, otherwise justifiable in itself, and certainly justifiable in other's minds if THEY were taking it, could set off a chain of events based on these competitive hostile issues and intertwined alliances, which would have the most serious consequences. |
|
Lately I have often thought of two past presidents - Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman. Both of these fellas had to make tough decisions when "popularity" wouldn't/couldn't be their concern. Sometimes, leaders have to do what is right and accept the consequences. Harry said it best when he stated that "there are probably a thousand other people who could do this job better than me but, by God, I am the one here now [I had to paraphrase some due to forgetting the actual words]". I think Bush sees the problems ahead and, even it takes an unpopular war to resolve it, refuses to leave it for someone else to deal with. I have had a belly full of administrations making decisions based upon polls. I think that there would be 3,000 more Americans alive today if that hadn't been the case. Leaders are to LEAD! I'm not too concerned with France or South Africa's opinion - much less any desire they would have for a pre-emptive strike based upon our "precedent". As much as the world hates to recognize it, might, sometimes, does make right. |