The US intend to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iraq if they do not disarm their Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Many people here on this board and elswehere have argued that such a course is entirely 'justifed'.

Consequently, I must ask whether Iraq - or any other country for that matter - would be 'justified' in launching a pre-emptive strike against America.

Any thoughts?

I doubt many people will say that a similar attack on the United States would be justified, but I would disagree with them. I'm sure it would be reasoned out over all kinds of nationalistic nonsense about how we're the better people; they need us to be global enforcers, they want us to be the global enforcers; they don't really have a choice 'cause we're calling the shots.
"We're GI Joes! International heroes!"
Naturally, Shrub and the administration has justified the strategy of pre-emption as what's best for American interests...


The Pit-falls of Pre-emption by Will Marshall

Yet, while leaders of rogue nations may perhaps be willing to gamble with the lives of their people, and with the wealth of their nations, would they really risk their own lives and power by directly attacking the United States?
It's easy to demonize dictators and label them as crazy. I believe, however, that it would be better to acknowledge them as the eccentric, power-hungry people they really are. Labelling them as crazy is grossly underestimating them. They aren't in power to ruin the world like some Saturday morning cartoon... they're in power to enjoy a power trip; enjoy controlling the lives of so many. They can't do this dead. They know this.
I think the greatest risk run by our new policy of pre-emption is one that casts a less-than-flattering light on aging Uncle Sam.
The Bush administration has warned that "leaders of rogue states more willing to take risks, gambling with the lives of their people, and the wealth of their nations." But I have a question for them:
How willing are WE to take risks, gambling with the lives of OTHER people, and the wealth of OTHER nations?"
Unfortunately, our past seems to show that we're more than willing to gamble with the lives of others and with the wealth of other nations. We gotten pretty good at it during the Cold War and have gems like Osama to show for it. And while we've been sure to point the finger at the horrors inflicted upon the Iraqi people by Saddam Hussein, we make sure nobody can be heard protesting the harsh sanctions that have claimed the lives of so many more.
So, would any other country be justified in launching a pre-emptive attack against the United States? I say YES. Our government is increasingly showing that we're willing to play puppeteer with any nation that slows or stands in the way of "American interests." We know we are the top dog and we don't want anybody, friendly or otherwise, to catch up. We're taking an increasingly unilateral approach to international affairs and people don't like it. The administration's willingness to pull the strings of other nations for their amusement and American benefit is enough to warrant action from soveriegn nations who find themselves on the receiving end of our foreign policy.
Please note, I place the blame on this administration, for coming up with the policy, and on previous administrations whose actions have progressively led to it. I don't think the American people, on average, agree with policies such as this and doubt even more if they'd like to be on the receiving end of such a policy. Other nation's have a legitimate reason to feel threatened by the United States due to our government, and I think it a shame that should somebody pre-emptively attack the U.S. it is the American people who would suffer the most.

For all of George Bush's talk to pre-emptive attack, I don't think Iraq is a good example.

Iraq has been in violation of UN resolutions for 12 years. Saddam signs agreements and then breaks them indiscriminately. His word as a bargaining partner cannot be trusted.

We know that he had WMDs at the end of the Gulf War. Resolution after resolutin has told him to destroy this arsenal. He says that he has, but can offer no proof. It's bogus, we know he is lying, the international community of nations knows that he is lying. Read Resolution 1441, it SAYS that he is lying.

The Gulf War was a retaliation for Iraq's attack on Kuwait. It was not pre-emptive on our part. Iraq signed a cease fire, in which it agreed to numerous conditions, including getting rid of certain conventional weapons and all WMDs. He has failed to comply.

This action will be a continuation of the Gulf War, not a new conflict. Iraq was a threat in 1991 and remains a threat in 2003. The "pre-emptive" doctrine only applies here because we WILL disarm him before he can attack anyone or proliferate his WMDs. It is not pre-emptive like a suprise attack.

I seriously doubt that war will ever be the first choice of US policy. I can't see a US leader saying "these guys are dangerous, lets just waste them and ask questions later." It is not like that in Iraq, and it will not be that way in Iran or North Korea.

The pre-emptive doctrine, like publicly testing huge weapons, is a technique intended to announce that the US is serious about defending itself. The policy under George Bush will not be the appeasement policies of Bill Clinton. I think that speech was giving notice to the world that the US attitude towards threats has changed, so tailor your actions appropriately.

As far as another country performing a pre-emptive strike against the US : if you feel the US is an UNPROVOKED threat AND if attacking the US first will reduce casualties on both sides AND you would attack a military target (not civilians or government officials), then go ahead. I wouldn't advise it, however.

I swear I don't mean to be so verbose in my posts... I'm trying as best I can to cut back with childish analogies...
Amlord, I'm going to propose a situation and I want you to help me resolve it.
I'm back in high school, chewing gum against the rules in class one day when the teacher catches me. The teacher tells me to get rid of it immediately. Unfortunately, the teacher is distracted for a moment immediately after issuing this command.
It is during this brief moment that I swallow the gum.
But, wouldn't you know it? The teacher missed it. He wants to know where the gum is. I tell him I already swallowed it. Where's the proof? I can't help him. How does he know I didn't wrap it back up and stash it so that I can continue chewing gum in the next class?
I've swallowed the gum, but I can't prove it to my teacher. Yet, somehow, in spite of the facts and without looking (though in this case it would take more extreme measures than an inspections team) the teacher just knows I still have that piece of gum.
Working with the potentially misguided assumption that Saddam did destroy the weapons in question, what evidence is he going to offer? The only way we can get evidence one way or another is to prove he still has the weapons -- something we haven't yet done.
Sure, Bush and administration officials say we have evidence, but we aren't presenting it to the international community or to the inspectors, who could bolster our case for action immediately in the face of such proof.
So, whether he knows it's coming or not, why pre-emptively attack when we haven't yet supported our reasoning (disarmament)? And I guess I'm going to have to urge people to read this thing wherever I go, but the document that gave birth to the policy of pre-emptive attack already suggested that the need to do so in the Middle East and on the international stage transcended the regime of Saddam Hussein. You can find the report in the Publications and Reports section at Project for a New American Century. It's the Research Strategies document, drawn up by people including, but not limited to, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.
Considering the document is the blueprint behind our National Security Strategy and called for action in the Middle East regardless of Saddam's regime back in 2000, I'd say the pre-emptive strike policy is misguided and dangerous. And I still support that this combined with an already oppressive foreign policy only encourages other nations to consider the possibility of pre-emptively striking the United States, no matter what repercussions it might bring to their country.

Amlord, Thank you.....I'm glad at least one other person here realizes the conditions of the 1991 cease fire agreement have been violated....numerous times, thereby nullifying all this talk of preemption.

edited to delete last paragraph...I went off topic

I fall back on an "eye for an eye" mentality here. I don't see justification in launching a war and killing people over failed cooperation. Punishment is warranted but war seems a bit excessive when other measures can be taken (ie: destruction of the Al Samoud missiles by bulldozers)

I have nothing else to offer about this on this thread as it doesn't pertain to other nations launching pre-emptive strikes against America.

As I did point out in my last post though, the policy of pre-emption extends to before the terrorist threat and outlines the policy to be enforced throught the Middle East and other locales in spite of Saddam's rule in Iraq.

I see this as arbitrary and dangerous. Who gets to decide at each turn what makes a nation a "potential threat" to America? We have, after all, attacked nations for taxing American corporations within their borders. It is this kind of policy that will put the fear of American unilateralism (imperialism if you prefer) into foriegn nations and give them a reason to consider policies of pre-emption themselves.

And if we are to continue acting so brashly, I can't say that they won't be justified in doing so.

You bet. If Saddam and some of his homies want to step up, and attack the US, they are more than welcome to.

Will they succeed? hhhhhheeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllll no. But they have a soverign(there's that word again) right to try.

Or, if Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran or Turkey want to march into Baghdad and protect Saddam from the great white imperialist infidels, they are more than welcome to. Again, it is their right.

Will they? I highly doubt it.

--cheers

September 2000 was not before the terrorist threat and was certainly not before the Iraqi threat. The World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993. Numerous overseas terrorist attacked occureed during the Clinton years. To say this policy pre-dates terrorism (or the terrorist threat) is wholly untrue.

Let me go back to your gum chewing example:

These weapons do not "disappear". You cannot flush them down the toilet. They must be systematically destroyed, depending on the contents of each chemical/biological make-up.

Furthermore, at the time that Iraq claims it destoyed these weapons, it was under UN resolutions to do so. The UN required Iraq to provide documentation detailing the destruction (and contents) of its WMD programs.

In order for your example to coincide better with the Iraq question: the teacher discovers you with gum. He gives you until the end of class to dispose of the gum AND provide him evidence that you did so. You swallow the gum and at the end of the period, you tell your teacher "It's gone". The teacher asks you how, and you don't tell him how, just that it's gone. You provide no evidence or explanation of the method by which you disposed of the gum. Even if you are being truthful, how can you expect the teacher to believe you?

An even closer example is : you have a history of chewing gum in class. The teacher catches you putting a fresh piece in at the beginning of class and then putting the rest of your pack of gum in your bag. Your bag has many small pockets and possible hiding places in it. The teacher tells you that he has caught you, and that you are to get rid of the gum and the pack of gum (in your bag) by the end of class. Now class ends and he asks you if you have complied. You say "Yes, its gone" but provide no proof of where the pack is...The reason this is more accurate is because you have more places to hide the gum, you have a history of having gum in class, and you provide no evidence of getting rid of your stored gum (pack of gum), even though such evidence should exist.

Listen, Iraq is a government. A government is a bureaucracy. Bureaucracies, especially scientists, keep records. There is no RECORD of these things being destroyed. Time after time, the inspectors in Iraq find weapons that are borderline (in Blix's eyes) or banned (in Colin Powell's eyes)--Al Samouds, unmanned drone, cluster bomb weapons...If Saddam wanted to comply, he would FULLY disclose all banned weapons or weapons that MIGHT be banned. If it is borderline, and Saddam really wanted to come clean, he would have declared the borderline weapons. Better safe than sorry.

The fact that there is no record is damning to Saddam's case. The discovery of at least 3 banned weapons systems (in a mere 3 months) destroys his credibility as far as cooperation goes. He continues to hide banned weapons and banned systems.

Back to pre-emption: by our rules, he would be justified, provided we were going to attack him unprovoked. We have announced our intentions...its time for him to announce his.

The fundamental problem with the "it's not a preemption" argument, is that this isn't a continuation of Gulf War 1. If this were a continuation of GW1, we would not have inspectors looking for WMD, politicians making deals, the UN fracturing, Tony Blair having his career killed, and Guinea and Cameroon being our biggest allies.

Dubya started this invasion as part of the war against terror. At least, that's what he said. Then it was violating 17 earlier resolutions. Then it was because we were in immediate danger of being attacked (that was 6 months ago). Now it's the liberation of all those peace-loving Muslims (which I consider an oxymoron).

I hate Saddam as much as anybody, but unless you hold your mouth just right and believe everything the government tells us is the truth, Iraq never really hasn't done anything to us. We will invade and occupy his country because of a perceived threat. Why shouldn't they have that same right?

Let me be clear. I hope nothing happens and hope not one hair on any of our soldiers hair gets harmed. If they are attacked by Saddam, I hope they annialate him and every one of them comes home safely. I will support our military 1000%.

But after this, I will never support Bush. And I voted for him.

Iraq was under pressure by the UN to have it's military moved out of civilian populations. I can understand their justification to huddle their military in with civilians as a type of defensive martyr tactic while the whole world is watching. But if this were an act to deploy their military out of civilian populations to please the UN then what better place to move them than to the front line? The United States mobilized first, Iraq is not mobilizing toward Kuwait for the pleasure of setting their oil fields on fire. Something to consider is that their were huge gaping holes found in the electric fence that boarders Iraq and Kuwait--suspicion has it that they were made by US forces.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=4590
As far as we know, the United States military has already infiltrated Iraq and is in hiding. Saddam is not stupid, of course he is going to investigate whether there are US military forces camped out. If there is a preemptive strike against American Troops I'm certain it will happen on Iraqi soil. If that is the case, can anyone argue that that is an illegal strike? Appears to me that Saddam is damned if he does or damned if he don't.

I didn't vote for Bush. But when I first heard that he was our new president the first thing I said was that "we are going to war." I don't think he has any intention of letting me down.

This was posted first in another topic and I'll try to delete it........

ABC news tonight (3-13) is reporting that US intelligence reports have Iraq preparing to launch a pre-emptive strike. Reports have scud missiles ready to be fired on Israel, oil wells rigged to a central location for detonation, and missile launcers being moved perilously close to the Kuwaiti border. ABC's sources say US is deciding whether to launch air strikes now, in advance of the official resumption of the war.

I believe we should do it, tonight if possible. It doesn't look like there is any chance left for a new UN resolution (thank God), and France has stated that they will veto any new one anyway.

About the only hope Saddam has of doing any serious damage is if he gets in the first few shots. I say we don't give him that chance.

What say you?

[QUOTE]

Yes, I think many could make a case that a pre-emptive strike against the US is justified. We have been arrogant and inconsistant in our actions around the world. We opened Pandora's box long ago.

Everyone keeps mentioning the 12 years and 17 resolutions he violated. Want to see the actual resolutions?

http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Programmes...solutions2.html

Some of them are not even related to condemning Iraq, but more a resolution to help the starving people there.

I have long since stopped believing anything which comes from "US intelligence reports" (did someone mention oxymorons?). You and the conservative media should get back to the American people when you have a credible source.

Amen on that one!

So if it was the "liberal" media, it would be credible? Just curious.

[quote=mrspigpen,Mar 14 2003, 09:11 AM] [quote=JonBon,Mar 12 2003, 10:40 AM]The US intend to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iraq if they do not disarm their Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Many people here on this board and elswehere have argued that such a course is entirely 'justifed'.

Consequently, I must ask whether Iraq - or any other country for that matter - would be 'justified' in launching a pre-emptive strike against America.

Any thoughts?

[/quote]
[QUOTE]

Yes, I think many could make a case that a pre-emptive strike against the US is justified. We have been arrogant and inconsistant in our actions around the world. We opened Pandora's box long ago. [/quote]
I notice you say 'many' could make a case. Are you one of the many? Do you believe that arrogance, inconsistency and opening pandora's box justify an attack on your country. If it is your country that is.

Well, let's just ask it this way instead. Do you say those things you've mentioned justify an attack by any country on another?

Having never experienced a liberal American media, I'm not in any position to say. I was, however, referring to a source as being credible, not the media (of any stripe) which publishes it nor the poster who quotes it.

So Iraq is going to strike first? The North Vietnamese struck first at the Gulf of Tonkin too didn't they?

and wasn't the gulf of tonkin later proven to have never happened? saddam would not strike american forces, use your brains: an attack on american and british forces would give them a reason to go into Iraq(and probably more world backing) hussen knows this (as do bush and blair, as does the entire world) he has been doing anything he can to avoid war. bush and blair are trying to save face. hussein knows by doing nothing they will end with their carrers in the crapper. add into the whole eqaution inspectors finding gaping holes in the Iraq-Kuwait border fence, and believe american forces are responsible for them.

the term pre-emptive strike is so stupid. it is simply a nice way of saying "attack" or "assault".

would Iraq(or anyone) be justified in "pre-emptively" striking america (or anyone) no. just as hitler wasn't justified in "pre-emptively" attacking poland (he said they were planning on attacking germany, and had to be attacked first) just as we aren't justified in attacking Iraq (I will refuse from here on out to use "pre-emptive strike" I hate euphamisms)

Unabomber; "use my brains". Ouch that's hurtful. I guess my sarcasm was a little too veiled. Which emoticon is for sarcasm anyway?

Exactly, it makes no sense for Iraq to strike first. I agree with you. Tonkin was staged to kick off the war and Johnson used the sham to jam a war resolution through Congress. The Germans staged a similar event to kick off their invasion of Czechoslovakia. The Japanese Imperial Army did the same thing at the Manchurian Incident to justify an invasion of China. And then there was the U.S.S. Maine explosion in the Havanna harbor which precipitated the Spanish-American war, which is slightly different because it turned out to be an accident and not sabotage but it basically served the same purpose. Whenever there's been an overwhelming forced massed against a weaker one, the justification of war was shaky, and diplomatic efforts toward justification or resolution started falling apart, there was often a "first strike" by the weaker force that later turned out to have been staged. It is not outside the realm of possibility that such a thing will occur soon and kick off Gulf War II. I'm glad you got it, but please, be nice.

Joeshmoe.

sorry, that wasn't directed at you, it was directed to the people that really believe Iraq would attack US/UK forces in the region. sorry about that.

I'm cool, thanks. It just goes to show that things are not always as they seem and if the spark that triggers this war is some rickety Iraqi SCUD or samoud fired from the desert then we should all be a little more skeptical about it than our news services will ever be. A "U.S. Military Fears Iraq Strike First" story ran on our local news here last night and I had to laugh. "Watch this, Gulf of Tonkin all over again," I said to my wife. IMHO the Pentagon leaked the story to send out a "feeler" to test public reaction. "They finally pushed us to far," we'll hear and shock and awe will begin. Rumsfeld, having recently insulted the British (and then backpeddaled) clearly doesn't give a darn whether or not Blair gets the U.N. resolution he needs to save his political skin and various interests on our side of the barbed wire seem to be eager to hurry up and get the war started. If the Iraqi soldiers have any sense at all they will get as far out of the U.S. Military's path as possible least they get slaughtered (again). On one hand we're told they will likely surrender en masse and on the other we'll told they're itching to take the first shot.

But then again, that's just me speculating wildly about things that haven't happened yet and I could be completely full of it, to paraphrase Tyler Durden.

I think Iraq won't directly strike America but more like the 200,000+ troops of ours in Kuwait

He will thus be declaring war on Kuwait by bombing them (again) and ticking us off by killing some of our troops

This will result in the inevitable backing of all nations (but i think France will say "give him another chance...he apoligized")

This is just my theory

Geez, can you get off the Hitler reference already? Saddam has no navy or air force to speak of, and his elite army surrenders to CNN news crews. Saddam is nowhere near the threat to the international community Hitler was.

The only thing they have in common, is they are both monsters. As if that is something rare these days.

But why do we hold Saddam to a different standard as a cause to invade and occupy (I refuse to use the term "war" because Saddam is not able to adequately defend himself) another country?

Every country in the Middle East was the result of an invasion. Border disputes are the overwhelming cause of war there. Besides the hatred of Jews.

Saddam did nothing any different than anybody else there when invading Kuwait. In fact, he ran that by our state department, and their response was something along the lines of "We don't get involved in border disputes". Iraq is accused of invading Iran to start the Iran/Iraq war, but wasn't Iran occupying Iraq's land in the first place?

I'm not apologizing for Saddam or justifying the things he clearly should not have done. But do we invade and occupy every country over there that has invaded their neighbors? It's no wonder we can't bribe them to help us.

We started this exercise because according to Bush, we were in immediate danger of being attacked by Iraq either directly or by proxy.

Then, it was regime change. Then, it's liberating Iraqis. Next, it will be for tearing the tags of his mattress. we'll find some reason as each other one doesn't pan out.

I hope he doesn't, and he should be quickly and thoroughly defeated if he does, but he has a legitimate reason to pre-emptively attack us (i.e. Israel back in 1967).

I didn't recall ever hearing of Iraq surrounding our borders ready to strike at any moment, but I could be wrong...

Let's review the initial post:




It seems to me the poster is asking for a devil's advocate position. He doesn't ask if we personally support an invasion of the United States, or an attack on our military overseas. It rather suggests that we look at the situation from the view of other countries, using our own rationalizations.

WE have weapons of mass destruction. We have taken the position that, if we don't like you and you want to develop them too, we'll attack you and take over your country. Only if you're small and weak, of course. That's just the way it is because we're bigger and we think you're evil. Even if you haven't hurt us, we won't give you the chance because you might.

Think about it this way...We are going to attack a country because they are trying to have weapons which we have an abundance of. If we can justify that, I'm sure they don't find it hard to reverse the logic.[QUOTE]

Just though Ed Quillen's take on war history would be appropriate now that speculation of Saddam attacking US troops first has come up:

Get Iraq to Shoot First

Mr. Quillen is a registered Republican, BTW. He just sounds a lot like a liberal

I think he was once either registered as Demo or unaffiliated, but wanted to infiltrate the GOP

Great article, thanks for the post. I'll have to read more of this guy's stuff

mrspp,

Hope you enjoy Ed--he has even answered some of my letters to him, but only if they hit his funny bone

A little off subject, but he is a professional journalist who writes historical novels under a pseudonym. He often gives offbeat historical perspectives on current events. Enjoy!