Can a single Nation/State "ever" be justified in initiating preemptive war?

Please provide three separate arguments to support your conclusion.

The answer is "Yes, but...."

Yes, but you better expect others will take the same attitude toward you.

War is -- in some ways -- always "pre-emptive", since one side has to fire the first shot or encroach on the territorial boundary first. Example: In 1967, Israel attacked its Arab neighbors who were amassing their armies along their borders with Israel and preparing to attack Israel. Was it pre-emptive? Yes. Was it justified? Sure. Wasn't like the Arabs would have somehow backed down. (And, please, don't derail the thread just because of the example!)

But... your country's reason for the pre-emptive strike had better turn out to be a good one, or else others won't be too pleased. You can't always be the biggest baddest bully on the block; paybacks are a (rhymes with witch).

OK Amf,

I'll buy the yes,but!... But, can you provide 3 arguments and if you want 2 or 3 "buts"

You're right about examples! They could derail the debate. I'm just trying to get us think outside the box of current events.

Yes, In the case of the war on terror it is the only possible response to a subversive attack by those who try to distance themselves from the Governments that support them. A similar scenario would be to take the CIA, separate them from our government, called "Civil Independence Army" and allowed them safe haven while they ran amok blowing people up for political reasons. Because we don't outright claim ties to them would we really believe that there would be no retaliation, I doubt it. With actionable intelligence and proper approval of our elected officials this is our right as a Sovereign Nation.

edited typo....

I think we have a mixing of definitions here- pre-emptive means that your enemy (which could be terrorists) have never attacked you but you attack them anyway, for whatever reason.

I am never for a pre-emptive strike. Attacking Afghanistan was not pre-emptive- our enemies were there, and they had attacked us on 9/11.

Iraq had never attacked us, we were never in immenent danger of being attacked, and had no means to attack us on our home soil, so this one was pre-emptive- and not only unjustified, but actually harmed our security, by giving our actuall enemies, Al-Quaida, a new place to flourish unchecked.

So, no to pre-emptive strikes.

Had we "pre-emptively" struck Russia, for the reasons some list for an excuse for doing this, we would all be dead right now. I am just happy GW wasn't in office during the cold war!

Maybe this is in the wrong category. I didn't say war on terror, I said war!
Try thinking about the question outside the sphere of current events, vote yes or no and provide three arguments supporting your position. We can do current events in another thread!

If you are never for a preemptive war can you provide 3 arguments why not?

I didn't vote.

I think the answer is yes, but I don't have the energy to research three different examples to substantiate it.

The Israeli 1967 pre-emptive attack against the Pals and Arabs is the model I would consider the benchmark used in preemptive attacks. Thus, that situation alone would justify a positive answer.

Had Clinton decided to "pre-emptively" attack Afghanistan for harboring Al Qaeda, it would have been justified in hindsight.

War is always a difficult decision. 3 clear cut examples of justifiable pre-emption would be hard to come up with, since the US has been on the winning side in most of its conflicts.

The problem with pre-emption is that it is immensely difficult to demonstrate the threat posed when you preempt that threat. Will the preemptive action in Iraq prevent future state sponsorship of terror? I think it will. It has led to Libya unilaterally disarming (without the world even being aware that it possessed such a vast store of WMDs...).

The simple act of proving to the world that preemption is in the US playbook will cause most states to have second thoughts about fraternizing with terrorists.

Will the action in Iraq prevent another 9/11 type attack? We will never know, of course.

A preemptive strike is justifiable if there is substantial compelling evidence that an attack is imminent. U.S. defense planners certainly shouldn’t wait until a mushroom cloud appears above an American city before taking action.

That doesn’t mean any adversary governed by a repressive, anti-American regime with WMD applies. Preemptive war should be the very rare exception. Contrary to combating terrorism, I think a policy of "preemption" makes us less secure longterm. If rogue state leaders believe that the US has targeted them for regime change “preemptively”, those leaders will be more likely to form alliances with terrorist organizations. The incentive for them to use terrorism and supply them with WMD, as the only way to retaliate against us, will increase.

I cannot think of three direct examples of justified preemptive strikes. I agree with the Israeli example for 1967...Also, the Cuban missile crisis would have been one, if Khrushchev hadn’t blinked.

edited to add: Disclaimer, when I say a 'preemptive strike' would have been justified during the Cuban missile crisis, I mean the naval blockade...not a nuclear warhead shot to Russia.

Personally, I would rather fight a preemptive war thant its opposite...a defensive war, like the war on terror. Some people have the crazy idea that we should only go to war when we are attacked...when we thousands of innocents have died. I do not see it that way. Are preemptive wars ever justified? Well...is anything ever justified...its all based on perception. But iraq and afghanistan were justified in my eyes and i feel safer today than i did after 9/11.

I don't believe in preemptive war. All preemptive wars have been of countries that are trying to spread their power around the world. Preemptive war to me is just another name for conquering wars.

The Romans did it, the British did it, the Germans did it, and now the United States is doing it. I always like to bring up the example of shooting a person you believe may hurt you, if you go to court with a defense of "preemption," you will be punished because there was no aggression towards you.

I don't agree with the example of Israel because the other nations were building up military along the border. It's not preemptive just because they attacked first. It would be preemptive if Israel attacked when those Arab nations had no military forces amassed citing, "They might have attacked us."

But back on the idea of preemptive war, they're illegal and unjustified because they're all based on assumption. When you conduct your actions based on assumptions, you'll end up where the United States is now (i.e. current state of Iraq and U.S. world opinion). You can snub other countries around the world and say, "We don't need you, we're big and powerful," but the Romans and British did the same.

Bringing up the war on terrorism, the name needs to be changed because it's not a war on terrorism, it's a war on militant Islamic fundamentalism. Case and point, the United States response and reaction to the Madrid bombing when it was ETA as compared to the United States response to the Madrid bombing when it was an Islamic extremist group. Anther great example, United States response to Colombian terrorists and Chechyn terrorists. I've never liked the label "terrorist," but given that there is a consesus on labelling the groups above, it seems the United States ignores other forms of terrorism and wants to only focus on Islamic terrorism, because that's what affects them. Understandable, but don't call it a war on terrorism.

As for preempting the terrorists with guns and bombs, bad idea again. The war in Iraq, supposedly a war to "combat" terrorism, has taken a nation that had little to no connection with terrorism and has just created a hundred new militant radicals. The war on terrorism is a social battle, not a military battle.

Actually, our court system considers it justifiable to shoot the person threatening you with a knife. You don't have to wait until they actually stab you.

I'm curious as to why many people think America's attack against Iraq was pre-emptive?

Surely if it means anything, then a pre-emptive strike is one designed to hit first, so by saying America pre-emptively attacked Iraq, one is really saying that Iraq was about to attack America.

Which Iraq was not. American attacked Iraq, and not pre-emptively.

However, if you can prove that an attack is imminent against your country, or if even you have strong reasons to suppose it, then I would say that yes, unfortunatly, pre-emptive attacks can be justified. In the case of Iraq however, there is no such evidence.

Key here, that person was threatening you with a knife. You can't shoot them if you think they have a knife. As I stated before, the person was threatening and showing aggression towards you.

Preemption is the strategy of attacking the enemy in order to prevent them from attacking first. The topic question is, "Is preemptive war ever justified?" You said no, never under any condition, and such a measure would not stand up for an individual in a court of law. This would indicate that you believe war is justified only after an attack. Not so in a court of law, and not so (IMO) in a modern age of weapons and potential for mass destruction if there is evidence that an attack is imminent.
This is not an Iraq-only debate. I don't believe that Iraq satisfied the criteria for preemptive strike.

Preemptive war is definitely justified, I wouldn't be so bold as to rule it out entirely.

However, in order for preemptive war to sit well with me, there has to be strong evidence to support that it was necessary.

To continue with the court example here... if someone has a gun and you shoot them in "self defense" then you have to prove in court that your life was in danger. You can't simply make up some excuse or say that "in hindsight it was a good idea, the guy was a bad person anyway". This kind of thinking doesn't cut it, the burden of proof is on you.

Does this go for eveyone or just us?
Hypothetically this means that with the upswing to Iraq and Bush calling for war, Saddam Hussein would have been completely justified to attack us first had he had the capability. The same goes for Iran, Syria or North Korea if we begin to threaten them any time in the near future.

Lets say we begin UN discussions on North Korea to get rid of WMD or face war. Are they justified in sending a nuclear bomb our way, since thats their only means of pre-emption?

Well, if they have substantial compelling evidence that we will invade, they might attack us. Of course, there's the chance we'd respond. Maybe they're just very peaceful people and against preemptive war, unlike us dirtbags who bomb babies over here.

Why the aggressive tone? The question is perfectly reasonable and feasible as far as North Korea goes.

Yes, It's a right of any state! However, all reasonable effort should be made to resolve the conflict prior to commencement of action. At a minimum, multiple warnings should be issued.

In theory I suppose that goes for everyone.

In practice, there is a big difference between our country and say North Korea. If the United States opts for preemptive war (assuming it is justified here), then we have the military force to back that up.

In the case of a country like North Korea, preemptive war isn't necessarily an option. North Korea's leaders would weigh the desire to make a first strike with the probability of winning. They would surely have to arrive at the conclusion that they couldn't get anywhere near the US border without us knowing about it and if they decided to lob a nuke over (assuming they even have that long range capability) we would bomb their country back to the stoneage.

In order for preemptive war to be an effective threat, you have to be able to back that threat up and have a decent chance of winning.

The thought of waiting for someone to kill hundreds, or thousands of Americans before we can do something is boarderline sickening to me...So count me in for preemptive war.

CP

The bottom line is, every country has the right to self defense. Most would not strike us preemptively for the simple reason that it would not be prudent for them to do so.

North Korea would not last long if they launched a nuke preemptively. I think Kim Jong Il knows this. Furthermore, we have given that country a tremendous amount of aid. We dismantled our nukes along the DMZ in 1991. We promised them two light water nuclear reactors if they shut down their gas-graphite ones and stopped building nukes. An agreement which Kim Jong Il made and violated. We are far far from the aggressor in this situation. To suggest that there is justification for a preemptive strike against us is absurd.

I didnt suggest that there was justification for anything, in serious. I just wondered if the whole preemption idea was only being seen from an us to them perspective, forgetting that it is meaningful when seen the other way around. Right now we are about the only ones on the planet that can get away with preemption; my question comes from wondering, What if that was not the case? Would we be so gung-ho on the idea?

To answer that question, look an see how many other democracy's use pre emption as a political tool.

Pre-emptive war would need solid proof in order to be justifiable. It is not something where, in retrospect, you can say, "Oops, we made a mistake." As for providing three examples, what is the point? Testing our knowledge of history? This is a purely philosophical issue with no real legal substantiation.

Iraq, being the only example I can think of for pre-emption, was and is a disaster. Pre-emption should be adequately backed by proof which was not provided in this case. The American public was misinformed. We should be lucky Iraq didn't pre-empt our attack, to which they would have been justified. Yes, it does work both ways.

That's certainly sensible, Artemise. I cannot think of any situation in which we responded preemptively that I approve of. There has been only one "preemptive" war by the US. I'm simply theorizing and thinking back to the example of the Cuban missile crisis, or something similar. I wouldn't call that exactly gung-ho. If there is a clear and compelling danger, we must act.

That's exactly the point of the debate! The Philosophy of Preemtive War! If a consensus can be reached on the philosophy it's much easier to discuss how history and current events interact with the philosophy. Are you're for it? Three reasons why! If you're against it! Three reasons Why! After establishing your personal philosophy it's much easier to debate rationally the current situation.

Here's an article that may help some focus their memories. Link to:Hanson Article
I'm sure our friends across the aisle can find their own counterpoints!

No way, Its only an excuse for invasion , How many times have we an many other nations built up on a border in a show of force . Does this mean war is at hand ,NO. Unless a shot is fired no one could possibly know if war was to come. Decissions on what steps another is making not to mention changing is guesstimating . I wouldn't want to be responsibly for all civilian lives lost ,not that are troops and there troops are less of a human being. The attitude your either with us or against us has made the countries of this world hold a gun behind there back . We have lost trust , we look and are bullies under the fist of this administation. your question can not be answered because there is no such thing as preemtive war unless you are a uncivilized. They shoot then you kick butt no disputing the facts, there is preemtive strikes in a war however.

Moif made a good point that Iraq was not a preemptive war but a preventative one, because Iraq was not readying themselves to attack the US in the immediate future.

So for Offwind, the only timely arguement I can provide without spending all afternoon on it. From the other side of the isle, as it were...

From The Carnegie Counsel on Ethics and International Affairs: Edited for length.



http://www.cceia.org/viewMedia.php/prmTemplateID/8/prmID/866

Edited to make quoted section conform to the forum Rules regarding posting of copyrighted material.

Because of board rules, ( only 6 paragraphs of copyrighted material), the case against preventative wars cannot be made here by posting thorough, in depth viewpoints as opposed to articles which take cheap shots at leftists, using Bush's own terminology of preemption.
Offwind, you asked for 3! examples, therefore it is up to you to read the following:
http://www.cceia.org/viewMedia.php/prmTemplateID/8/prmID/866

I await your response with bated breath. I suppose since this is another post, I may add:

'Despite common assertions in recent years that Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-il are crazy and undeterrable, evidence has yet to demonstrate this. Yes, rogue state leaders have been risk-prone and have frequently miscalculated. But North Korea and Iraq attacked their neighbors in 1950, 1980, and 1990 only when the United States failed to deter them. Indeed, Washington gave them a green light in all three cases.'

I know, these are unimportant details! We dont want to worry our heads with that sort of stuff! Its irrelevant! Why, the fact that we supported Saddam Hussein in ultimately our war against Iran, because Iraq was LOSING, is completely insignificant to his evilness, and has nothing to do with our inherant goodness.

'The conditions for legitimate preventive war are met even more rarely, if ever. Because costs in initiating either preemptive or preventive war are certain, while the probability that the enemy will eventually strike is less than 100 percent, the burden of proof is on the case for striking first. '
http://www.cceia.org/viewMedia.php/prmTemplateID/8/prmID/866

Preemptive wars are machiavellian concepts that are used by Emperors wannabe who are trying to justify an illegal taking over of an other country. Caesar used it to justify the invasion of Gaul (it was to prevent an other Gaul invasion), Hitler used it (it was to fight communism), the US used it in Latin America to justify the overthrow of democratically elected leaders (it was to fight communism that the US supported coups to put in dictators).

The best defence is to have bigger muscles and give no reason for other countries to hate you. The US has the first but her overwhelming ambition is preventing her from achieving the second.

What exactly is your plan to make everyone love us? There are bound to be people who hate us no matter what we do. I am sorry, but we do not live in an idealistic world...and we are not trying to win any world populairty contests. We do what we got to do and thats all anyone can expect from a nation such as ours. In this case, the best defence is a good offense.

The only option that we have other than a pre-emptive foreign policy is a defensive one. A policy that waits and sees who kills thousands of innocent civilians and then attacks who ever is behind it. That has been our policy from WWI to WW2 up until 9/11. I am sorry, but i do not think that the only justification for war is if we are attacked. If there was a way fro the government to prvent the death of thousands then i would gladly back them in their efforts to prevent such an event.

My plan is to end imperialism ... nothing more, nothing less... Just stop trying to control other countries economies and people for Halliburton... and stick to international economical boycott from delinquent countries or military interventions through the UN......
Many US corporations are betraying the American people with country like communist China anyway... so why in the world would you do this to your country for corporation that are taking capital away from America without caring about investing in your people?

Really? Why then dont 'people' hate 'other' nations? If they hate 'freedom' there are many to pick from. Perhaps is is our particular brand of freedom that upsets them so? Poll:
A.) It might be that we enjoy fast food and a culture that is killing us health-wise, no public health care, no safety net for our own, it might be our pop-music which promotes utter decadence, guns in our streets, in our schools, closing of schools for lack of funds, young girls objectifying themselves, pregnant teens, two parent working families with noone to watch their kids, families in debt up to their teeth and a vote that only turns out 28% in freedom and democracy, that they are so jealous of?

B.) or it might be that we meddle in their business, kill innocents, have standing military bases and support totalitarian dictatorships that oppress and impoverish their people because we thirst for their oil.

Ok. You tell me? What DO WE HAVE THAT A MUSLIM COULD POSSIBLY WANT? Therefore WHY SHOULDNT THEY WANT OUR SCREWED UP SYSTEM OUT OF THEIR LIVES, and WHY shouldnt they fight for their ideals, the same as we would? Next, if they wanted freedom they should have organized it. Its not anyones place to 'give' freedom to a country at the point of a gun and 10,000 dead civilians. Dont think for a minute we did that out of generosity and kindness.



So would I. Lets talk Africa. It just takes money and cooperation from pharmaceutical companies, not military intervention, have we done it? NO.
Saddam Hussein was little threat, thats the only way we attacked there. North Korea is a much bigger threat, the people are oppressed and literally starving to death. This hypocrisy is the major problem with america. They sell you an idea and you buy it, since you ignore 1.) that bigger threats exist, so the prospect of Iraqi freedom is propaganda, after WMD and the whole shebang 2.) that there are much better causes to put your tax dollars towards that will ultimately help the planet . 3.) that war both impoverishes the people who wage it but also hurts the people waged upon for 3 generations at least.

Wars are based on economics, not ideals. The sooner we recognise this FACT the sooner we will stop sending our sons and daughters to die for the sake of a few greedy mongols. I can hardly believe that anyone has not understood this, considering human history. War is a racket, ordered to serve the most self serving. The soulless. Those who wish to profit, nothing more.
Stop trying to rationalize it. War is about self interest and to ignore that is to be in the deepest darkest most naiive place, that which is utter denial.

lederuvdapac, if you read my link in the before posts you will see the utter incongruency of being at war, for any reason.

Hmm...why don't you tell that to some iraqis who were living under Saddam Hussein? You say..."oh we killed 10,000 iraqi civilians," (which is a ridiculous statement with no proof whatsoever) but the truth is that you don't give a damn about the iraqis either. If you did care, you would think that they deserve the same freedoms that you do. People all over these boards talk about how you would rather be dead then live without freedom...and yet you believe that the iraqis don't feel the same way. You know why these people didn't rise up against Saddam? Because they were scared out of their minds. Saddam's grip of terror was so tight on the nation that nobody had the audacity to oppose him. They tried to start a rebllion during the 1st Gulf War while we were there, but after we left due to our UN mandate, the rebellion was destroyed...they were all killed.
Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others.
-William Allen White



here is what people don't understand...whether Saddam was the largest threat, or even the smallest threat, he still remains one thing...a threat! It doesn't matter whether he was the largest or smallest because he was still an enemy to the United States. North Korea could arguably be the larger threat but that situation is completely different. North Korea has nuclear weapons pointed at South Korea and Japan (both places in which he have thousands of troops). The situation is a lot more fragile than you would like to believe it was. My question to you is...is the world a better place with Saddam out of power? Wait...i already know your answer but you still won't say it.

Wars are based on economics...not idealsm, eh? Hmm so i guess that WW2 was fought for money. Not for the Japanese attacking us or because the Allied forces in Europe were about to fall under the power of Nazi Germany. I guess N.Korea and Vietnam were also fought for economic reasons...funny i don't remember there being a big cash reward for everyone. i kind of remember that the korean, vietnam and Cold war in general was fought over the spread of communism...oh my!...an ideal!!!

Why can't you just be happy that the iraqi people are free? We are working things out over there and things will get better. It really is irrelevant if we went into iraq because we wanted oil or we wanted Saddam out of power because the fact still remains that we did the right thing.
The first Gulf war was once again fought for money.

Overwhelming ambition for what? I think Collin Powell addressed this sentiment best:

"Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."
-Collin Powell
(when asked about U.S. empire building by the archbishop of Canterbury).

It might be worth noting that none of the European countries, or indeed much of the rest of the world, can make such a statement. That is probably worth bearing in mind before discussing 'overwhelming ambition'.

Interesting paragraph from Artemise's link: here. Dr. Becks discusses four types of war, two of war are under dicussion here: preventive and pre-emptive.



I would have to strongly disagree with Moif's categorization of this as a preventive war. Clearly we had an existing conflict, which had no foreseeable end in sight. Given the concern over WMD, the potential for the enemy growing stronger was a major concern, in addition to the heightened terrorist sentiment against us created largely through the then current situation. The need for us to continue to focus military and intelligence efforts towards Iraq as long as the current conflict continued, and the current military preparedness meant that military terms would certainly only get worse. The Iraq conflict was certainly initiated by the enemy...all of the characteristics of pre-emptive war were present. One might argue whether Iraq (or the terrorists) were indeed growing stronger. However, with the advent of WMD, this has become a much more ambiguous question to determine. One could easily see the rampup of conventional forces--the need for preemption was much more clearly observable. Exactly how strong an indication of WMD justifies a preemptive war? 90%? 70%? 50%? 5%? 0.01% Given the fact that just a small amount of such weapons can kill a huge number of people, this is, I think, the real question here.

I don't believe that it is ever justified. Would a police officer be justifed in "pre-emptively" pulling you over because he thought you might speed in the future? How about if you are thrown in jail because you might kill someone?? This kind of extra-judicial reasoning is just nonsensical when you apply it to other aspects of society. The president can't read the minds of the leaders of nations. You can prepare and try to stop problems before they start(i.e.-the millenium bombing plan of blowing up planes over the Pacific that was successfully foiled under Clinton) This doctirine of pre-emption is nothing more than an excuse to use for invading Iraq. The fact is, ths president had planned long ago to invade Iraq, whether or not the "facts" showed a tie to terror, WMDs, or any other alleged reason.

There are always cash payouts in manufacturing and use of arms. Johnsons Great Society was funded by the Vietam war which greased the wheels. Grandaddy Bush himself was making a pretty penny from Hitler before they slapped him with the Trading with the Enemy Act, and the Japanese were a nice patsy to try a brand new pair of bombs on, all this generates profit, reconstructions also.. but to get back on topic and answer some of your other points.

Ideals are the false reasons and the propaganda, the sell. For example Why fight Communism? Why? There was no real reason. It was self created.

Here I use part of an article which another board member sent to me to illustrate this point and I thank him for the contribution, :

"If, in fact, conflicting statesmen face one another only with clearly defined objectives that were fully rational, there would be a certain measure and limit which would permit of discussion and negotiation. But where the objectives are actually nothing more than capital letter slogans without intelligible content, there is no common measure, therefore no possibility of communication, therefore, again, no possibility of avoiding war except by ambiguous compromises or by agreements that are not intended to be kept. Such agreements do not really avoid war. And of course they solve no problems."

"The typology of the Trojan War, "known to every educated man," illustrates this. The only one, Greek or Trojan, who had any interest in Helen was Paris. No one, Greek or Trojan, was fighting for Helen, but for the "real issue" which Helen symbolized. Unfortunately, there was no real issue at all for her to symbolize. Both armies, in this war, which is the type of all wars, were fighting in a moral void, motivated by symbols without content, which in the case of the Homeric heroes took the form of gods and myths. Simone Weil considered that this was relatively fortunate for them, since their myths were thus kept within a well-
defined area. For us, on the other hand (since we imagine that we have no myths at all), myth actually is without limitation and can easily penetrate the whole realm of political, social, and ethical thought. "

"But how can men really be brought to kill each other for what is objectively void? The nothingness of national, class, or racial myth must receive an apparent substance, not from intelligible content but from the will to destroy and be destroyed. (We may observe here that the substance of idolatry is the willingness to give reality to metaphysical nothingness by sacrificing to it. The more totally one destroys present realities and alienates oneself to an object which is really void, the more total is the idolatry, i.e., the commitment to the falsehood that the nonentity is an objective absolute.)

"The will to kill and be killed grows out of sacrifices and acts of destruction already performed. As soon as the war has begun, the first dead are there to demand further sacrifice from their companions, since they have demonstrated by their example that the objective of the war is such that no price is too high to pay for its attainment. This is the "sledge hammer argument," the argument of Minerva in Homer: "You must fight on, for if you now make peace with the enemy, you will offend the dead."
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~engl5vr/Merton.html

Remember that we fought the first World War , the war to end all wars, to make the world safe for democracy?

Today we are still fighting wars , wars that never ended to make the world safe for democracy, and its still not, yet hundreds of thousands have died shedding each others blood over nationalism, communism, capitalism, and one really bad guy.

A most interesting faction of the above article mentions the will to kill and be killed.
The US has sent the sons and daughters to die in Iraq for one man and one man only, who is already in custody and has been for months. You sent them because of a singular despot in the seat of power in an already impoverished and broken nation. How is that in any way rational thinking?

( Now you are blaming me for not wanting Iraqis to be free? Sorry, Im not buying the Bombs for Freedom IE: War is Peace story. It never has been for any reasonable length of time, but humans are not fast learners it appears.) I do not consider people under puppet governments free, btw. I also believe freedom and democracy does not come from the barrel of a gun, unless they decide on that course of action themselves.

Why do we do it? Some Speculation:

"The void underlying the symbols and the myths of nationalism, of capitalism, communism, fascism, racism, totalism is in fact filled entirely by the presence of the beast-the urge to collective power. We might say, developing her image, that the void thus becomes an insatiable demand for power: it sucks all life and all being into itself. Power is then generated by the plunge of real and human values into nothingness, allowing themselves to be destroyed in order that the collectivity may attain to a theoretical and hopeless ideal of perfect and unassailable supremacy: "What is called national security is a chimerical state of things in which one would keep for oneself alone the power to make war while all other countries would be unable to do so.... War is therefore made in order to keep or to increase the means of making war. All international politics revolve in this vicious circle." But she (Simone Weil) adds, "why must one be able to make war? This no one knows any more than the Trojans knew why they had to keep Helen."

Is pre-emptive war ever justified? Maybe, could be, but most times it is simply because we have yet to explore better solutions. We fill the air with rhetoric and then expect some kind of rational response which never comes and the sheep clamour for blood once again. Its a fun sport for the money guys at the top, including Bin Laden. War and killing is mans greatest legacy.

In my opinion... yes. A nation/state CAN be justified in initiating preemptive war.

If you have reason to believe that another nation poses a threat to you--either directly or through the support of your enemies--you have grounds for demanding that they open up their operations to inspection and take steps to stop whatever it is that threatens you. If they refuse, you may strike. It is, unfortunately, the lesser of two evils.

In the War on Terror, the line becomes even more blurry, because this is a decentralized network of idealistic thugs we're dealing with, not nationalistic crusaders. There is a whole overarching worldview we have to defeat to win the War on Terror.

Now, a key rule is to be followed here. Before we wage ANY sort of war, we must either have a vested interest in the outcome, such as: preventing the potential ally, preventing the fall of an unstable state into the hands of a tyrant or thug who would collaborate with one of our enemies, or preventing the nation from posing a future threat to our citizens.

With that in mind, reasonable people can certainly disagree over the decision to wage war in Iraq. HOWEVER, we are IN Iraq, and we cannot call it quits now. Criticizing the war is one thing; protesting it when it's too late is a bit ridiculous. If we pull out now, Iraq will be in even WORSE turmoil than it is now (if you can imagine that). For now, we should focus on turning over sovereignty, ensuring that the nation is stable, confirming that the new government will protect the rights of all the various citizens--Shiite, Sunni, Kurd, Christian, Jewish--and turning sovereignty over to the people of Iraq. THEN, we can--and should--have vigorous discussion over what Iraq was about, what we should have/didn't/could have done, whether it was preventable, etc.

Agreed on the we can't pull out now, and my off-topic addendum that I hope the 'discussion over what Iraq was about' includes voting Bush out in November.

On-topic, I agree with previous posters that true PRE-EMPTIVE war, as in, a concrete threat is known, even if the act hasn't been committed yet, is justified. In terms of law, one can pre-emptively arrest people for a conspiracy or plot to murder, even if the murder has not yet occurred.

PREVENTIVE war, as in the war on Iraq, is NOT justified. Iraq was NOT a threat to the United States, Israel, anybody. It appears their lengthy dossier explaining the destruction of their WMDs was, in fact, factual. The assumption that, in 10 years, if we allow them to go unchecked, they MIGHT have WMDs that they MIGHT give to Al Qaeda to use on the US is not a justification to go into war, when that assumption appears unlikely.

Pre-emptive war, I believe, should be based on knowledge and intelligence, of concrete and viable threats, not assumptions, rhetoric, and lies.

I voted yes, but will tell you that the 1967 War was not a preemptive one. Egypt violated numerous signed treaties, each one of those was an act of war, and blockaded the port of Eliat (another act of war). So that one does not count as preemptive.

So to give three reasons. First off would be another nation announces that they will attack you. Like Iraq did when they announced that they would drop a nuclear bomb on Israel as soon as they got one.

Second would be if you catch the enemy amassing to attack without public notice. Such as if the US had caught the inbound Japanese Task Force on 6 Dec 41.

The third if uses less than violent means to wage a war that would cause very serious damage to one's country. Al la the Arab oil embargo against the US.

Fourth would be to do any of the above to an ally.

The invasion of Iraq is justified for several reasons. First off they attempted to kill the former president of the United States. That was an overt act of war. Just because President Clinton did very little in response does nothing to nullify that act, there is no time limit on responding to an act of war especially if the same regime remains in power. The US could be justified to take out Iraq for that reason alone. Second Iraq has supported numerous terrorist groups that have killed Americans, again overt acts of war. Iraq committed many acts of war against our allies, again more than enough reason to take on Iraq.

There are several problems with this topic. First off I assume you mean that a preemptive war by the United States against another country?

I would, first off argue, with the exception of Canada and Mexico, no other country in the world is in the position to invade the United States. We have oceans on both sides of the continent and I am all ears to the countries of the world capable of a sea invasion that would threaten the US.

If we are speaking of a potential nuclear strike with intercontinetal ballistic missiles, then I put forth that very few nations of the world have such capabilities. Most of those that do are friendly to the US, and the exceptions, namely North Korea (if they have missiles capable of reaching the US), and I suggest that an they are no threat to the US as any attack by them would result in the obliteration of there small country.

Preemptive reaction is double-think for aggression.

The UN charter, of which we a signatory members, foreswears war as a means of resolving disputes between nations. Our Constitution says, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land..." Thus it is ILLEGAL by our own laws to enter a war of aggression as a UN member.

Preemptive war is silly, and illegal.

A pre-emptive war will never be right when those who would declare it present erroneous or intentionally misleading data to support the action.

By adopting the concept of pre-emption, the United States has crossed a line and joined those historic rogue leaders whose aggression was esteemed above the consciences of their people. We have become the aggressor.

It is no surprise that proponents of pre-emptive warfare assert that it is in order to win, pure and simple. Is that to suggest that we cannot win according to the time-honored tradition of not being the first to attack? To paraphrase someone: whoever wins the rat race is still a rat.

As with the articles of the Geneva Convention, we set the tone when we discard the rules of honorable conduct.

One thing is certain: there is always some way to escalate the brutality, and each side raises the ante in situations when the enemy is considered subhuman and therefore ineligible to receive honorable treatment. Whatever moral standards we choose to disregard in warfare will not be exercised toward us or our captured compatriots in return.

Striking first has been the practice of the dictators, particularly those of the Axis powers in the Second World War. Shall we emulate these dictators? Is winning the sole consideration, the end to justify the means? I don't think so. America has a schizoid view of itself right now, the Protector that is turning into the Aggressor. We need to figure out which one we really are.

I've seen potential possibilites mentioned a few times, including the two in the closed duplicate thread, such as 'what if someone swings at you', Germany amassing troops on Austria's borders, etc.

It WOULDN'T be pre-emptive to attack in those circumstances, as an act of aggression has taken place.

I do NOT believe in pre-emptive war on the 'possibility of a threat' doctrine. My neighbor MIGHT be a serial killer, but I wouldn't be justified in attacking him. Even if I have evidence to support it (he's quiet, single, and stays to himself), I wouldn't be justified.

When a clear and established threat exists, or an act of aggression has taken place from the opposition, 'pre-emptive' (it wouldn't be pre-emptive anymore) war is justified.

Else, it is not.

I say pre-emptive warfare, or call it Wolfowitz Doctrine or whatever, is justified and common sense; ignoring it, is not. I'll make a metaphore: when someone swings at you in the bar, ar you going to knock him out before he gets a chance to hit you, or wait 'till his fist slams you and then start fighting, fully justified?
This blunder of suicidal pacisifsm was commited many times in history though, Anschluss of Austria is a great example. Germany amassed troops on the border with Austria, but no one cared to prevent her aggressive actions with dsplay of force while Hitler wasn't strong ehough yet to take on England and France. Of course later it was too late to show any force, for which Allies paid millions of lives later to eradicated malignant tumor of Nazism. If any of these countries would have guts to show "aggresive" intentions towards Nazi Germany in its early years and, defeating fledgling Nazi army would be MUCH easier in 20-30s than it was in 1940s. I believe same maxim applies towards modern diplomacy/politics.
I'm fully in concord with Wulfowitz Doctrine of preemptive strike, however I also agree with opininon that justification is paramount and eventually separates prudence from agression.
To Artemise: In all times, there have been in this nation a number of individuals disillusioned with our "rotten decadent capitalist system" (e.g. French exodus of some writers and artists in 1920s following end WWI), but for every one of those renegades, which were usually highly-liberal and ultra-pacifistic, there has been a hundred of hard-working families willing to move to this land of "utter decadence". I wonder why all those Arabs, Mexicans, Poles, Ukranians, etc. move to this disgusting morally-devoid place? Thoses were and are people who have not have a chance to develop their libreralistic leanings in their rich sub-urban enclaves, where they live in ivory towers and wear pink glasses, but people who have seen blood spilled of their relatives, friends and just fellow citizens by brutal dictators. Of course it's much easier to be liberal in America and smear our armed forces with feces by calling them baby killers, that's what's America is for, isn't it? A land where any stoned-out hippie can go to LAX and yell "baby killer" at young kids coming home from Nam, wher they happened to be serving this country in whatever capacity they could. That's what's wrong with America: our biggest enemy is enemy within, sly trators lurking in the shadows, demoralizing troops by burning American flags in the time of war, showing Arab world that we don't have a slightest bit of respect for our President and commander and chief, and that America is ruled by the mob, crazy wild crowd.
If you hate this country's idals so much and all Western culture is too you is Britney Spears, crime, teen pregnancy, etc. why don't you move to Iran or join Al Quaeda, in quest of "spiritiual purity"?

"Wars are based on economics, not ideals. The sooner we recognise this FACT the sooner we will stop sending our sons and daughters to die for the sake of a few greedy mongols. I can hardly believe that anyone has not understood this, considering human history. War is a racket, ordered to serve the most self serving. The soulless. Those who wish to profit, nothing more. "
Unfortunately, we live in real world, where make-love-not-peace slogan is only heard in hippie circles or among liberals like you. World is arough place, and ideas of pacfism work very rarely. In fact, I cannot rcall any country, with the exception of Switzerland, which abstain from wars but actively engages in keeping terrorist money in its accounts, which got better of it ideas. And why don;t you explain to WWII and Korean vets that they actually fought and died so that someone may profit. I would like to witness what kind and response you'd get from them. Let's just stop all this foolish quarreling and smoke marijuana and make love to each other.

"Thus it happens in matters of state; for knowing afar off (which it is only given a prudent man to do) the evils that are brewing, they are easily cured. But when, for want of such knowledge, they are allowed to grow so that everyone can recognize them, there is no longer any remedy to be found."

from The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli

I think preemptive war is only justified in cases of "defending the blow," when a nation is ABSOLUTE and CERTAIN in their reasons for going to war. When the armies are massing on our borders, of course war would be the only option. I can remember that we were massing on Iraq's borders in Kuwait a little over a year ago, so I assume by the same reasoning they could preemptively attack us. They just wouldn't have quite understood it when we said "Don't worry, we're sending 150,000 foreigners into your country armed with tanks and machine guns becuase you might attack us some time soon."

I remember many pundits said that Iraq was an "immediate threat" and many others now say that it wasn't an "immediate threat" and then the ones before began saying that the Bush administration never even said "immediate threat." So, if there was no "immediate threat," how did we get into war in the first place? What exactly is it preempting?

illuminati:


Is this a bit of a wild generalization? Artemise, did you call Nam vets baby-killers? I don't support the preemptive war in Iraq, but at the same time I have never burned an American flag, had thoughts of expatriating to a foreign country, or lurked in the shadows. It seems like this is how you are categorizing all who don't support wars which lack definite and tangible evidence for their existence.

What are you talking about, illuminati? Who are these feces-smearing, flag burning, stoned-out people calling soldiers "baby killers"? I don't think Artemise has ever done these things, and neither have I, not even after Vietnam.

(If anybody is calling people "baby killers," it is the extreme right wing religious faction outside of abortion clinics.)

The question is whether pre-emptive war is ever justified, not the character of posters who happen to disagree with you. It is altogether possible, yea even probable, that those of us who oppose the war and occupation of Iraq might actually be respectable human beings.

And in this case, Artemise and I are in agreement. This pre-emptive war was not justified.



Another part of this bothers me. Any serviceperson who went to Vietnam, even if that person left as a "young kid," certainly did not come home a young kid.

Anyone who goes to war and lays his/her life on the line at least deserves to be called a man or woman, not a "kid." That is also a way to confer a measure of respect to those who serve.