I guess I am the person culpable with closing of the previous poll, so I restarted it.
Question is exactly the sme as before: Is pre-emptive war aever justified?
First of all, my sincere apologies to all the forum mambers for my incoherent inflamatory rhetoric. BNow that I re-eread my post, I'm mortified with lack of constructiveness and of-topic remarks I've made. Thousand apologies. I guess what prompted me to indulge into this kind of pugnacious rhetoric was blatantly anti-American polemics of Artemise, in which she was bold enough to take on the whole of American culture, summarize it as a decadent and immorral, pick worst of Western culture and present its as epitomes of America, say that no foreigner would ever want anything from American ideals and classify every war ever fought, including WWI, WWII and Koraen War as a profeteering murky enterprise initiated by greedy businessmen.
QUOTE
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.
Nevertheless, returing to the topic, which I'm assured, will procedd in much smoother fashion in this thread, is it more prudent to allow a hypothetical country to install nuclear missiles and then act, fully justified, ro prevent a nuclear progrma in its incipient stages, act pehaps unjustified, but prevent any political repercussions in the future? Is it better to allow tanks to amass at your border, ready to roll, and then attack fully justified, or prevent a dictator from coming to power by acting early, act perhaps unjustified, but save lives of thousands of people on both sides?
Also, N. Korea and Iraq would indeed be justified if they struck us first by pre-emtpive war doctrine, but I doubt that countries that ignored UN instructions and defyied world community for decades would look "justified". Their cause is unjust, therefore pre-emptive strike would be unjust as well, although they fit into Pre-emptive Doctrine nicely.
Pre-empive war is very mabiguous morally, since, let say, we attacked Afghanistan before 09/11/2001, it would be very hard for Bush administration to prove that Bin Laden prosed a severe threat. No dount we would be agressor in world's eyes. But it would prevent the tragedy of 09/11 in the long run. Is it prudent? Yes. Is it justifiable? Yes, but good luck trying to accomplish this feat. and prove to anybody that certain event was bound to happen.
ONce agin, thousand of appologies, sincerely your, repentant and chenged, illuminati.