A poll and thread for the discussion of our present "preemptive strike policy" in general.

I agree with a "pre-emptive strike" only so far.

Those proposing the strike had better find probable cause.

This is probable cause in my view:

Nations or organizations that have either attacked us in the past(recent) and intelligence dictates that they are(or are preparing) to do so again.

Nations or organizations that are acquiring arms at a sudden and rapid rate, with no other strategic excuse than a strike against the USA.

Nations or organizations that are engaging in the above, with the intent to strike an ally of the United States.

Nations or organizations that are maliciously and intentionaly undermining our economy.

N/O that are making threats to US citizens.

N/O that are engaging in the production of and proliferation of nuclear and strategic arms to rouge nations with the intent of a strike on the USA. (i bet i'll catch heck for this one)

N/O that are attacking world economic interests.

N/O that are breaking set treaties and/or terms of surrender with the USA that will compromise our national security.

N/O that are aiding terrorists with the intent to destroy US interests.

N/O that intentionaly fire on and/or attack humanitarian/UN aid organizations or interests.

N/O that attack US/UN peace keeping military personel, installations, equipment, or interests.

I'll probably think of some others later this is all for now. Feel free to counter or add to my proposition.

I would like to know what Bush believes is probable cause for a first strike.

This system will only work if the US gives itself rigid rules, and complys with them.

Travis

(N/O stands for Nations or organizations, its not official or anything i just made it up because i was sick of typing it over and over.)

You simply cannot justify taking preemptive action against any nation, for any reason. It will undermine the sovereignty of nations around the world, and create an even more hostile atmosphere than we already live in. Think about this for a second.

If an FBI agent is sitting at a table next to you and your spouse, you're talking about work, and you say to him/her, "I want to kill my boss... (S)He's really been taking advantage of me, making me work all these extra hours!" Does that FBI agent now have cause to arrest you? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. But under a preemptive policy, it would be totally acceptable because they have "intelligence" that you would like to kill somebody.

Are you aware that the US makes contingency plans to attack/disable/destroy just about every nation on the planet? Now, if some of these plans were to 'leak', do you feel then that those nations have the right to pre-emptively attack the US? Somehow, I don't think you do. But why not? Under our own preemptive strike policy, this would be more than enough probable cause for them to justify it. You cannot hold the US to one standard, and the rest of the world to another. It is against absolutely everything our nation stands for.

This policy absolutely STINKS of Imperialism, and there's a growing anti-US sentiment because of it, (among other things not applicable in this thread). It is rapidly destroying our credibility and will continue to do so as long as it stands.

So, what do I suggest we do? Learn as much as we can about what we feel is a real "threat" and prepare to defend against it, as has always been our policy. Many conflicts will be averted, and many lives will be saved.

What if, hypothetically, we had rock solid proof that Iraq or Iran were manufacturing a nuclear device(s) specifically for Al-Qaeda. we would know that the device(s) would be used against the US or our western allies.

Would we sit by and wait for an attack?
Or would an preemptive in this case be defined as 'defending' against a threat?

That is a completely different situation altogether... Al Qaeda has already initiated "war" with us through the 9-11 attacks, and therefore it would be completely justifiable to disable them by whatever means necessary. I totally agree with the policy that any nation which harbors these terrorists, or supports their activities, is an also our enemy. If the proof is there, then fine... But it better be "rock-solid".

Stefan: And what if the group was not Al Qaeda, let's say another country?

If we want to wear the white in rhetoric and pronounce other countries as the axis of evil or the evil empire, we need to follow some of the white hat rules. One of them is, the fight starts when the other guy swings. If we want to follow leaders who speak in terms of black and white let's at least have their policies follow the rhetoric.

What would Bush have done in the Cuban Missile Crisis? (Not the one who ran the CIA)

4 IRRELEVENT POSTS DELETED

Please use the personal messenger for questions regarding the forum or post something in comments and suggestions.

Again, if they've attacked us, our interests, or our allies, then retaliation to prevent more attacks is acceptable. If not, then all we have is a politician's word that something "might, maybe, someday" happen, and that is not enough to mobilize forces. If intelligence is there that something will happen, then you mobilize to DEFEND, not attack, because in that instance, you're only escalating an already tense situation. Under this preemptive strike policy, we should have invaded the USSR when we found out they started building nukes. Do you think that would have been a good idea? I'm sure glad that didn't happen, otherwise the world would have been witness to Armageddon, I'm guessing.

When should action against Hitler have been initiated?

Did anyone catch N. Korea's speech at the UN this morning? When asked about their thoughts on possibly using first strikes they were vague and didn't answer.

Hmmm...do you think it's a good idea for anyone? Or is it just O.K. for the U.S.?

In retrospect that is an easy one. When he remilitarized the Rhineland. Hitler was bluffing. If the French challenged this "re-occupation" of the Rhinelnad region Hitelr had given orders to his army to pull back. They were not yet ready to face the French. This would have been a severe blow to Hitler's credibility and it would have been an obvious violation that undermined the Treaty of Versailles balance of power. (A mad Germany w/out the capability to defeat every other European nation one on one.)

Heck, Hitler could have been squashed even when he went into the Sudetenland.

Neville Chamberlain didn't or didn't want to read the signs, and conduct a pre-emptive strike against Germany.

'Peace in our time' is a folly while brutal dictators are in power.

Of course, some will say that GWB is in that category.

I think that it is a VERY GOOD idea. America has been striked "by the heart of a lion". When other cous adopted this policy it proved fatal by other countrys and even anarchy.

I think the U.S. leads by example. If it's ok for us it must be ok for everyone else. Is that really what a country like ours wants to advocate all of a sudden? I hope not.