All opinions on preemptive military action?

[O-dehlay]

In addition to the title question, is it justifiable? I am trying to build my own opinion on the subject. BTW first post/thread on this forum.

[Duke1985]

No its just a fancy way of saying "start a war"
There needs to be some sort of incident to warrant military action, then you can send in the troops. Otherwise you can't bomb the hell out of something because they might cause an incident further down the road.

[gw120]

Like Duke said it's just a fancy way to start a war. But on occasion it can be justifiable, but only if it's 100% sure thing they will attack you, and not like in the next 10 years, it has to be immediate. Like Iraq, unjustifiable, they had no capability (and if they did it was from the weapons we sold them) and no will to do so, and the evidence that said they did was small and/or falsified. Can't think of an example of a justified preemptive strike right now, but there probably is one.

[Chaossaber314]

But on occasion it can be justifiable, but only if it's 100% sure thing they will attack you, and not like in the next 10 years, it has to be immediate.

What about your allies/interests?

In World War II Germany wasn't even capable of successfully crossing the english channel. How could they have successfully mounted an invasion across the Atlantic?

Granted, Germany did declare war on the US following the US's declaration of war against Japan, but still.

[The Decider]

Quote by: O-dehlay In addition to the title question, is it justifiable? I am trying to build my own opinion on the subject. BTW first post/thread on this forum.

Define "preemptive." If we receive news that Costa Rica is planning a sneak invasion of Brownsville, Texas, should we wait for Costa Rica to strike first, or take action first? What Bush did in Iraq was not a response to an impending threat, as he claimed. Saddam never had the capacity, or the plan, to attack the US homeland. That was a "preemptive war of choice." I think we see the folly of that decision with each passing day.

So, at first glance, one can't rule out "preemptive" war if such a first strike is designed to protect American citizens from imminent attack. Nothing in the US Constitution says that we must take the first punch. But delivering the first punch in case someday someone might think about making a plan to perhaps threaten the American homeland--in theory--is totally unacceptable. Though it may be constititutional; I don't know.

[O-dehlay]

Just as you have described it unless someone else knows something differently.

What amount or what kind of evidence warrants a preemptive attack?

[Technosoul]

Welcome to the forum and hope you stick around.

Under international opinon a first strike war is unlawful, espeically if troop occupation is involved. A first strike war is simular to what Hitler did even if it just about getting rid of a countries leadership and then returning the country to the people with a new leader.

(I am presenting both sides of the coin in my repley).

The reasoning President Bush used concerning the war on Iraq was related to the 9-11 attack on the World Trade Center by Bin Laden who was being protected by the government in Afganistan at the time. The thing was that we knew about Bin Ladens motivations before 9-11, he had already declaired a holy war on America and had been linked to other terrorists activities, but Bill Clinton did not wipe him out but allowed him to remain a potential threat, and when Bush took office he did nothing to prevent him from following through with his threatening remarks because we did not want to conduct a first stike on Afganistan which gave him a safe place to operate out of. And so the thinking was "not again" because the world had changed. Meanwhile Saddam was saying bad things about America and even had issued a "contract" for the life of Bush Sr. And the U.N. was concerned at that time that he might be secretly building some WMDs but inspections failed to find such. And so Bush Jr reasoned to congress by asking if we are going to wait around for too long like we did with Bin Laden. Or should we strike first.

The fear was present for most of the Americans because 9-11 was still fresh in their minds and a nuclear attack would be far worse then flying airplanes into an occupied building. The idea that we have anti-American leaders who are radical in other countries was (then) a big concern. And so the first strike idea became more popular and seemed to be more justified. We cannot predict for sure what radical leaders might do in those nations that hate Americans, And so the burning question of the times had to be answered.

(A) - Should we never attack anyone who does not attack us first in order to remain above board as a non-agressive nation.

(B) - Should we imagine New York city being blown to kingdom come by a nuclear bomb and take agressive action to eliminate any potential source of such an thing happening... ever.

Is prevention better then reacton after it is too late to save New York City?

President Bush answered that burning question for us, "If you are not with us in the war on terrorism then you are our enemy" as it was viewed that terrorims was a world-wide network.

He then gave notice of the three countries that he thought represented the greatest threats to the USA simular to the threats dictated by Bin Laden.
And even if they did not have WMDs they could still have been a threat because of their anti-American comments and because Bin Laden did not have any WMDs ether. (thank goodness for that).

The problem is that tiny religious cults can put the fear of God into the minds of those who rule a particular country, like they have now done in Pakistan. And as they had done in Afganistan, and as they are now doing in Iraq. It is becoming less effective to make peace agreements with a country that is occupied by such terrorist religions. Especially when bombing has become the popular way for religious cults to conduct their protests.

And although I have been a Bush basher here for a long time I am for the sake of debate pretending to be his lawyer. Making a case for him as he would relate it here if he was a debater.

However his reasoning might have made America perfectly safe again he ran into some problems, the objectives intended were not as easly done as planned or hoped for, And the tides of opinon have truned which has generated more dislike for President Bush's "war on terror policy" and so Americans now have more unfriendly countries to be concerned about. He was unskilled at undertaking the mission in hand,. Now we got a bigger mess.

Now if Clinton had in fact conducted a worthy attack on Bin Laden which would have had to include an attack on the government of Afganistan before 9-11, just because Laden ranted about some holy war, or because he blew a hole in one of our ships, then I bet the United Nations and everyone else would have boo-hoo-ed that act. It only seemed logical after the World Trade Center was distroyed. We would have been unpopular in the world but on the other hand no attacks on American soil would have had taken place if Clinton did a "preventive strike" in Afganistan. Which is the better of the two?

The idea behind a first strike is that we must take threatening jestures as being realistic enough to demand preventive measures or not gripe if they carry out their hostility and we wake up one morning to see another major 9-11 event happening in our backyard. We have moved from a "war of words" (cold wars) into a time of real wars on threatening countries because "why take a chance" for them to act out their hostle notions about us.

That is the point,. however I do not agree with my self.

[Osborn F Enready]

Pre-Imminent, indisputable facts must be present to determine a need or Pre-Emptive war and justify starting it. I have yet to see a military provided good intelligence of that level unless they are reporting on their own positions. Intent can't be verified without doubt, unless proof is substantial, verified, and shown to be authentic and imminent in nature.

You can't have such a thing as a pre-emptive war in most cases. In most cases, for public support, you must have a reason and proof that is beyond compelling, unless employing propaganda or lies, which is outright disinformation. (not a foreign tactic to any nation that I know of)

The argument for pre-emptive war should be the most skeptically, critical viewed argument in the history of war, if liberty of the individuals involved, or the lives of human beings are a factor in the equation without bias, especially national bias fanned by propaganda and disinformation. ( think Yellow Cake, aluminum tubes and Fox News for a recent example)

[castille]

I strongly support pre-emptive attacks where there is enough intelligence to determine that the opponent is preparing for their own offensive.

Let's face it, its better to fight a war on your terms than on the enemy's terms. And it's much better to fight a war on their territory, than on yours.

Rather their buildings get blown up and their cities razed, than mine. Selfish? You bet!

[Slevin57]

Well I along with most military strategists see a preemptive strike as an essential part of a war.

You know a war will start regardless, why not have the upper hand? That's what a preemptive strike is for. To attack first and gain a strategic upper hand resulting in less casualties for your side, and hopefully a quicker end to the offensive part of the war. (See: Kosovo)

[Century 25]

War is biiiiig $$$... try a quick read of:Addicted to War: Why The U.S. Can't Kick Militarism

Gag me with an H-Bomb..