U.S. must take preemptive action, Bush says

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
Anyway, what has it got to do with Bush ?

Nothing. It has to do with the judging the value of pre-emptive military action.

[Roland]

I'd lean towards saying justified.

[DinoDoc]

Ok, since you don't hold preemptive action as being totally out of the question I'm going to assume your earlier "hostility" has to do with somesort of animus towards Bush.

Under what sort of conditions would you be comfortable with such action being taken?

[Roland]

No, I only hold hostility against stupid actions by rabid delusional ideology freaks. Bush just happens to dwell in that category quite frequently.

What preemptive action are we talking about ?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
What preemptive action are we talking about ?

To pick a convenient example, destroying the nuclear reactor being built in Iran that's giving the Israelis such fits. Or if the CIA/NSA could ever get the whereabouts of Saddam pinned down, a raid along the lines of what the US undertook in Libya.

Edit: I realize that the last one isn't a preemptive attack but it obviously is on the table.

[Roland]

Iran: in the current situation I do not see enough danger to prevent, but a lot of disadvantages coming up (convenient propaganda material, weakening the reform powers).

Saddam: As long as he runs this regime, he's morally a free-for-all to kill. The problem is with judgment - should one country decide about the life of another's head of state ? Next time China may deem it convenient to assassinate a US president, and I prefer no such precedent.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

I don't trust Bush motivation. Iracq have no technical capacity to reach american soil.

The argument of "that country have anti-US terrorist so we must attack them first" is the poorest Casus Belli ever found.

Terrorism against western exist because :
1) Because od the politicies of Western country towar "poor" country.
2) Because poor country have no way to fight succesfully by convential war against western country.
3) Local leaders used western to embody the root of all illness, in order to have more control of their population.

Point 2) cannot be directly resolved. it is illogical to train and give weapon to a potential enemy.

Point 1) can be resolved is rich country are far more genereous to poor country.

Point 3) is linked to point 1).

Removing a leader is not easy and could have unpredictable effects.

[Velociryx]

I don't like the notion of pre-emptive strikes.

I mean, the strategy gamer in me likes it very much, in real life however....I dunno.

I guess I'm in the boat of not trusting our current leadership enough? The way he's playing it, he would use any singular flag burning incident as "probable cause" to launch a freakin' invasion...and that's not what it's supposed to be about.

At that point, he's essentially attempting thought control.



What is needed are clear cut actions that would in all liklihood LEAD DIRECTLY TO conflict, and use that as the basis for pre-emptive strikes.

So far, I've seen nothing like that....I get the sense that the Bush camp would answer that with a knowing nod and a "We'll know it when we see it." kinna answer.

Yeah....

-=Vel=-

[Ned]

Originally posted by Roland
Charges ? The Clinton impeachment has shown that anything will do, has it not ? How about DUI 20 odd years ago ?

You really don't have a clue do you?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Roland
No, I only hold hostility against stupid actions by rabid delusional ideology freaks. Bush just happens to dwell in that category quite frequently.

What preemptive action are we talking about ?

You betray yourself, Roland.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
in the current situation I do not see enough danger to prevent,

In your opinion, what level would the potential threat have to reach before action would be justified? Please generalize your response because the Iran reactor example wasn't meant seriously.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Define preventive strike. Localized bombing ? Global war ?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by ZoboZeWarrior
Define preventive strike. Localized bombing ? Global war ?

Why do you ask? The French are against both.

[DanS]

"Why, and does that mean you agree with the rest ?"

Hitler's Phony War took place between October '39 and April '40.

Re "the rest", by which measure do you judge the musings of a raving lunatic?

Re pre-emptive strikes, as a rule I think they're a bad idea. However, Bush lays out fairly successfully why it might be the least worst option in this instance.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why do you ask? The French are against both.

Definitively not a good reason to not answer ...

The fact that "french" (our gouvernment, I presume) have both interest that peace remaind in the region and doubts about the real threat of Iracq.

For french citizen, they could be classified in three categories :
1) Those who don't care about Iracq.
2) Those who agree with American policies.
3) Those who don't agree.