2006-09-03 22:23:44 · 7 answers · asked by Leah P 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No
2006-09-03 22:34:41 · answer #1 · answered by john p 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In short? No, no and no. I think that "preemptive war" is glorified bullying. I also don't think that war of any kind is a necessity for human beings who are supposed to be intelligent enough to reason things out, to negotiate and accept differences and there is plenty of resources on the Earth total for everyone to live on for a very, very long time - that is if they weren't so darn greedy!
I wouldn't be in combat, because I am a true conscience objectionist - before I had even heard of the concept, I have refused to carry a gun or to have one on my property. That is not to say that I am not fully for supporting the 2nd amendment, I just would prefer that others do the carrying of the guns. And, no, I don't know anyone who has been in combat, but if I did, I would not judge them as a person. Each to their own, I believe.
2006-09-04 05:50:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Preemptive war is wrong. The only way Bush was able to do what he did, was to lie to the people and make the terrorists come from Iraq. If he had been truthful, congress would not have gone alone with him. It shows the ineptness of our congress not to find out the facts first.
2006-09-04 07:19:14 · answer #3 · answered by jackie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have been in war but most pre-emptive strikes have failed. From intelligence, plans are made to destroy the enemy's resources or manpower but most of the time the actual targets were relocated by the time that orders were given and bombers moved in....In Vietnam, the B52s were stationed in Guam, Thailand, etc. and immediate response was hours...not minutes. By the time that the bombers reached the target areas, the enemy would have vanished. I use Vietnam as an example because it applies to Iraq and other combat zones. I believe in pre-emptive negotiations, not wars. If we attack and find that we did so without cause, then we are no better than Hitler.
2006-09-04 05:54:14 · answer #4 · answered by Frank 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only cowards like Americans & Israelis go for a preemptive strike killing innocent civilians & destroying infrastructure. Real men will take on real men in face to face combat in an war zone.
2006-09-04 05:37:13 · answer #5 · answered by Cave Man 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In the fight against terrorism, absolutley. And yes I've seen fighting. It's ugly terrible I hate war but I will defend the right of individual freedom to my last breath. Without freedom what good is life? Here's something for you all to ponder;
Cindy Sheehan asked President Bush,
"Why did my son have to die in Iraq?"
Another mother asked President Kennedy,
"Why did my son have to die in Viet Nam?"
Another mother asked President Truman,
"Why did my son have to die in Korea?
Another mother asked President F. D. Roosevelt,
"Why did my son have to die at Iwo Jima?"
Another mother asked President W. Wilson,
"Why did my son have to die on the battlefield of France?"
Yet another mother asked President Lincoln,
"Why did my son have to die at Gettysburg?"
And yet another mother asked President G. Washington,
"Why did my son have to die near Valley Forge?"
Long, long ago, a mother asked,
"Heavenly Father, why did my Son have to die on a cross outside of Jerusalem?"
The answers to all these are similar –
"That others may have life and dwell in peace, happiness and freedom."
IFYOU DON'T
STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS…
PLEASE, FEEL FREE
TO STAND
IN FRONT OF THEM Peace out
2006-09-04 05:49:18 · answer #6 · answered by crusinthru 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i'm a unitarian and a registered libetarian, so i don't believe in any sort of war.
2006-09-04 05:28:44 · answer #7 · answered by punklawgrad 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋