Just curious.
2007-05-11 16:53:24 · 8 answers · asked by robert f 1 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Attack the enemy before they become powerful??? How is this even an option? Regardless, I would choose a different answer. Instead of building up military forces, and potentially causing a 'pissing contest' so to speak between rival countries vying for power, a country should try to advance technologically throughout. A country can not thrive if it only focuses on one area of its economy. Even if a military is built up, and said country wins the future war because of it, what happens then? A military force cannot provide for a country in peace time.
2007-05-11 17:01:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Every real nation should have a strong defense. I say real because some of these tiny principalities and island nations of a few thousand just have no chance of ever defending themselves. That said:
Who decides who is our enemy? And to what extent and why are they our enemies. I know in the US the ruling junta of Bush and Co are fomenting hatred against Iran, again as a diversion from the US economy as the Iraq invasion is no longer popular. But why is Iran our enemy? And what is their real capability to wage war upon us? Up until the late 70's or so, Iran was our best friend for some reason.
Even if they were to build a nuclear bomb, they have no mechanism to deliver it, and the response to a nuclear attack everyone knows against the US would be total anhilation. Only the US people are ignorant of that fact. Iraq had no capability of destroying or even significanlty impacting our freedoms in the US though they may have made many idle threats. Recent news articles tent to point to Saddam's undoing was his boasting of weapons and power he clearly did not have, though anyone with common sense and a good satellite (which we have plenty of the latter) could tell it was a farce.
I remember before the invasion seeing editorials where people wrote how they feared Saddam was going to invade California with his "Navy" ( a few small ships one of our bombers could eliminate.)
The US populace is extremely naive, we are the dominant world power and by shear force of our military we can subdue any other nation on earth. Our problem is our idiots at the top who foment hatred towards other nations, direct our attention elsewhere through deception so they can make the rich and powerful business establishment even more powerful.
2007-05-12 04:10:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have been considering this also.
It is clear that a major global conflict is coming, between Islamo-fascism and the secular democracies of the West. Yet the Islamo-fascists are not really powerful yet, and the countries they control (more or less) are not much of a military threat. Still, they are sending weapons and suicide bombers into the more democratic nations. Can we attack them before they become powerful, and prevent them from becoming powerful? They are already quite disruptive.
I am inclined to think that we cannot defeat them until after they have become powerful. The conditions and process are already working. I doubt that they can be stopped; I think that we have to go through this. You can't lance a boil before it comes to a head; and you can't reverse the process once it has begun. I think this is like that.
This is why we are in our present fix. The people of the US and the West are not ready to fight, because they don't see a clear military threat. The Islamists are not ready to fight either, simply because they are not ready. And the West can't get fully ready until the the Islamist threat has developed well enough that we can see what it is like. The developments of the two sides are interdependent; one responds to the way the other develops. If we guess what they are going to do, they can change their tactics, and so forth.
2007-05-11 17:20:19 · answer #3 · answered by The First Dragon 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's better to be the strong man than the weak man.
If you're the strong man it's wise for you to keep the weak man from becoming strong enough to take you out. He may not be as nice as you are.
2007-05-11 17:16:33 · answer #4 · answered by CJohn317 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it would be logical to attack before, then build the military. every thing you do comes back.
2007-05-11 17:17:05 · answer #5 · answered by chris l 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both tactics are very good.
I Cr 13;8a
2007-05-11 17:24:31 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes ..unlike the Clinton administration ..who tore it down .
2007-05-11 17:15:52 · answer #7 · answered by missmayzie 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hitler did the later, and look what happened to him.
2007-05-12 15:46:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋