Shouldn't other 1st world countries form a "coalition of the willing" and attack the US preemptively?

Question

I mean, let's look at the facts here:

1) The US possesses thousands of WMDs pointed at other countries, and there's no telling what their true intent with them is.

2) The US has shown that it's a threat through its hostile and aggressive invasion of Iraq, a sovereign which had not attacked the US and did not pose a legitimate threat to it.

3) The US has escalated tensions with another sovereign, Iran, and has refused to take the "nuclear option" off the table.

So given that the US has shown that it has hostile intentions against other sovereigns when those sovereigns don't toe the line on US policies, and further given that the US recognizes unilateral preemptive warfare as the valid right of a sovereign under international law, shouldn't other industrialized 1st world nations form a "coalition of the willing" and attack the US?

Answer 1

As Mr. T would say...

"I pitty the fool."

Answer 2

That's the way that Propaganda works. They try to frame public opinion by using different buzzwords to portray the same picture from different perspectives. Bush's grandpa funded Hitler and his daddy ran the CIA. Bush knows all about how to use propaganda. The PKK has been attacking Turkish civilians in Turkey with American weapons that were funnelled to them. Even the puppet government of Iraq considers the PKK to be a terrorist organization.

Answer 3

No.

1) The US does not have their weapons pointed at other countries. We are a party to the UN and the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and have inspectors come here just as they do the rest of the world.

2) That was not a hostile action. Saddam Hussein commited mass murder against certain peoples of his country and buried them in mass graves. He refused to let UN inspectors fully inspect his countries facilities (as they do the rest of the world, including the U.S.) for more than 10 years. The UN keep threatening action but didn't have the guts to carry out and show that they meant business.

3) We haven't escalated anything with Iran; they have. They repeatedly refuse to let UN inspectors in to look at their facilities and maintain that they are using nuclear reactors for energy purposes, when it is a known fact that much uranium has already been enriched beyond the point needed for peaceful energy use.

Also, many 1st world nations were behind us when we invaded Iraq. Some have pulled out, true, but only because their areas were secure or they lasck the political willpower to do what they know is right. They see this as our mess (maybe rightfully so) and leave it to us to clean it up. Leaving prematurely would be a big mistake.

Answer 4

Wow seems like someone forgot that the President of Iran mentioned months ago during the initiation of the government's nuclear plan that Israel should be wiped off the map. In addition he also funded a a Holocaust Convention in where the "scholars" concluded that the Holocaust never happened as was a story told by jews to gain sympathy from the rest of the world. This is all from his mouth, not garbage speculation like your statements that have no proof other than the invasion of Iraq.

After all if you US was half as hostile as you paint them to be, they would have already bombed the Iran nuclear sites not to mention those in North Korea. If they truly were that hostile would they be doing everything in their power including developing better diplomatic ties with China in order to bring North Korea to the bargaining table? And you call them facts, you are a funny guy.

Answer 5

U. S. has admittedly exhibited bad behavior. There are nations that, in their own, way have exhibited as bad or worse behanvior, of course.

A very key reason the U.S. and these other nations are not attacked is that they are more powerful then the nations that would attack them.

Will the U.S. and these other nations always remain powerful? Probably not. In which case, your tongue-in-cheek posting will not be so tongue-in-cheek.

Answer 6

But after you eliminate the countries we control behind the scenes

the coalition of the willing would be vastly outnumbered by our puppet states alone

...before even considering that the United States of America spends more money on weapons annually than the rest of the world combined

Answer 7

They'll get right on that, after they mobilize to prevent the pending issue in Rwanda.. oops, right after they help the people in Darfur... uh, no... right after they stop selling weapons and technology to rogue nations.. nix that.....

The rest of the 1st world is in full Neville Chamberlain mode. Heck, it took American leadership to do something about the problems in Kosovo, where the US had absolutely no national interest, because the Europeans weren't willing to clean up the mess in their own back yard.

And you expect great things from them? LOL!

Answer 8

"All we have done is wake the sleeping Giant ~ and
fill them with a determined resolve...."
Comments of Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, after the Japanese Military
claimed "Victory" in the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
December 7, 1941


Careful what you wish for !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 9

Your argument is part and parcel to the danger of taking the "legal" steps we did when starting the conflict in Iraq. I think the country is on shaky ground here . . .

Answer 10

i bilieve tha China cold be very danger they is very large in population .Jan.7 - China's population and family planning minister said here on Friday that China will work to limit its mainland population below 1.37 billion by 2010."Made in China" on that lock in USA most of tinks came from China we make they more strong so tink about this..kiss

Answer 11

the majority of answers,so far, show that few understand your point. and they display a lack of understanding as to the true nature of a hyped pre emptive adventure like Iraq. China could use it against Taiwan, Turkey could use it against Iraq, Russia could use it against any number of the "stans", from it's soviet past, Sudan could use it against Ethiopia, India could use it against Pakistan, and on and on.

fortunately...much of the first world is involved with it's own more pressing matters and would never subscribe to the insanity of pre emption with one of their own.