2007-07-09 03:06:30 · 10 answers · asked by Page 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Pre-emptive strike is NO country's "right."
It is wholly illegal, immoral, unethical, and simply bellicose behavior designed to perpetuate WAR.
Rendition is slimy, inhuman, and essentially COWARDLY.
2007-07-09 03:14:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think they do, what would have happened it we could of had a pre-emptive stike on the Japanese Naval forces before Pearl, that would of made the war much shorter as our battleships would of been on the hunt instead of sitting at the bottom of the harbor with almost 2,000 brave Americans. What would having Japan out of the war quicker done to have more of our resources to defeat Hitler and end the terror he unleashed on Europe and the safe more from his Final Solution.
Yes if we believe that a nation like Iran is going to launch nuclear weapons on us or our allies I would see the need for a pre-emptive strike.
2007-07-09 16:02:47 · answer #2 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For a pre-emptive strike, the striker has to be imminent danger of attack itself, the leaders of the USA have gone further than this, they have used a preventative strike - because they accused Iraq of wishing to, one day, attack them.
2007-07-09 16:21:55 · answer #3 · answered by Ringo G. 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you are an empire, sure its justifiable. Powerful and paranoid nations engage in pre-emptive war and illegal rendition.
This is why the USSR was hated, not because of its politics, but because it was going to war all the time, it was kidnapping or killing political enemies, and engaging in the overthrow of governments which it considered rebellious.
Sounds familiar? Well the USA unfortunately has become the USSA under Bush.
2007-07-09 10:11:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Of course it is, until someone does like Ronald Reagan did and engages in a cold war with a country that is doing it, and causes them to collapse.
2007-07-09 10:23:36 · answer #5 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
a pre emptive strike is a media savvy term for an assault or an unwarranted attack....
2007-07-09 10:10:02 · answer #6 · answered by penydred 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Question #1 - Depends. . . .you need to elaborate a little .
Question #2 - Rendition of what ?
2007-07-09 10:13:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is a lose/lose scenario. If they do it then the rest of the world will call them warmongers despite what evidence they have. If they don't and they get attacked then their own citizens will demand to know why they didn't act.
2007-07-09 10:13:04 · answer #8 · answered by archkarat 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
saddam had his chances to comply. too bad for his sake he called our bluff. and what did the UN do about it? nothing but ***** because the UN has no real authority.
2007-07-09 10:24:54 · answer #9 · answered by alex l 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
UN needs to take over
2007-07-09 10:11:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋