If yes, do you think there should be checks and balances in place to ensure we don't go to war and spill blood simply because the President says so?
2007-07-09 06:18:21 · 14 answers · asked by El Duderino 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If you want a valid opinion of 'Preemptive War', just talk to any Brit or Russian who lived through World War II. Ask them if they think it would have been better to have smacked Hitler down when he annexed Czechoslovakia, or re-militarized the Sudetenland, rather than waiting for him to completely rebuild his forces and attack them.
A little preemptive war can save a big problem in the long run, if it's done for the right reasons and executed with clear goals in mind.
2007-07-09 06:27:50 · answer #1 · answered by Dekardkain 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Preemptive war is certainly preferable to waiting to be attacked if intelligence sources confirm that as a real threat. And checks and balances are already in place here in the US if that's where you are talking about. Articles, one, two and three of the constitution pretty much cover that. Have you read it lately? Ever? Only takes about twenty minutes and I promise you a fascinating read.
We have often in the past spilled blood simply because the president said so. Lybia, Panama, Haiti come to mind. The same constitution will explain that he is the commander in chief of the armed forces. Have you thought about how things might have turned out differently for us today had a preemptive strike been conducted against Al quieda positions in Afghanistan during the nineties? After all, they had already attacked the world trade center and killed dozens of Americans in 1992 and we knew they were there and were planning further attacks.
A preemptive strike should probably include the element of surprise wouldn't you think? How much checking around would you want the commander in chief to do before surprise and thereby the security and safety of our troops might be compromised. War is war and spilling blood is not always war. Read enough and you'll find that the constitution even covers that.
2007-07-09 06:41:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
The best case for preemptive war was written in 1972.
Political Science
No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens
We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them
Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us
We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too
Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me
They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now
2007-07-09 06:56:12 · answer #3 · answered by ripbolts 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. War should be the last resort for a free society, never the first. We cannot take the step of killing others to protect ourselves from a potential attack. If we do this, then what is to stop us from attacking any who may, at some indefinite point in the future, become a threat to us? If we are to stand for liberty and the importance of human life, we cannot say that only our lives have any value, and seek to end the lives of those who may, potentially, seek to harm us.
2007-07-09 06:27:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No--you cannot predict who might strike, so attacking someone at random is an incredible mistake.
Sun Tzu himself argues against preemptive war.
2007-07-09 06:44:45 · answer #5 · answered by Mathsorcerer 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
No. Sufficient checks are in place, and Presidents do not go to war on a whim.
The buck stops with the President. He can’t go about and say he voted for something, but then come back and say he never supported it. In short he is responsible for his decisions good and bad.
2007-07-09 06:48:00 · answer #6 · answered by sparky_coffee 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
each now and then. yet whilst i actually experience some thing is nice or incorrect, and it truly is significant, and somebody disagrees, it annoys me. i could probably particularly in simple terms end associating with human beings whose values selection so dramatically. Like, if somebody theory homosexuality replaced right into a sin, or that all and sundry non-Baptists flow in the present day to hell, i could in simple terms as quickly no longer ought to look at their face.
2016-10-20 10:33:40 · answer #7 · answered by smyers 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't you mean "Aggressive War?" Isn't that what Hitler was doing that led everybody to wage war to stop him from terrorizing more people?
It is a highly immoral idea that should be automatically rejected and laughed at.
2007-07-09 06:25:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, it should not be part of our nations creed. It is hypocritical to believe in freedom of choice and meddle in other countries. If a situation gets so bad as there is wholesale purging going on, then the United nations should be involved in providing a solution, not the US.
2007-07-09 06:25:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It depends on the credibility of the threat, but should be the last resort after exhausting all other options. For example, Iraq was not a credible threat and we still had options left to deal with Hussein.
2007-07-09 06:25:20 · answer #10 · answered by redphish 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋