Is it just me or is being pro-active the way to go? Do you people who say that (and it's all over these forums) really want to wait until we are attacked before attacking someone? The best defense is a good offense.
2007-07-18 02:00:26 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I sometimes wonder what one has to say to get a serious answer on these forums... Nothing but Bush bashing 24/7.
2007-07-18 02:04:42 · update #1
Westhill-- Are you dense? We started as 13 colonies, started war with England. Then as we headed west we wiped out Native American's who didn't provoke us. We took our spanish people and mexicans who didn't provoke us to gain territory, grenada, panama, kosovo, vietnam, korea... shall I go on?
2007-07-18 02:06:26 · update #2
Good Call Azred, let's take advice on waging warfare from someone who fought with sticks and rocks. Good call brother. I would say Pakistan and Iran would be good canidates. Everyone seems to have forgotten 9/11 and how it felt, guess we need another one to wake people up as to what can happen when you let sleeping dogs lie.
2007-07-18 02:33:14 · update #3
they lack understanding "we" includes Our Interests, Our Allies, and the Free Global Economy! we need to protect it all. I guess they would not fight if a neighbor or their back yard were assaulted or taken under force.
2007-07-18 02:06:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Honestly I believe the world is a big hill where the rulers play King of the Mountain. You take down all who would topple you and challenge all newcomers.
If you suffer too many small attacks all at once then the next thing you know you are back at the bottom and there is a new king on top.
There comes a time when every "king" has to prove by might that he deserves to be on top.
I guess you can figure out where I stand in regards to this war.
2007-07-18 02:09:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Pre-emptive War is a dangerous doctrine (initiated by this president) because it is a slippery slope. Where does it stop? Who is the next perceived threat to have to face the mighty United States military for looking at us wrong? If we were the "ugly Americans" before, what becomes of our international reputation after the implementation of this policy?
These are the kinds of questions that get raised by such a doctrine. We changed the name of our War Department to "Defense Department" not just as a symbolic gesture, but also as a statement to the world about living in peace.
It's also a dangerous precedent to set for the rest of the world. It says it's okay to attack some other country if you THINK they might attack you or your interests. Sounds like we are setting the stage for World War 3 and all that that implies. The next president definitely needs to repudiate this doctrine or we are in for a very uncertain future.
2007-07-18 02:07:49 · answer #3 · answered by Mister J 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Um, uncertain the place the question is yet your tremendously lots maximum suitable. i could in simple terms prefer to remind each and every person that Hezbollah has killed extra individuals then the different terrorist org different then Al Qaeda. The civilian casualty expenses are being overstated because of the fact those counts incorporate terrorists combating and firing rockets from inner maximum properties. and finally they simply reason the civilian death value is as severe as that's, is because of the fact Hezbollah is hiding at the back of women and babies.
2016-12-10 15:38:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
International law, the concept of a just war and US policy for 210 years before George W Bush all say that we should only attack a country which has attacked us or which is an imminent threat. Iraq had not attacked the US, it had neither plans nor the capability of attacking the US, and it had not threatened to attack the US.
2007-07-18 02:04:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
So, Wish2Travel, which country might be threatening us now? Which country might threaten us tomorrow? Should we cluster-bomb them just to make sure they don't?
The problem with being "pro-active" or "preemptive" is that you could be wrong in your threat assessments.
Sun Tzu does not allow for preemptive strikes. Military leaders would be wise to follow his strategies and philosophy more closely.
2007-07-18 02:27:17 · answer #6 · answered by Mathsorcerer 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well what a question. Let's see wouldn't that make the United States Terrorists now.
Did you have to many coco puffs this morning?
2007-07-18 02:31:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
if another country attacks you, are they not just being proactive? The Bush administration agrees with this policy, so they could not complain if say China attacked your shores.
2007-07-18 02:06:52 · answer #8 · answered by douglas m 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Well gee, Canada might want attack us 100 years from now, so we better stop them now huh? We were not even attacked by a country, yet we are fighting a war against a country now.
2007-07-18 02:03:52 · answer #9 · answered by Bobbie 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
yea because that first attack could be a nuclear one, and that kind of threat is too large to ignore
2007-07-18 02:04:35 · answer #10 · answered by billybutsky 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋