2007-09-25 08:43:40 · 15 answers · asked by Sopwith 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Do we wish to curtail future premptive wars? If so how?
2007-09-25 08:44:37 · update #1
I say we preempt everything.
Preemptive self defense. Yes I shot that man but I thought he was going to shoot me in about ten days... Makes sense to me ha ha.
Or how about a preemptive paycheck. I get the feeling I will probably be working for you in about six years so I want a thousand right now.
Imagine a car dealership preempting your purchase. That will only be thirty thousand and we can't give you a loan. We will get you the car to you sometime around 2030.
Now this is not to say that we should not be prepared to defend ourselves. But to attack someone on the premises that they COULD do something... well anyone COULD do about anything. I mean if we are going to preempt war what is going to stop others from doing so. I mean, if we are preempting couldn't someone say that Bin Laden attacked the United States because he felt that we were going to attack Iraq? The idea of punishing someone or doing something based on things that have not occurred yet is just moronic.
2007-09-25 09:02:49 · answer #1 · answered by Memnoch 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
There are laws against it -- mainly international treaties.
However, the US is only bound by the treaties it signs to the extent that it doesn't pass any other laws that contradict them -- there is no higher international authority enforcing such treaties, other than the global opinion of other nations.
So, if we decide to pass more laws authorizing future preemptive invasions -- there is really noting to stop us -- the only way would be a constitutional amendment, and I don't see us being willing to limit ourselves that way.
2007-09-25 15:47:58 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
There ought to be,but the arrogance of Americans will not let that happen.9-11 was an inside job that was used to drum up this no win war on terror.We are no more secure than b4 9-11.We are the most despised country on the planet.All folks that beat their chest saying bomb everybody are really terrified on the inside.This administration has used numerous fear tactics to make the general public poop in their pants.
2007-09-25 15:56:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
A law against future preemptive wars would be suicide.
2007-09-25 15:57:32 · answer #4 · answered by lilly4 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes, and if there isn't one it's only because this nation has never had a president as evil as bush. Only Congress has the right to declare war under our Constitution. Bush should be locked in a room with a copy of it until he has it memorized and promises not to try to shred it anymore.
2007-09-25 15:49:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
No, would you not want to stop a nation like Iran if we found out they have a nuclear weapon and were planning in launching it into Israel or at a US ship sitting in the Indian Ocean.
2007-09-25 15:47:04 · answer #6 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
NO.
Preemptive means to forestall, prevent, react first, preclude and to take that ability off our plates would be akin to committing national suicide.
2007-09-25 16:10:49 · answer #7 · answered by wider scope 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What's wrong with preemptive wars? Why wait until we are attacked (i.e. 9/11) before we respond to a threat. Isn't it more intelligent to remove a threat before we are attacked?
2007-09-25 15:47:19 · answer #8 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
No...There should not be...BTW...This Iraq situation was supported by Congress, via their vote....There are laws that exist regarding war....in The Constitution.
2007-09-25 15:48:41 · answer #9 · answered by That Guy Over There 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Wow! Talk about insane political correctness.
2007-09-25 15:52:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋