Or is there, maybe, something we could do instead?
2007-12-24 01:07:38 · 21 answers · asked by Dastardly 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Sappy; You have an odd concept of peace if you think it already worked in Iraq.
2007-12-24 01:14:20 · update #1
Adeptus; So our foreign policy should be based on your fight club tactics?
2007-12-24 01:19:50 · update #2
toughguy; Is that you Cheney?
2007-12-24 01:21:51 · update #3
no it is not. pre-emptive war creates casualties which in turns produces hate and hate will never lead to peace.
@toughguy2
you should really stop watching cnn and fox news too much. do not believe everything they tell you.
2007-12-24 01:27:01 · answer #1 · answered by meltman 3 · 3⤊ 5⤋
What war are you talking about, Iraq isn't really a pre-emptive war. This was a continuation of hostilities from the first Gulf war.........which Saddam started. In the years between hostilities, we were attacked at least weekly by Saddam...can you say no fly zone? His troops fired on coalition aircraft at least weekly, and some times daily...oops forgot about that huh?
He jerked the entire world around in the way he dealt with the inspectors....I could give a dozen reasons why resumption of hostilities was the correct, and just thing to do.
If you have information that someone is going to attack you, what is the best strategy to follow if you want to minimize the damage to yourself? If you want to make sure you are the victor, you ALWAYS want to make sure that you choose the method, and ground on which this attack takes place....to just act in a defensive manner only, will always increase the damage and casualties that you are subjected to.
Pacifism in neither good nor noble, more people are killed due to pacifism, than by aggressors
2007-12-24 10:24:31 · answer #2 · answered by Kirk 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Civilized nations only attack countries which have attacked them already or which are threatening imminent harm. This policy usually works quite well and results in peace! Even when the threat is very imminent, nations can pull back from the brink of war. A dramatic example was during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. Russia was assembling medium range nuclear missiles inside Cuba which were aimed at all the US southern and east coast cities.
What is the best way to peace in such a situation? Nations talk to each other through diplomatic and outside channels. They burn the midnight oil to avert a war, and usually they do!
The pre-emptive war doctrine (also known as the Bush doctrine) hasn't worked out very well for the US. The domino effect we were hoping for in the middle east has turned into a game of reverse dominos as the region becomes more and more Islamist. I think the next president, no matter who he or she is will scrap the Bush Doctrine, and return to diplomatic methods of solving crises.
2007-12-24 09:18:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
No, it is not. "Pre-emptive defense" shows that politicians and "diplomats" abrogated their responsibilities to national defense by rushing to attack, rather than allow diplomacy to work. The policy of unilateral "pre-emptive defense" also opens the door for other nations to pursue such an act, because the U.S. used the excuse to invade Iraq.
2007-12-24 09:34:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
There has been no preemptive war. The term is a misdirection and a lie in conjunction with Iraq. Iraq was a police action to bring to a close twenty years of ignoring international sanctions, resolutions by a proven blood thirsty mad man.
2007-12-24 09:20:07 · answer #5 · answered by Locutus1of1 5 · 4⤊ 4⤋
This is entirely dependant on the situation, as every situation is different. But remember, sometimes there is no ability to reason with anyone!
2007-12-24 09:55:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why not I mean why have peace for the world when you can have war, its not like they are getting killed and so what if a few million innocent are killed because of it.
We have to war now to pay China, be happy be safe and hope that one day we can wake up and everyone is safe & happy.
2007-12-24 09:35:19 · answer #7 · answered by man of ape 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Woah! Wait a minute!
Who said anything about seeking peace?
Where is the profit in peace? Our entire economy is based on armed conflict and the support of armed conflict.
Any politician who even hints at peace being their ultimate goal is telling the biggest lie possible.
You need only observe the actions taken to know the words are lies.
2007-12-24 09:17:23 · answer #8 · answered by lunatic 7 · 2⤊ 5⤋
yes, Mr. Sappy - there is a lot of Peace in iraq. I do not believe that a pre-emptive strike is the best way to peace. Iraq did not attack us.
2007-12-24 09:17:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 5⤋
Absolutely. Why would we wait for an enemy to be armed to the teeth if you could take them out before they did damage to you?
Think of it this way- if we knew the Japanese were about to attack Pearl Harbor, should we have sent our carriers out to intercept them? Of course we should have!
2007-12-24 10:09:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Sometimes it is the only way, Yes there are other things you can try but the other side has to cooperate and that doesn't always happen.
2007-12-24 09:44:16 · answer #11 · answered by jim h 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋