Do you think the US has a right to initiate a preemptive war?

[bloom]

[Florida_Geek]

1. US has the right to hit at targets like Clinton did

but not to invade a country. IMHO......

Again IMHO, Bush/Kerry has the right to take out the Iranian nuclear project IF they think it is the US best interest.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ardee]

79. well, not exactly

If given permission by the country within which the target lies then International Law is not violated, but then , by that time the targets have probably been warned and have fled.

To arbitrarily and without notice to a sovereign nation let fly some missiles over their territory and attacking targets within their nation is a gross violation of the law.

Using your philosophy the USA has some sort of god given right to use the rest of the world as their own personal fiefdom....NOT! This is exactly what the UN was created to handle. Going to this body may appear to be an effort and require patience and fortitude but it is the only way a civilized nation should handle such problems.

Every violation of international law by the USA, whether by invasion or by cruise missile, or even by a team of navy seals sent out to assassinate Osama or anyone else gains more recruits for Al Qaeda and further isolates the USA from the world community. It is this sort of thinking , that we have some sort of divine right to do what we wish with the rest of the world, that leads to administrations like Bush's and brings us one step closer to a dictatorship of the most powerful.

Great power brings with it great responsibility and it is long past time that we started understanding and acting upon this requirement.

[Florida_Geek]

87. So Clinton was wrong to go after bin Ladem ?

[Ardee]

101. Who ?

OK ,sorry , but it is bin LadEN after all....

Try hard to understand that you were being schooled on International Law not blind rabid patriotism...Yes indeed Billy boy violated the law in firing those tomahawks rather indiscriminately over sovereign territory without the explicit permission of that particular sovereignty.

The law may not be immutable but it is pretty clear that passion is no excuse for violating it. The problem with America is that it is the bull in the china shop and the problem with our citizens is best described as:

"Americans have all the power and all the resources and none of the experience to handle either. I, who love America and have received so much from it, am becoming increasingly aware of their perverse political and general illiteracy. They don't seem to know anything about history, even their own. They live on advertising and getting rich, and big business and shockingly sentimental reunion lunches. And the clouds they see banking on the horizon and shrink away from are movie clouds on the vast vista-vision screen of the modern world. Its very discouraging and very dangerous."
Noel Coward (1957)

One more , if you don't mind:

"One can build the Empire State building, discipline the Prussian army, make a state hierarchy mightier that god, yet fail to overcome the unaccountable superiority of certain human beings."
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

[Vincardog]

2. You prepare to defend against a gathering threat War is not the right

answer to CRIMINAL ACTION. You war with states prosecute criminals and criminal organizations like Halliburton, The Carlyle group and the BFEE.

[Stew225]

3. Yes, but only in order to protect the overall good as, I

think, future President Kerry pointed out.

[K-W]

11. Protecting the overall good is far far too vague to be a standard.

War should only be launched with the approval of the UN security council for overwhelming humanitarian purposes (where a war would surely cause less suffering than what is going on) or in defense of a nation being attacked illegally.

[K-W]

4. You really should specify whether you mean unilaterally.

I think the US does have a right to initiate a true preemptive war. I do not think any nation has a right to do so without approval of the UN.

If nuclear weapons didnt exist, I probably wouldnt say yes. But what if we can prove, and I mean really prove, and all international intelligence agrees that a nuclear attack is going to be launched on us. We must have the right to to try and diminish the hypothetical nations ability to do so.

This is of course an extremely unlikely possibility.

[ThomWV]

5. Absolutely Not - And I'll Tell You Why

At some level or another I think that everyone believes that a preemptive strike might be justified if the threat was so imminent and unavoidable, say even worse than the Cuban Missile Crisis, but that is not all of the question. Once you agree to a doctrine of preemption what is to limit it to matters of security? If you agree to a preemptive policy what is to stop you from also using it under the umbrella of our general national interests? That, it seems to me, is the problem.

Thom from West Virginia

[K-W]

8. But what if there was a doomsday scenario?

As crappy as it makes things, you can't just say that the US should take a nuke attack just to remove the ugly grey area of preemption.

As long as there is the possibility of a first strike that could kill millions of americans, it really is impossible to say that preemption is never ok, isnt it?

[Ardee]

102. Never is such a long time

If we were really so concerned about being hated enough to detonate dirty bombs in our cities the logical conclusion might be to make friends and stop making enemies. But ,of course, this is not conducive to corporate profits so we continue to alienate the entire world, continue to abuse third world peoples for the benefit of the bottom line...what are working conditions, fair wages, clean air and water compared to a profitable quarter?

Your philosophy of preemptive action soon leads to a loss of our freedoms. Remember Thomas Paine's insightful thoughts about those who would defend their own rights must perforce defend the rights of his enemies as well.....

[immoderate]

7. Any sovereign country has that "right"

but with freedom, comes responsibility.

Let's not forget, we are the defenders of the free world. And when we get rid of the Nazi asshole, we can resume our responsibilities, and we will need to be able to exercise every resource at our disposal.

--IMM

[K-W]

14. Defenders of the free world? How does that kool-aid taste?

The US are NOT the defenders of the free world. Last time I checked the US had a long record of supressing freedom around the world in support of our economic interests. And that dates back alot longer than this one president.

We need to kill forever the concept that our government is a benevolent parent to the world.

[immoderate]

29. We ARE the defenders of the free world, but we've been sick.

Who else? This is the birth place of modern democracy. We know that democratic countries do not wage war against each other. We have the seeds of altruism that can make the world a better place to live.

There is only one earth. And abuses anywhere could ultimately affect our future. Like it or not, we and our colleagues have the civil responsibility of enlightening the world to progressive causes.

--IMM

[K-W]

32. no, we arent, you couldnt be more nationalistic and wrong

This is not the birthplace of modern democracy. And even if we were, how does us being progressive hundreds of years ago give us the right to claim moral superiority over the world?

I hate to give you the bad news, but America is not a bastion of progressive thought. We are not the most progressive country in the world by a long shot. We use our power to hurt freedom in the world for our economic gain. We are behind other countries in our human rights record.

The picture of the US as some God lording its perfection over the world is wrong and horrible and it is exactly that image that the Bush administration uses to justify war.

We are good, they are evil.

The world is not black and white IMModerate. We are not good, we are just a country. We are not a superhero.

[immoderate]

43. You misread me entirely.

I agree with all your statements about the shortcomings of US behavior. And the "birthplace" statement is a generalization, not an invitation to the argumentative. How about, "We are one of the first constitutional democracies."?

The fact is that pillaging the world, while tolerated by our system of freedom, is not the ideal which we profess. And if we have any ideals, and I think we do, we cannot help but serving as example and influence in the world.

I'm not saying that Americans are better. I'm saying that people who believe in freedom and democracy, whatever their nationality, cannot be complacent when those rights are denied to others. I'm not saying we must pick up arms. I'm mostly a pacifist, myself.

Am I totally out of touch to say that people at DU believe that freedom and democracy should be universal?

--IMM

[K-W]

53. You are saying two things, one very right and one very wrong.

Yes freedom should be universal. But freedom is not delivered by empires. The US government is not an actor of freedom and it never will be, and all the wishing in the world wont make it so.

The fact is that as much as we may want to bring peace and justice to the world, we have to accept that we cant just have our government do that, giving our government the right to intevene in other nations for anything outside of defense and major humanitarion need is horribly wrong.

Btw, America is not a democracy.

The right step for us to take is to participate in the international community and empower it and encourage it to act as an agent of peace and justice. The US government can never be assumed benevolent.

[immoderate]

66. We could agree

if you stop putting words in my mouth.

To paraphrase a president: "It depends on the meaning of 'democracy.'"

To me elected government means democracy (you may use another, stricter definition that I didn't imply by my context.) Republic simply means not a monarchy. So we're a republic too. You can be two things at once, like a square and a rectangle, a duck and a bird, etc.

So too, sovereignty implies the "right" to declare war. Nations may elect to forfeit this right by treaty, but it seems to be implicit in sovereign.

On the one hand the US does act as an evil empire. I was around for Vietnam, Central America, the continuing Middle East. I oppose the Iraq war. I oppose all wars! But what are we (DU) doing here if not saying there's a good side (I mean us!) that serves as an example of civil behavior to everyone.

--IMM

[K-W]

70. If you want to write your own dictionary, have fun.

I find language is only useful if words have agreed upon meanings. So it doesnt depend on the meaning of democracy, democracy has a meaning already. Democracy is when the citizens as a whole govern themselves. Not when a government governs the citizens regardless of how that government is chosen.

Nations dont have rights, people have rights. A governments rights must be derived from the rights of the people who that government represents. People do not have the right to attack other people except under certain conditions. Thus nations do not have any blanket right to attack other nations or people.

Serving as an example and using our force to change the world are too remarkably different things IMMoerate.

[immoderate]

80. Practice what you preach

I didn't write the dictionary, but I'm willing to use it; try:


http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=democracy&x=12&y=11

I'll use whatever dictionary you like, or agree to whatever system you'd like to use. If you want I'll even use the John Birch definition of democracy you favor rather than the one in the dictionary.

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Remember, dictionaries are journals of the way people use words, not the rule book. So what we have here is an argument over what the word "right" means.

The constitution says that Congress can declare war. That's the right for the US to declare war. Who says no?

Used properly, this in itself is a deterrent that can prevent violence. (All bets off if Bush is president.)

--IMM

[K-W]

82. Political words are tricky things.

Democracy as a form of government cant both mean rule of the people, and rule of elected officials at the same time.

Those two definitions are mutually exclusive. They are both used, indeed, because Americans arrogantly refer to their nation as a democracy when it simply is not a democracy. When our nation was founded we were governed by people elected by white landholding males. That is not democracy by any definition. In some sense we have become more democratic, but the fact remains we are not a democracy regardless of how many americans misuse the word.

The constitution provides the method by which the nation can declare war, it does not give it the right to do so. The constitution provides citizens of the United States with rights, not the government of the United States.

The fact that we are capable of bullying the world does not make it ok to do so.

[immoderate]

84. You mentioned the dictionary

I quoted the dictionary. Not good enough? So let's call it "flawed reresentative republic" which can be graded against other forms like "yoke of tyranny."

For future reference, can you point to an example of a democracy, so we know what we can aspire to?

Who determines the rights of sovereign nations? (Maybe you do, since you decide what words mean.)

--IMM

[K-W]

88. Nations dont have rights. Only humans have rights.

What part of this dont you understand? Nations can act in ways that fit with the rights of the people. Unless people have the right to attack each other at will, nations do not have the right to do so.

Athens was the closest thing to a true democracy. You could argue that it wasn't because only men were considered citizens, but every citizen equally participated.

There is a reason that the framers of our government chose not to make it a democracy. Democracies arent terribly efficient because it requires every citizen to participate a great deal.

I am not saying that we do not have democratic practices, referendums are democratic. Many towns are democratic. But our nation is not. The people do not govern, using the word democracy for anything else makes it meaningless. If you want to call what we have democracy, what do you call what athens and many towns do?

See that is the problem with changing the meaning of words. Why not just let democracy mean what it originally meant and use a different word for a form of government that is clearly different?

[immoderate]

90. Does a nation have a right to not be invaded?

The part I don't understand is where you contradict yourself. You say, "Nations can act in ways that fit with the rights of the people." Do people have the right to self defense? Then nations have the right to self defense.

If you know that you will be attacked, what should you do?

If we define democracy as narrowly as you do, I think that practicing it on the scale of a nation this size is rather impractical, if not impossible. It's difficult to do a town meeting with 300 million people.

What should I do with those people who persist in using the meaning of democracy as it appears in the dictionary? Correct them, and say you said so?

--IMM

[Selwynn]

106. Thank you so much for saying that.

[K-W]

71. dupe

dupe

[AntiFascist]

62. From the World's point of view:

perhaps the U.S. has become too powerful, it needs to be broken up a bit. Kerry could diffuse this feeling.

[K-W]

64. It cant make anyone feel safe that we are so powerful and so irresponsible

The world will tolerate a powerful US only if it feels that the US will not abuse that power. And of all our abuses, this one the world cant ignore.

[bpilgrim]

16. true. but it must be justified by an imminent threat

we fought a PREVENTIVE WAR, an AGGRESSIVE, OFFENSIVE WAR which no state has the right to and is considered ILLEGAL.

though the nazis and imperial japan felt otherwise in their day as well.

peace

[RapidCreek]

96. We are the defenders of the free world?

Who pray tell are we defending the free world from?

Who or what gave us this job?

Who decides who is free and who is not free...Who needs "protection" and who does not?

RC

[Darranar]

108. We're the "defenders of the free world"?

No wonder the US has supported such beacons of freedom as Batista, Suharto, Duvalier, and Pincohet....

[Swamp Rat]

9. Never

It's a slippery slope.

[xray s]

10. If we have solid evidence that a country is going to attack us, YES

The last time a nation attacked us was in 1941. If FDR had found out in advance that we were going to be attacked at Pearl Harbor, OF COURSE he would have been justified in attacking the Japanese fleet first.

If you are preempting an actual attack on the US it is justified.

[K-W]

12. I dont like that standard one bit.

You dont get to kill someone because you think they are planning on murdering you. You are only allowed to kill someone if they are in the process of carrying out that plan. The US should not be able to attack another country unless there is a proverbial gun pointed at them with intent to kill. Ie, nukes aimed and proof they are going to launch, or a fleet is on its way to our shore. You can preempt an impending attack, but not a potential attack.

[xray s]

13. Oh I agree

I don't think you can attack based onscenarios or what ifs. I think yiu have to have solid proof that the attack is palnned and is being carried out.

Like at Pearl Harbor.

So we agree?

[Minstrel Boy]

15. But Pearl Harbor itself was a pre-emptive attack.

Hitting first is never okay.

[K-W]

19. Agreed, once an attack has been initiated, you can preempt before it hits.

[bloom]

17. The way I think of the idea of preemption

is the other country is not in the process of attacking - that would be self-defense to me.

I think of preemption like what we did in Iraq and what some people are thinking about with other countries. Invading because they might have the ability... or even the excuse of invading because they do have the ability. Like Kerry mentioned in the debate there are 30+ countries with more of an ability to strike us than Iraq had...

So with some people saying preemption is OK - it sounds like we could blow up nearly the whole world.

[K-W]

20. Well, that depends on how you define an attack.

When does a plan to attack become an actual attack?

[bloom]

27. One could argue

that just like the armed robber with a gun pointing at us - any country with nuclear weapons, WMD's, or whathaveyou is like a country that is threatening us and so since we don't want any potential guns pointing at us - we have the right to invade.

I don't think this is right.

I think we have to think of it like they have weapons in their drawers at home and we have weapons in ours. And unless we know someone has given the order to pull the trigger and that it being carried out - that we have to live with that knowledge.

I guess there are those who don't want to have to do that.

To me - Bush is just like some crazy cowboy walking down the street shooting at anything that moves and he is encouraging others to shoot back. I think he needs to get his gun back in his drawer.

[DrWeird]

41. Hmm, that would really be preemptive though, would it?

I mean if somebody already launched the invasion force, it wouldn't really be preemptive, it would just be beating somebody to the punch.

If that makes any sense.

[K-W]

42. going to attack and is attacking are two different things

that is the issue here, can you throw a punch because you think the other guy is planning to throw a punch

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. No. "Preemptive war" is always used by the aggressors.

Hell, even the Japanese saw the attack on Pearl Harbor as pre-emptive.

You can come up with all sorts of scenarios that would seemingly justify a pre-emptive strike or torture. You can come up with scenarios that would justify anything.

"Would you rob a bank to feed your starving children?"

"Would you shoot your dog if he might have contracted rabies?"

"Would you murder your wife if you thought she might poisen you?"

The question is, is there NO other way of handling the situation? In almost every scenario there always is.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

121. Yes-No-No

-:)

[MUSTANG_2004]

21. Kennedy thought so

Kennedy's blockade of Cuba was an act of war but was justified by the proximity of missiles with nuclear warheads.

[K-W]

24. But if we didnt make USSR think we could attack them at any moment,

would that situation ever have occurred?

The problem was that both the US and the USSR made sure that everyone knew they were willing to strike first, thus creating a constant defensive justification on both sides.

Had the US sworn never to strike first the cold war would have gone alot differently.

[MUSTANG_2004]

34. Don't know

but the principle is still the same. If a country makes an aggressive move that looks like a prelude to war, some (including Kennedy) would say a preemptive move is justified. (I'll mention that, while some would say blockading Cuba wasn't the same as an attack, it was an act of war that, in the pre-nuclear era, would probably have escalated into a larger conflict)

I'm not sure, myself. Probably given the right situation, I could say preemption is justified. I'd certainly find it hard now to argue with an attack on the Taleban on September 10, 2001, although at the time I'd have been opposed to it.

[K-W]

36. But you cant look at things in a vacuum like that.

The way you phrase it it does seem justified, because you ignore the fact that the US played a role in provoking the incident.

An attack on the Taliban would not have prevented or preempted 9/11, so im not sure what you are talking about. The Taliban did not attack us.

Yes, if the USSR and Cuba, unprovoked had colluded to put missles in Cuba with hostile intentions, you might have a legitimate case to take action, but the USSR was just playing a global nuclear chess game with the US. The US was no more innocent than the USSR was. Niether Cuba nor the USSR were agressors in the cold war.

[MUSTANG_2004]

40. Whoa there!

You're saying the US was the aggressor in the Cold War?

On the other point, by harboring OBL the Taleban was the aggressor and I think taking out the Taleban and removing Afghanistan as a base for al quaida before 9/11 would have brought the plans to a stop (but my saying attacking on Sept 10 was an exaggeration).

[K-W]

51. If you didnt read it, I didnt say it.

I didnt say the US was the aggressor in the Cold War. There really was on aggressor in the Cold War. Because it wasnt really a war.

The Taliban was not the aggressor, what on earth are you talking about?

Argue that the Taliban deserved to be removed because it harbored international criminals... fine, but to try and change the english language to simplify things for yourself is not appropriate. The Taliban provided aid and comfort to the people who attacked us, they didnt attack us, clearly you can see this destinction?

[MUSTANG_2004]

61. No, I think that's one of the few things Bush got right

Harboring a terrorist that attacks the US is so close to being the attacker, that I consider the Taleban to be an aggressor.

[K-W]

65. Fine, screw truth, screw reality

Lets just make everything black or white. Either you are with us or against us. You are a friend or you are the enemy.

You do realize this is exactly why Bush is so wrong, right? Because when you stop bothering with the truth and the details you end up with a horribly warped view of the world.

[MUSTANG_2004]

72. No, but they were definitely the enemy

You do realize that only your enemy would knowingly and willingly harbor an organization that attacks your country? Bush was 100% justified in attacking Afghanistan, and I think Gore would have done the same thing.

[K-W]

75. Fine, turn the world into a cartoon.

Devide the people up into us and them, enemies and allies, good and bad.

Meanwhile those of us who care about the truth will try and keep people like you from destroying the world.

The taliban isnt 'the enemy' they are the taliban. The only way we can possibly solve these complex problems is by avoiding the stupid habit of oversimplyfing them. Or we can just spend the rest of the eternity hunting down evil only to wonder over and over again why killing all the 'enemies' doesnt seem to keep bad things from happening.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. The Soviet Union was responding to missles on her borders.

In Turkey, West Germany, The UK. Also, as part of the deal with Kruschev, the missles in Turkey were removed.

[MUSTANG_2004]

47. Sure, but

Kennedy was still treating it as a grave threat and said it justified responding with a blockade.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. It was an act of war.

As someone who was literally locked in the barracks so we wouldn't decide that ground zero was such a comfortable place to be, I still resent Kennedy playing chicken with Kruschev who showed more diplomatic skills than Kennedy.

Also, an very good argument could be made that the USSR was responding to our provocations and acting "pre-emptiviley."

[K-W]

54. You cant just cut out the rest of the picture and pretend

the cuban missle crisis was unprovoked.

And since it was, in fact, provoked, Kennedy can not claim riteous self defence.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. Also, we had "pre-emptively" invaded Cuba.

Allegedly to "prevent the spread of Communism in 'our' sphere of influence".

[Tamyrlin79]

22. I'm not against a truly preemptive war when truly in our self defense...

However, such situations are rare, and I think it best if there are some serious hoops that any administration must jump through in order for such a war to be justified and permitted.

[morgan2]

23. of course we have the right

We abused the right in Iraq, but its not like anyone can take the right away. We can do it, people may not like it, but that doesn't change the fact that we can do it.

[K-W]

25. Do you have a right to kill your nieghbor when he has not attacked you?

just because you think he will soon?

You dont, so why on earth does our nation have the right to do that?

[MUSTANG_2004]

30. Depends on why you think so N/T

[K-W]

33. So you believe that I have the right to murder someone?

You have a rather odd conception of rights.

[MUSTANG_2004]

35. No, I said it depends on why you think so

If you think your neighbor is going to attack you because he said so, then no, you don't have the right to attack him first. However, if you think he's going to attack you because he's saying so while advancing on you with an axe, then yes, you do have the right to strike first.

[K-W]

37. that is the point, advancing on you with an axe is an attack

that is self defense, not preemption.

[MUSTANG_2004]

46. Right, that's what makes it complicated

If striking a blow isn't necessary to call it an attack, what is? If a country masses troops on the border, are we justified in attacking them first?
It starts to become hair-splitting on whether something is responding to an attack or acting preemptively.

[bloom]

50. Of course - Like with Iraq

We had troops poised to go in for quite awhile. It wasn't like anything that happened overnight or anything. And Iraq was not threatening our country is any way.

The act of massive troop deployments of an all out war are not hairpin trigger actions.

I don't think it would be preemption to say - remove your troops or we'll attack you.

[K-W]

55. Im sorry that life is complicated, that isnt an excuse to be unethical.

Just because the grey areas can be complicated doesnt mean we should give up trying to do the right thing.

You have to look at every individual situation and try and do your best to figure it out, that is not splitting hairs, that is life.

[MUSTANG_2004]

63. Exactly, which is why we can't say preemption is wrong

There are cases where it isn't wrong.

[K-W]

67. That doesnt follow at all.

By your logic there must be cases where rape is isn't wrong. Just because the world is complicated doesnt mean that anything is possible.

If you want to argue that preemption can be right, find an example of riteous preemption.

(I am not arguing that such an example doesnt exist, simply that you cant prove your case just by suggesting that there are grey areas)

[morgan2]

89. yes I do..

and society has the right to punish me, if they deem it so.

There are many scenarios I could come up with where a country would have to preemptively attack another, not that they happen often or will ever happen, but they do exist in the realm of possibilities.

[bloom]

31. Having the ability is not the same as having the right....eom

[TahitiNut]

85. Nor is having the liberty the same as having the right?

This is an important point, imho.

Long ago, someone said to me that "freedom" meant being free (having the 'right') to break the law.

I went "Huh?"

They explained the notion of "prior restraint" to me. No person should, in equity and justice, be subject to any limits on their freedoms and liberties without due process in a court of law. The mere suspicion of the state that a person may commit a crime (where 'crime' means actual harm) is not sufficient reason to interfere or repress that person's liberties. If the state is empowered to do so, then the tyranny of the state is unleashed. A free society is not and cannot be "safe" from the criminal acts of others and remain free; it's the conscious trade-off we make to be "safe" from the far greater threat of state repression and loss of all our civil liberties.

In a nation of laws we must ensure a system of justice where the reasonable assurance of punishment for real and actual criminal acts (which harm others) is a deterrence, and where the moral and secular education is viable and healthy enough to nurture a conscience that deters such behavior.

Sadly, in a nation with a system of economic justice that is plainly becoming less and less "just," crimes against property (economic crimes) are running wild, especially among the most privileged in our land. They are not being deterred.

Our system of economic justice is broken ... and getting worse.

[sweetheart]

26. war as a last resort. - other

Preemptive war, is bad propaganda. I would answer "no" but
say that somebody was clearly about to shoot you with a gun, do
you wait until they shoot you before shooting back? No, when their
intent is clear, then you shoot them first.

However, that was already common international law before this
preemptive war thing was announced. I would advise a president to
re-introduce the "we don't strike first" policy. Then i would
build special cases if we need to break the policy, in the UN.

In a simplistic form, say someone is about to punch you. They ball
their fist... no crime in that... and then the fist starts to move
towards yourself. The intent is clear at that point... and though
no blow has been landed. Then you punch the fist itself with such
devastating force that you crush the hand before it hits you.

So i call that "other" in the poll, as it is not "yes" not "no"
and not "maybe". It is clear that you have the right to defend
yourself and not have any citizens killed. The need to make it
policy is rubbing the world's face in it, and that is very wrong, IMO.

[Mr.Green93]

28. no use of any force

without U.N. approval.

[TahitiNut]

38. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq were morally justified.

I have the moral and legal right to use preemptive and deadly force against someone pointing a loaded gun at me ... until they turn to run away.

Afghanistan was beginning to turn, drop the gun, and run away.
Iraq didn't have the gun and had been running away for years.


Any nation that initiates a war claiming "preemption" should be put on trial. If the evidence of threat is proven "on the preponderance of the evidence," then they can be exonerated. Otherwise, that nation should be penalized for war crimes.

We're guilty. The claimed 'evidence' doesn't exist. The only question is the degree of punishment - which is a question of reckless disregard or conscious intent.

[starroute]

39. Real pre-emptive war by the US is unlikely under current circumstances

I voted Yes, because under the traditional law of nations, it's okay to attack someone who is already massing troops on your border and hauling the heavy guns into position.

The trouble with applying that to the US, though, is that when you're the world's only superpower, nobody is going to be stupid enough to mass troops on your border. So in that sense, the doctrine of pre-emptive war is a dead issue where the US is involved.

However, there's a deeper question, and that involves what is to be done about a country like North Korea:

Are they a potential threat? Sure.

Have they shown any signs of immediate intent to attack the US? None.

Could they attack without warning if they decided to? Theoretically, yes.

So does that give us the right to attack them pre-emptively and take out their war-making capacity? That one's the real joker, and there are no good answers.

If you say yes, you've effectively handed the US a blank check to attack anyone who looks at us sidewise. If you say no, you may have to resign yourself to living in a more and more dangerous world, where any tinpot dictator can get his hands on nuclear weapons.

I don't see *any* good answer to this either way -- short of world peace and understanding and all that pretty stuff. Or at the very least, a world in which every country gives up its nuclear and biological weapons and allows every other country the right to come in and inspect to make sure that it has.

But we all know the US would never agree to that. So effectively the United States is condemning us all to live in a world that seems likely to lurch back and forth between bloody oppression and equally bloody anarchy for the foreseeable future.

Ain't living in the 21st century fun?

[bloom]

45. I think that since we have all these weapons

way more than anybody - we should be able to tolerate other countries having some.

And even though people may not like the idea - I think we should be able to live with Iran having a few and North Korea and whoever. And if they were to use theirs against us - then they could expect far worse in return.

It seems like far more of a problem to deal with roving terrorists without any hard ties to any one place - because we don't have a target to attack in return. So you have to rely on info and special forces and what not. (And not provoking people unnecessarily).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. The solution is complete nuclear disarmament by all parties.

Of course, that would require diplomacy, and giving up the "We're Number One!!" mantra so beloved by Americans.

[Radius]

59. This will never happen.

like the chris rock line, you know how they say never say never, I'm sayin' never!

China
Pakistan and India
France
Russia and the US, etc have no motivation and no trust to disarm.

[K-W]

60. I unfortunately have to agree.

No nation is going to give up a weapon that garuntees them that much power.

I think the answer is to continue to develop the international community to provide plenty of avenues for diplomacy and a strong international effort to avoid a catastrophic incident.

[Radius]

68. Agree

India and Pakistan have come very close to war. This is probably the most realistic region where nuclear weapons would be used in coordinated attacks.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. Alas, you're probably right. It will take a nuclear war.

Then the survivors may have enough sense to see the futility of it all.

[lil-petunia]

52. Pearl Harbor, 9/11, - no difference

We had strong suspicions about Japanese aggression. Of course, our trade policies insured that there would be a war, but the Nippon Army was pretty much ruled by war nuts. WE were reading their mail, and knew of some plans, but probably not the complete story.

Had we known, would it have been appropriate to attack them first? Say as their ships were steaming up in Tokyo Harbor, getting ready to move out?

Of course.

-

If we had intel which told us that AQ was going to attack us, and if we had other intel that said muslims were learning how to fly commercial planes in the US, AND if we knew that the Indonesians had warned our FBI that there were plans for suicide pilots to steal planes and attack the US - - - - -oh wait a sec. We did know all that.

bad example.

But, let's say that we did have a clearer warning, like Condi wanted. You know, the flight number, the seat number and a decent photo ID of the terrorist, would it be OK for us to attack the Taliban or the AQ headquarters in Afghanistan? (Note to Bush, that's spelled with an A f g h. . . not an I R A Q)

I say yes. If an attack is imminent, if the proofs are clear, and if we are at mortal danger, of course.

Unfortunately, not one of those existed in Iraq. So, we are fighting the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place with the wrong strategy.

[K-W]

56. I think we obviously had justification before 9/11 to take action

against Al Queda. But Al Queda is not a country, so its a different story entirely.

[Selwynn]

107. Very well said

[UrbScotty]

58. Only if there is an Undisputed and urgent threat that requires it.

But I cannot think of such a scenario.

[immoderate]

69. Let's try reductio ad absurdem

Let's say the US does not have the right to declare war.

Does that mean that any country (or entity) can do ANYTHING(!) and we can't do anything about it? QED

--IMM

[K-W]

73. strawman argument

nobody is arguing that

[immoderate]

76. Then what is the purpose of this thread?

--IMM

[K-W]

77. Did you not read the word preemptive?

We are discussing preemptive war, not all war.

[bloom]

78. Your question left out the word Preemption

the purpose of this thread is - I wanted to guage where people on DU are at regarding preemptive war.

I'm happy to see the number going 70% against preemption - and most seem to agree that at the very least we should be under a grave threat of attack.

I don't actually think that is very likely in the foreseeable future - unless we bankrupt ourselves.

Most people around here are hip to the PNAC plans. I am personally concerned that too many Democrats may fall for the line of thinking that justifies the US doing whatever it wants - invading whoever it wants - to suit "our" purposes.

[immoderate]

81. Fair enough

A preemptive war will prevent an attack on the United States.

If it does not prevent an attack on the United States, how can it be preemptive?

If preemption is a false label used for an act of aggression, such as Iraq, that's wrong.

[K-W]

83. I suppose if we lived in an ideal world.

If we had 100% true and complete information, we could predict the future and know whether or not all preemptive wars were actually preventitive.

Clearly we dont. Preemption was used to justify Iraq. That clearly disproves your point, it was a preemptive war that did not prevent an attack on the US.

Thus how can it be ok for nations to use this doctrine, when we can never truely know if they are actually preventing an attack or not?

[immoderate]

86. We agree on principles

But you say Iraq is preemptive because the president declared it that. I say it is not preemptive because it did not prevent an attack.

--IMM

[citoyen]

92. Iraq was not a preemptive war

unless you define words in terms of how Gerge W. Bush uses them.

Why not condemn compassion on the same grounds?

[bloom]

100. You are right that Iraq was not a preemptive war

That does not make preemption OK - see Kofi Annan speech and the rest of my argument in - post #99.

[citoyen]

91. The question is almost nonsensical

It's sad that Bush has distorted the language. It is even sadder that so many Bush opponents (at least 65 in this poll) embrace Bush's bizarre idea of what "preemptive" means.

All preemptive war is justifiable self-defense. A preemptive war preempts real aggression. If it is not justifiable as self-defense then it is not really preemptive. If, as in the case of Iraq, there is nothing to preempt then such a war is aggressive. (Aggressors almost always claim some sort of self-defense as justification for aggression, but that doesn't make it so.)

Every nation past, present and future has the right to initiate a preemptive war, provided it is, in fact, preemptive. It's a defining characteristic of a nation.

If one wants to ask whether war X is/was/would be preemptive then that's a real question.

Asking whether preemptive war is justified, however, is like asking, "should justifiable homicide be a crime?" An extreme pacifist might question the validity of the concept of justifiable homicide, but a question like, "is justifiable homicide justified?" is more a word game than a question.

[immoderate]

93. Hi citoyen!

Welcome to DU! :hi:

In case it wasn't apparent in my posts, I agree with you. The "right to declare preemptive war," however you want to mince those words, is implicit in the idea of a nation.

--IMM

[bloom]

99. Bush has distorted the language - but preemption is still wrong

I believe that preemption was considered illegal in an international sense following the UN Charter. I agree that Bush has gotten people to think of Iraq as a preemptive war when it is an agressive war - but I do not agree that preemption is OK. in 1981 the US did not consider it to be OK.

"“American support for restraint was tested most famously by the Israeli attack on an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. The Israelis claimed the right of preemptive self-defense, but the United States joined in a Security Council resolution condemning the raid as illegal. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was characteristically blunt: "Armed attack in such circumstances cannot be justified. It represents a grave breach of international law."

http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Public_Affairs/282/yls_article.htm
-------

This is what Kofi Annan had to say in a UN address on 9//232003

"Since this Organisation was founded, States have generally sought to deal with threats to the peace through containment and deterrence, by a system based on collective security and the United Nations Charter.

Article 51 of the Charter prescribes that all States, if attacked, retain the inherent right of self-defence. But until now it has been understood that when States go beyond that, and decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, they need the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.

Now, some say this understanding is no longer tenable, since an “armed attack” with weapons of mass destruction could be launched at any time, without warning, or by a clandestine group.

Rather than wait for that to happen, they argue, States have the right and obligation to use force pre-emptively, even on the territory of other States, and even while weapons systems that might be used to attack them are still being developed.

According to this argument, States are not obliged to wait until there is agreement in the Security Council. Instead, they reserve the right to act unilaterally, or in ad hoc coalitions.
This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last fifty-eight years.

My concern is that, if it were to be adopted, it could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without justification.
But it is not enough to denounce unilateralism, unless we also face up squarely to the concerns that make some States feel uniquely vulnerable, since it is those concerns that drive them to take unilateral action. We must show that those concerns can, and will, be addressed effectively through collective action.

Excellencies, we have come to a fork in the road. This may be a moment no less decisive than 1945 itself, when the United Nations was founded.

At that time, a group of far-sighted leaders, led and inspired by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, were determined to make the second half of the twentieth century different from the first half. They saw that the human race had only one world to live in, and that unless it managed its affairs prudently, all human beings may perish."

-------

During the debates this came up thusly:

“What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.

No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.”

<snip>

LEHRER: Mr. President, new question. Two minutes. Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action?

BUSH: I would hope I never have to. I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running -- when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that.

But the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us.
-------

I don't agree with either one of them. I don't agree that American Presidents "always had the right" and of course Bush* is an idiot saying an enemy attacked us. And even LEHRER is distorting the language by suggesting Iraq was a preemptive military action when it was an invasion - straight out.

The Bush people have been working on distorting the language ever since Bush made the speech at Westpoint in May of 2003 and continued into the primaries with this:

"Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists," the ad states. "Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others." The ad urges viewers to tell Congress "to support the president's policy of preemptive self-defense."

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=16054

--------

But I still maintain that preemtion goes against the UN - another thing that the Republicans have been trying to render impotent - and that Bush has been trying to make that OK as well as invasions.

As far as Kerry and the Cold War - I thought the main deal was MAD - mutually assurred destruction - not "we'll go attack anyone we think might attack us".

And that the problem we face today is we have no checks. Not the Soviet Union, not the UN and too many people are convinced that we have the "right" to do what we want because we can.

[bpilgrim]

115. the word that describes this ILLEGAL, AGGRESSIVE war best is PREVENTIVE war

the UN actually preserves any nations right to pre-empt an IMMINENT threat.

the war in Iraq is argued by the ones making it as such, they aren't even trying anymore to make the case that it was pre-emptive/imminent threat, they are saying he WOULD have, years in the future, acquired the ability, to harm us and THAT is what justified the war.

well, fighting a war to PREVENT a FUTURE war/attack years in the FUTURE is ILLEGAL as kofi annan refuses to address cept to say they went without UN blessing which no one cares about if they think theres an IMMINENT threat.

this war doesn't really even measure up to the preventive argument since Iraq was stripped searched and surrounded when we gave the kill orders... this wars excuse was even worse than hitlers was for invading Poland since we were all over them with u2's and inspectors on the ground not to mention the no-fly-zones and world sanctions.

we need to challenge this war at it's root argument that post 911 PREVENTIVE WARS are now justified no matter what the world or un 'test' may say.

peace

[TexasSissy]

109. I agree with this.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

94. On the general principle of pre-emption,

the U.S has the right to engage threats to our security. Of course there are rules you follow (stated threat of force, Congressional approval, etc). We should always try to use the inernational approach (allies, U.N, etc) when we can, and if we must, go alone. I'm speaking generally here, so before I get flamed about Iraq, I'm simply speaking in general terms.

[RapidCreek]

95. The US didn't intitiate a preemptive war.

the war we initiated preemted nothing.

RC

[MS68]

97. Probably not...

Only if there is indisputable evidence that the U.S. is in danger of an imminent attach, which would probably not make it a preemptive war.

All of this crap about the Iraq war being about securing democracy for the Iraqi's now that they haven't been able to find any WMD's really stinks. If a country is actively involved in a civil war and fighting for democracy, and they ask us for our help, I could see going over and helping them out. But, we don't need to decide whether or not a country wants to be free. They need to decide whether or not its worth sacrificing some of their children's lives in bombings, etc....not us.

[bloom]

98. "The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense"

Some interesting points...

" Permitting preemptive self-defense at the sole discretion of a state is fundamentally at odds with the (UN) Charter's design. It is an exception that would overthrow the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) and thus the very purposes of the UN."

<snip>

The Policy Against Preemptive Self-Defense

The United States has consistently rejected preemptive self-defense for reasons of
sound policy. This is not a right that the United States wants others to have. Glennon has argued that circumstances have changed and that Washington should reconsider the law.

Yet as the examples of state practice show, international society and even the United States have found the standing rules adequate for dealing with the problem of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and regimes such as that controlled by Saddam Hussein.

Historically, the United States has argued against a right of preemptive self-defense because it has found the UN Charter rules to be in its interest as a matter of policy and prudence."


"The term "preemptive self-defense" is used in

this essay to refer to cases where a party uses force to quell any possibility of future attack by

another state, even where there is no reason to believe that an attack is planned and where no

prior attack has occurred. Some writers also call this "preventive" self-defense or

"preventive" war."

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:Cy-IegbNHrIJ:www.asil.org/taskforce/oconnell.pdf+preemptive&hl=en

[Bread and Circus]

103. Do DU'ers even understand what the concept means?

[bloom]

104. what do you think it means?

Perhaps you could read my post #99 and comment on the passages that I found that discussed preemption and tell me what you think. I think there is a lot of confusion about it - mostly brought on by Bush*, etc. - but also by a lot of other people including Lehrer - who perpetuate Bush*s propaganda and confuse the issue.

I also think that people are either forgetting that the US was against preemption in our recent past - at least officially - or a lot of people are deciding that the US is so powerful that we are no longer concerned about what the international standard is.

[Bread and Circus]

110. This is culled from the internet, and is in line w/ my understanding.

---

"There’s a well-accepted definition for preemptive war in international law," Joseph Cirincione, Director of the Non-Proliferation Project of the Carnegie Endowment, told me on the telephone last week. "Preemptive war is justified by an imminent threat of attack, a clear and present danger that the country in question is about to attack you. In such a case a preemptive attack is recognized as justifiable."

---

http://www.antiwar.com/bock/b091002.html


---

Bush's current Iraq war is neither a preemptive or preventative war.
It is an aggressive war staged on set of lies.

[bpilgrim]

111. fighting a PREVENTIVE WAR is always an aggressive war

aggressive is just one of the adjectives that can be used to describe the traits of preventive war but in it's simplest terms it is a war fought, it is argued, to PREVENT a war/threat in the FUTURE and THAT is exactly how this admin is arguing their case these days and it MUST be confronted directly or no nation will be by our side in the end save Israel and GB.

peace

[Bread and Circus]

118. That's fine, I won't argue with your point but it has nothing to do with..

the original poll nor my original point, which is that I doubt a lot of DU'ers really understand the concept of pre-emption and keep getting it confused w/ preventative wars and other wars of choice.

Either that or I think too many DU'ers are passive to a fault.

[Selwynn]

105. No, it only as the right to "preempt" an IMMEDIATE DANGER

[Bush was AWOL]

112. Yes, if you know someone is going to hit you take their ass out

before they get the chance. It's simple, the presidents obligation is to protect the people of the United States of America by whatever means necessary.

[MsConduct]

113. No! We do rule the world, no matter what * thinks! n/t

[MsConduct]

114. How about we do NOT rule the world! LOL n/t

[quaker bill]

116. The right to do so is part of international law

Of course what it means under international law is that if an enemy has massed troops on your borders, cut off diplomatic relations and all but declared war on you, you do not have to wait for them to shoot first. All soveriegn nations are granted the right for pre-emptive attack under international law.

Had we uncovered plans for the attack on Pearl Harbor and found the Japanese carrier fleet massing off the coast we could have legally struck them first.

The standard for this sort of thing to be legal is very high. What Bush did in Iraq does not even come close to meeting it. A better term for what Bush did would be "unprovoked invasion".

This is why Bush does not like the International Criminal Court. He could easily be prosecuted for war crimes there for what he did to Iraq.

[Silverhair]

117. The problem is that you NEVER know the alternative history.

My favorite example on the subject of preventive war is when Hitler was in his early days and first violated his treaties with the French. France had sufficient cause to issue an ultimatum, and to attack if Hitler didn't back down. At that time, France could have defeated the Germans with ease and WWII would have been avoided. To have avoided WWII, I hope everyone would agree, would be such a good thing that it would have been worth a preventive war.

But the problem is that NOBODY WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVE WHAT WAS PREVENTED. The world would only see France attacking a much weaker Germany over an old treaty, and would judge France as guilty of agression.

And so it is with any preventive action. You rarely every know if it truly did prevent anything.

To argue that you must NEVER strike first is a policy that will eventually end in national suicide.

[leftofthedial]

119. No, if preemptive is defined as

what happened in Iraq.

If we have clear evidence of a truly imminent threat, it would be negligent not to preempt it.

[gordianot]

120. Yes but only in very extreme situations.

The President who initiates a preemptive strike needs to be positive of the need. If he/she are wrong they need to be prepared to face all of the consequences.