Under what circumstances, would YOU approve of preemptive military action?

[Forever Free]

Disregarding your opinions and beliefs on the failed justification for the invasion of Iraq, under what set of circumstances would you approve a preemptive military action to be conducted by the United States against another country (say Iran or North Korea)?

Provide some brief explanations of your positions if you have to.

[bpilgrim]

1. under imminent threat of attack

the same one the UN authorizes.

preventive war, however, is always ILLEGAL.

peace

[Avalux]

2. Two reasons

imminent attack (not maybe this or maybe that) and assisting allies who have been attacked (WWII).

That's it.

[LynnTheDem]

3. None whatsoever.

"For 175 years we have not been that kind of country,"

-R. Kennedy

[KittyWampus]

52. I Think You Understandably Mistake Pre-emptive War W/Preventative

Pre-emptive war is when you KNOW you are about to be hit.

In other words, it's self defense.

Preventative War is what Iraq invasion was.

[LynnTheDem]

54. My answer remains "none whatsoever".

WHEN someone attacks us, THEN we fight. That is my answer, thanks.

:)

[liberal N proud]

4. When ever a one nation attacks another that nation then becomes

the aggressor regardless of the intentions of the nation which was attacked.
This nation was built on the principles of peacemaking, not war mongering.
There would be no reason for a preemptive attack. One should only attack when provoked by acts of war by another nation.
The question then becomes, what constitutes an act of war?

[Forever Free]

7. How do you define an "act of war"?

And what standards would you use to measure that the United States is under sufficient threat of an imminent attack?

[johnnie]

5. All circumstances

Taking in to consideration how well we defended ourselves on 911 :eyes: ,how well the search for Bin Laden is going and the success of Iraq :eyes: I think we need to just attack everyone and everything..just to be safe.

<sarcasm off>

[jody]

6. If humans have natural rights, then the right of self-defense

is clearly one of those rights. Accordingly, I would preemptively attack any person who threatened me with a deadly weapon and I was reasonably certain was going to kill or seriously injure me. I also expect society will require me to prove the threat was real and punish me if it was not.

I would use that same logic as president regarding the specific threat from a group or country and expect global society to require me to prove the threat was real.

That doctrine is followed throughout the U.S. and most other countries for individuals. I see no moral reason to treat heads of state any different.

[davekriss]

50. "I would use that same logic as president..."

I think, because or the enormity of the consequences of error, a more preventative mechanism is needed than merely hanging the sword of damocles over the heads of state (who are adept at avoiding accountability).

War (example Iraq) is a different matter than pre-emptive (preventative) strikes, such as Clinton's attempt to decapitate and intimidate Al Qaeda when he bombed the training camps in Afghanistan in 1998, or when Israel blew up the Osiraq nuclear reactor in Iran in 1981. For these, after-the-fact consequences might apply quite well; but the decision to wage war on a nation needs to be first founded in evidence certain and sure, and a decision made through the checks and balances of multiple judgments (not by the ravings of a single pretzeldent).

"Cease to do evil; try to do good." That should be the moral imperative behind our mechanisms of force.

[Vladimir]

8. I wouldn't n/t

[ElectroPrincess]

9. Oh this is just sour grapes, huh?

Don't yew lib-r-Al's understand that preemption werks?!? Why LOOKey at Lebanon where those mean old Syrians will be forced out. That's because of the USA's pressure. Hell, even your socialist hero Jon Stewart admitted as much.

Why, just imagine? Since it's the Syrian government that create order and compose the workings of Lebanon's infrastructure, I can't wait for the budding Democracy as Rummy defines it as soon as those EVIL Syrians all leave our buds in Lebanon, i.e., looting, lack of security, kidnappings, chaos, increased suicide bombings, retraction of women's rights and implementation of Islamic Law as integral part of it's government.

/sarcasm off

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

10. Hey your "wakeup usa" site is asleep, or broken, or something...

[Forever Free]

13. Yeah our site is down temporarily unfortunately

WakeUpUSA is a site I started with a college buddy of mine. It provides a non-partisan analysis on the news and provides some commentary. Its down for the moment as we work out some server issues.

[K-W]

11. I defer to international law.

Which spells this all out pretty well.

[Warpy]

12. None.

We're just not good at forseeing the future.

I also don't think people should be arrested because they might be thinking of committing a crime.

Nor would I divorce a spouse who was ogling movie stars and thinking of what sex with them might be like.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

14. Perhaps you should answer your own question, since people here

seem to be pretty much against the idea of "preemptively" attacking other countries.

Do you think the current "preemptive" war in Iraq is morally justified? If so, why?

[Forever Free]

15. To answer your question, YES I do support preemptive action

I do support preemptive military action, if and only if it is absolutely necessary to the integrity of our national security. If a nation legitimately poses an imminent threat to our direct territory, citizens, or our allies, it is our duty and responsibility to act immediately and without hesitation. To do otherwise would be a dereliction of duty of the highest order.

I also believe that we should never cede our security interests to any nation or international institution, like Senator Kerry said during the campaign. With that said however, I do NOT approve of the current Iraq war and I do NOT think it is morally justifiable. We went in under dubious claims and unleashed a quagmire that has made this country less secure and safe.

[IrateCitizen]

22. But see, that's the slippery slope you've bought into...

We've forgotten that those international organizations that everybody's so damned afraid of subordinating our "national security" to were created in the spirit of stopping the grand horror of world war from ever happening again. And in spite of the myriad of faults of the UN, it's done a pretty damned good job at doing this in the years since.

You're saying that you don't think Iraq was justified. But it is proof that in the age of the Imperial Presidency, all an executive has to do is to hype the idea that we're in imminent danger to get people to buy off on the notion of "pre-emptive attack", which is really little more than the aggressive war engaged in by Nazi Germany and condemned by the tribunals of Nurenberg.

War is the ultimate failure of the human condition. Even from a realist's standpoint, it should only be exercised as a LAST RESORT. In light of the international institutions that we have, there is absolutely no reason that war really shouldn't happen anymore, at least not between nations. Internal conflicts are another matter.

What drives the need for "pre-emption" is not the territorial aims of other nations, but the desire for unfettered hegemony on the part of the United States. Perhaps if we would abandon imperial ambitions and instead truly join in the community of nations, many of these "problems" would simply melt away....

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[IrateCitizen]

32. Your second situation is a complete strawman

There are no dictators out there who "want to kill us". Not even in North Korea or Iran. They may not like us, but they don't want to kill us. Rather, they're behaving exactly in the same manner as a cornered, threatened animal. The only reason they're seen as posing any kind of threat to the US is because the US has made a full-time hobby out of threatening THEM.

As for the first situation, that is PRECISELY the kind of scenario for which we have international organizations. Problems arise when one nation, such as the United States, takes on the responsibility to be the world's policeman. For one thing, we're currently drunk on military power and hubris, and don't exactly do very well in wielding that power. It is precisely for situations such as this that the United Nations was created, so the world can debate upon these things and decide upon the best course of action, and set out collectively to take that action.

[John BigBootay]

37. I don't buy it--

I know that is the common wisdom around here regarding maniac dictators-- that we're to blame for their arms development and that we will be to blame should they decide to use them against us. That we goad them into the positions they are in.

Sorry, but I just have a fundamental disagreement with you on this. If you traded places with Kim Jong Il, YOU would not be working feverishly to develop a ballistic nuclear program-- niether would I.

I would be working REALLY hard in a peaceful way to create a better place for my people-- if that included making nice with America so that I could suck the tit of foreign aid-- so be it. Remember, NK was receiving foreign aid until they broke the agreement not to develop nuclear weapons.

You have to acknowledge that the people we are not getting along with aren't just misunderstood nice-guys, they're mass murderers and fundamentalist whack-jobs.

Yes-- they might be like animals backed into a corner, but in some cases these animals are rabid dogs that might need to be put down.

Let's hope and pray that no shots need be fired to accomplish that unwelcome task-- and that no innocents suffer in the process.

[IrateCitizen]

38. OK, then name one single instance in which a dictator...

... posed a clear and present danger to the United States during our history without our prior provocation.

I'm a student of history, and there isn't a single instance I can think of. The people we're talking about, they may not be nice people, but they aren't suicidal either. Their primary aim is holding on to their power.

Sorry, still not buying this tonic you're selling....

[John BigBootay]

42. You won't get me to say--

that the US isn't involved in a broad spectrum of foreign affairs-- for good and for bad. And I (probably like you) wish it weren't always so. By Democrat and Republican efforts alike, we meddle, tinker and craft foreign policy to our liking. Has been this way for decades and WILL BE this way for decades more.

To say that we have not played a role in creating ire is foolish-- but to say that our workings with regards to foreign policy is the SOLE reason for maniac dictators to possess and threaten the world with nuclear weapons is even more ridiculous.

I will agree with you slightly in theory that the US has work to do to make itself clean-- but you should be able to say one side has more culpablilty in wrong-doing than another, and to me it is clearly obvious that dictators who strive to create nuclear weapons with complete disregard for the grave destruction that they may bring upon their people from a disapproving world or the United States, are extremely dangerous, paranoid power-mongers.

Will to power does not come without a price that EVERYONE must pay in different ways. But it is the dictator's conscious decision to pursue this power at any price that is ultimately at fault. As a student of history, you should recognize that as well.

[Just Me]

67. Gee. I can't name one. However, when it came to financial interests,...

,...well, the greed involved is,...not reflective of all the rhetoric about "values" that is intended to manipulate the masses ON PURPOSE!!!!

[bpilgrim]

35. "poses an imminent threat" - plenty of countries got NUKES?

r they legit targets?

they obviously POSSES an imminent GLOBAL - enough of them - threat... who gets to decide then which one is the 'legitimate' threat?

i say the bar has been lowered, to our ultimate peril, and THAT is the problem, today and with your argument... because now we have authorized PREVENTIVE WAR - to prevent a possible war/threat sometime in the future do to the fact that they POSSES a threat to us AND our 'allies' - which is ALWAYS WRONG and usually TERMINAL.

we better learn how to share that oil or threats are gonna be everywhere...


peace

[Djinn]

73. you know how many countries

under your definition would be well within their rights to attack to the US?

[Bridget Burke]

16. None.

Please check your history books for an example of a truly moral "pre-emptive" war & I might change my mind.

[LWolf]

17. None.

Defense is not pre-emptive, in my book. It is a response to attack.

I support defensive action. I don't support using the military to strong-arm the neighbors or promote the U.S. agenda.

[IrateCitizen]

18. The only threats to the US are created by our pursuit of hegemony...

Therefore, I see your question as a non-sequitor.

I do not support the waging of aggressive war (that's the REAL definition of "pre-emptive military action") under any circumstances whatsoever. Why? Because we developed an international framework after WWII to avoid precisely these kinds of occurrences from happening. And however imperfect that framework is, it has done a pretty damned good job at preventing the outbreak of another world war.

Perhaps if we actually started abiding by our responsibilities under this framework, this would become a moot question. Countries like North Korea and Iran are not pursuing nuclear weapons out of some kind of greater territorial ambitions. They're pursuing them because they feel threatened by a United States that has abandoned all pretense of international cooperation in pursuit of unopposed hegemony.

If you answer that you believe in the application of pre-emptive military force, the waging of aggressive war, then you are effectively saying that the United States is justified in its pursuit of unbridled hegemony. You are effectively participating toward the destruction of the internationalism that was borne out of two world wars. Sorry, but that course is a wholly immoral and insane one, and I refuse to be a party to it.

[Art_from_Ark]

19. DIdn't the Nuremberg Trials and Tokyo Tribunal make it clear

that "pre-emptive" attacks are illegal, and their perpetrators are subject to prosecution?

[No Exit]

20. Never--it's the Department of DEFENSE.

DEFENSE. DEFENSE. Yes, we need to defend our territory, but that's all. Fuck the empire-builders; may they share the fate of empire-builders before them.

[kentuck]

21. If there was proof....

Not on a hunch.

[dryan]

23. If we are absolutely sure...

that another country is building up troops to attack us (or our neighbors) or if they are building a weapon of some sort that could attack us. The Israelis sent in jets to take out a uranium producing plant that the Iraqis were building back in the late 1970s. Frankly, that should have told us that the Iraqis were incapable of producing WMD. Other than that, I would like to think that my country doesn't do that sort of thing.

[leftofthedial]

24. if i felt sure that a single preemptive attack

could take out the entire bushgang and the neotheocon leadership and infrastructure

I'd be all for it.

Seriously, it is justifiable only in the event of imminent threat and the attacking nation damned well better be sure. The little bushturd's use of preemptionn in Iraq based on lies constitutes a war crime.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. None

It's too easy to fabricate reasons why a preemptive attack is "necessary."

Aggressors NEVER come right out and say, "We're going to attack Country X just because we can get away with it." They always figure out some rationalization that will appeal to their general public, and then the poor suckers in the military go off to die, convinced that they're fighting in a glorious cause.

You're not allowed to do a home invasion on your neighbor simply because you THINK he might be stockpiling weapons for an attack on you.

[ZombieNixon]

26. There's a difference between PREEMPTIVE and PREVENTIVE war.

Preemptive war is legal in international law when there is clear evidence that country Y poses an imminent (as in, may attack next week) threat to country X.

Preventive war is illegal, no matter what, because the rationale is that country Y may, at some undetermined future date, pose a threat to country X. That's what we did in Iraq.

[Silverhair]

33. I can think of several that were justified.

The Vietnamese attacked Cambodia and took out Pol Pot. I think they deserve to be commended for that action, regardless of legal nicities.

Idi Amin of Uganda was taken out by an agressive attack from a neighboring country that had had enough of him. They did a good deed too.

Sometimes, in some situations, it is the right thing to do.

And if France had taken out Hitler early, when they had the ability and Hitler had already shown the type that he was, WWII would have been avoided. I hope the absolute moralists here would agree that avoiding WWII would have been a good thing, worth the price of a preventive war. Of course, France would never be able to prove to anybody that they had indeed prevented such a war, so the ivory tower moralists would have condemned France.

[starwolf]

27. Very Limited Circumstances

The 1967 war might qualify...depending on whom you believe. Independent sources are hard to come by for that.

[Tyler Durden]

28. NEVER. NOT EVER. NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

As another poster said in part, the Nuremberg trials established the litmus test: undeclared war in absence of attach is defined as "Aggressive War," and is by its very definition, a War Crime.

This is black or white, folks...one of the few issues today that is.

[WilliamPitt]

48. What about Poland in 1939?

Had they been able to contend with the Wermacht, had they been able to successfully attack the Wermacht before they got overrun, you say they should not have done so?

I think there'd be a lot more Jews on the planet had Poland been able to do so.

[KittyWampus]

53. You Are Wrong. If You Have Evidence Of Imminent Attack You Have

every right under every treaty and convention to strike.

What you are referring to is now known as Preventative War.

[Cleita]

30. Didn't Clinton go into Bosnia and then Kosovo to stop

the ethnic genocide? This seems to me to be a legitimate reason. Also, it was a real coalition under the Aegis of NATO or the UN wasn't it? I think there is a difference between saving people from certain torture and death and a pirate raid for oil. If the allies had gone into Nazi Germany when Hitler raided his first country, history might have turned out very differently.

When Poppy Bush went into Iraq the first time to free Kuwait, I thought it was a legitimate reason then to take out Saddam. He was a danger then. But since Poppy didn't do that, and the weapon's inspectors did their job, this last incursion is nothing more than a raid.

[OETKB]

31. Street Corner Logic

Your question has assumptions which many of us here do not agree with. To spend our energy reviewing scenarios that involve aggressive action only moves us closer to that reality. Can you truly name me one country in this world that would attempt such a ridiculous notion. Their reaction is usually prompted by some uncalled for intervention in their affairs. It is bad enough that this administration uses sloppy reasoning to justify what it has done. Our military is to be used to defend us legally against truly evident and obvious aggressors after our representatives have thoroughly debated the issue. Do you remember Robert Byrd's speeches with no response from his fellow legislators? They clearly dropped the ball when they voted for a war resolution. We must never be the source of any aggression. The goal of the human race is to figure out how we insure our survival without destroying ourselves.

The real issue is leadership. We would not being even be discussing this if we had leaders who were intelligent enough, had enough experience, and understood their accountability to the American public. Mr. Bush fails all these tests of consent to govern.

[Forever Free]

34. I don't think we should use such absolute words like "Never"

I don't like the IDEA of preemptive war. It should ONLY be used as a last resort. However, I do realize that under CERTAIN circumstances, it might become necessary. I think its prudent and wise not to use words like "never" when we say we won't use such action.

We never know when a situation might arise when such intervention or preemptive act would be necessary. I say we take it on a case by case basis and not indoctrinate the practice (i.e. the Bush Doctrine). Preemptive war is necessary in SOME circumstances, but it should NEVER be the first option.

[OETKB]

39. I'm listening

However you have missed the point. By taking to this notion, you are downplaying the role of meaningful diplomacy and trustworthy leadership. I get to the never if it happens. However until then, I think you would hard pressed to dream up a plausible scenario. By the way I reviewed my post and I did not use the word never in the context of this discussion about preemptive war. I was talking about being the aggressor nation in a conflict.

[Forever Free]

55. Oh I never said that you used the word "never"

I was just responding to your post because i thought it was a good one.

[OETKB]

72. OK

Thanks. However the point I don't want to lose is that preemptive war is a losing policy, even to contemplate. It should not even be a consideration. If it occurs something is wrong with our leadership.

[Fescue4u]

36. When we deem it necessary

to save American lives.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. Who is "we"?

The politicians? The generals? The CIA?

[Bridget Burke]

43. The politicians, of course.

Quite a few generals (some retired early) & most of the CIA (but there's a new director now) were against the invasion of Iraq.

But a few politicians overrode them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. Preemptive? Never.

"Potential" threats exist all the time. My next door neighbor could "potentially" get tanked up and decide he doesn't like the way I mow the lawn and shoot me. By the logic of "potential threats" I should go an shoot him first.

[Pastiche423]

44. None

[Ms. Clio]

45. Under what circumstances would you approve a preemptive military action

to be conducted against the United States by another country (say China or Russia?)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Tsk. Tsk. WE would never threaten another country.

Of course, the folks in Iraq, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, China, Russia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Honduras, Haiti, Venezuela, and about half of the rest of the countries of the world that have been, threatened, invaded, subverted, or nuked, by us might disagree.

[WilliamPitt]

47. If I were Poland in 1939

[UdoKier]

49. If the nation in question was clearly poised to attack the US.

If the country clearly had the means and was showing the belligerence to indicate an attack was imminent.

But of course all diplomatic efforts should have been exhausted first (there was no diplomatic effort with Iraq at all.)


Even then, I would only support crippling the opponent's military, not an invasion and takeover.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. We were "clearly poised to attack" Iraq. Should they have attacked us?

Or, Haiti, Graneda, Cuba, Serbia, Afghanistan, etc?

It's a two sided sword.

[Ms. Clio]

56. Or since the U.S. is clearly poised to attack Syria, Iran,

and perhaps Venezuela, should those three countries make a preemptive strike?

Of course, they wouldn't do that, because they are not suicidal. It seems that only the biggest, most powerful bully on the planet is allowed to feel threatened.

On edit: It's also very telling that those who favor preemptive attacks by the U.S. choose not to answer these questions.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. Not suprising at all. The myth that we are the "good" guys persists.

Despite overwhelming evidence that we are the most warlike nation on the planet today, and have been since the end of WWII.

[Forever Free]

59. We ARE the good guys though

Nations such as China, Russia, and North Korea are much more militaristic. Just because we are the dominant superpower doesn't make us warlike. And yes I do believe that America IS the good guy. We have made mistakes (the current Iraq war), but I wholeheartedly believe that America has always been and will continue to be a force for good in the world.

[Ms. Clio]

60. I study, write, and will soon teach U.S. history

You are regurgitating fairy tales.

Just ask the southern slaves, the Native Americans, and the Mexicans of the 19th century what a "force for good" the United States was for their worlds.

Ask the people of Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., etc., etc. what a "Force for good" the U.S. has been in their world.

Why does a "force for good" need 160 bases all over the planet and thousands of nuclear weapons?

[Forever Free]

64. I also study US history and I am able to see the other side as well

Any country has its imperfections, I will be the first to admit that. This country has done horrible things in the past (i.e. slavery and the internment of Japanese-Americans). Should those events however forever tarnish and demean the other great things we have done for the world? (i.e. the liberation of Europe and Asia from fascism in WWII, the Marshall Plan, the fall of Communism)

Those 160 bases and nuclear weapons you refer to are Cold War relics. They may now be unnecessary in the current geopolitical sphere, but they were instrumental in us winning the Cold War and ensuring the collapse of Communism. For that reason, they were a "force for good". Just because we are the dominant superpower on the planet doesn't make us inherently evil.

[Ms. Clio]

65. I really wonder what your professors are teaching you

The U.S. did not single-handedly "liberate" Europe--if not for Hitler's blunder in attacking Russia, the outcome of that war might have been very different.

And if all those bases are merely Cold War "relics," why is the U.S. busy building more of them in Iraq and Central Asia?

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Forever Free]

70. We're building bases in Iraq because we're in a theater of operation there

So that requires us to build military bases there in order to support our continued operations there. Now with that said, I don't approve them building bases because I disapproved of the war in the first place.

In Central Asia (are you talking about Georgia and Afghanistan?), we're building bases there because we need them there to support our operations against Al-Qaeda in the region.

And I'm not saying that the US "single-handedly" defeat the Axis powers. Our allies also contributed greatly. However, I AM saying that without our support and our army, the Allies would have never won. And I believe that to be a fair statement, even considering Hitler's blunder in invading the Soviet union.

[Ms. Clio]

71. How about all the "'stans?" Uzbekistan, Khazakstan, etc.

The fact is that the U.S. is building bases in Central Asia in order to a)control oil resources in the region and b) maintain global dominance (really they are the same thing).

But what a mighty convenient bogeyman Al-Qaeda has turned out to be.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. Really? I suggest you read a bit of history.

Does Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Angola, Honduras, Guatamala, Iran, Congo, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Rwanda, and many more ring any bells?

Or, were they just "mistakes". If they were, we are the dumbest, most inept, country in history.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. Compare how many wars China, Russia &NK were involved in.

Compared to the unwarlike US since WWII.

[Ms. Clio]

62. This nation has pursued an empire since at least 1898

Or perhaps since 1846.

The U.S. is certainly no better than any other empire, and in some ways far worse--at least the Romans didn't usually spout all the "liberation" bullshit.

[Forever Free]

58. It is completely within their purview to launch a preemptive strike

As a sovereign nation, those countries have that right. It is a different issue altogether on how they use that right of self-defense. However with that said, we also in turn have the right to counter them, either before or after they attack.

I also disagree that the US is definitely poised to attack Iran, Syria, or Venezuela. We're just saber-rattling, in my opinion.

[Ms. Clio]

61. If they have that right, how is how they use it a "different issue?"

Yeah, all the war talk leading up to an invasion of Iraq, a country that never remotely threatened us, was considered "saber rattling," too. Until it wasn't.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

69. You might want to remove your "wakeupusa" link until you get the site

working again.

I checked archive.org but couldn't find anything on it.

[TankLV]

68. Real solid PROOF instead of LIES would be a nice start.

I'd have a hard time of EVER approving it.

Even if it meant that we'd be nuked first.

America never STARTS wars, but we certainly can FINISH them.

At least, before the repukes stole it all.