At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Hmmm, interesting, just thinking of the frontrunners in both major parties, yes, they would use pre-emptive war. ie Obama, Hillary, Edwards;;;;Guiliani, Romney, McCain's campaign is failing.
That's what the most powerful country in the history of the world does, n'est pas?
Hmmm, interesting, just thinking of the frontrunners in both major parties, yes, they would use pre-emptive war. ie Obama, Hillary, Edwards;;;;Guiliani, Romney, McCain's campaign is failing.
That's what the most powerful country in the history of the world does, n'est pas?
I thought that America being a member of the UBN forbad that?
The candidates are certainly saying that pre-emptive is an option that should not be taken off the table.
Of course Obama is talking about pre-emptive war on our allies, while at the same time completely taking our most powerful weapons off the table as an option, but that's a whole other topic.
Is it nationalism that is driving these statements? I don't know. Certainly for a few of them, it's about nationalism. But for at least a few of them, these words are simply what they think the country wants to hear, and they say it in order to get themselves elected.
Now... is nationalism a bad thing? I don't think so. Is a willingness to pre-emptively strike an enemy that is making moves to attack you a bad thing? I don't think so. Is a willingness to fight the enemies of your country with every tool at your disposal a bad thing? I don't think so. And is membership in the UN supposed to be a suicide pact that prevents you from taking actions that can ensure the safety of your citizenty? Again, I don't think so. Is getting international support for such a pre-emptive attack a good thing? Sure. Is it necessary or required? I don't think so.
So, yes, you basically have it right... with the exception of the fact that some of the candidates are simply parroting positions they don't really believe.
I can't recall a President in the nuclear age who has come into office with the position that they would take preemption off the table. Seems that would be an irresponsible position to take. BTW ;preventive war would be a more accurate description.
Quote:
“The military advantages of landing the first blow become increasingly important with modern weapons, and this is a fact which requires us to be on the alert in order to strike with our full weight as soon as we are attacked, and, if possible, before the Soviet blow is actually delivered.”
NSC-68, Section IX.C
Grenada, Panama, Kosovo are all recent examples of the Presidential use of preemption. The doctrine did not being with Bush nor will it end with him.
Yeah... Ron Paul for president. That way the enemy can attack us here in the USA before we ever have a chance to stop them elsewhere. Because waiting for the enemy to come here has been so successful for us in the past...
El, El, El.... Tsk, tsk. You assume because he doesn't want to BE the agressor, that he wouldn't defend us. Nope. Wrong. Buzz! You don't understand libertarians. S'ok. Nobody else does either.
I can't recall a President in the nuclear age who has come into office with the position that they would take preemption off the table. Seems that would be an irresponsible position to take. BTW ;preventive war would be a more accurate description.
NSC-68, Section IX.C
Grenada, Panama, Kosovo are all recent examples of the Presidential use of preemption. The doctrine did not being with Bush nor will it end with him.
I think we are talking about two different things, Tom. The talk now is with nukes.
is with nukes.
Linear Mode
