Pre Emptive War's... Is the World "Safer"? - Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions

Corporate Pig · *Last edited by Corporate Pig : 08-24-04 at 03:48.*

In the wake of the Sept 11 attacks, the Bush Administration adopted a set of 'revised' Foreign Policies, defining the need for Pre Emptive War against any State who posed a 'threat' to the US.

Quote:

Pre-emptive war

Online Encylopedia
refer:http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...-emptive%20war

A preemptive attack (or preemptive war) is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat an imminent offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (usually unavoidable) war.

Preemptive war is often confused with the term preventive war. While the latter is generally considered to violate international law, and to fall short of the requirements of a just war, preemptive wars are more often argued to be justified or justifiable.

The intention with a preemtive strike is to gain the advantage of initiative and to harm the enemy at a moment of minimal protection, for instance while vulnerable during transport or mobilization.

While the labeling of an attack (on strategic and tactic levels) seldom is controversial, it's much more so in regard to the initiation of a war. For propagandist reasons, and in the name of information warfare, an adversary's defensive dispositions may often be attributed offensive purpose alleging the necessity of the own attack.

Immediately, this called for attacks on Afghanistan :-
President George Bush called for attacks on Afghanistan for refusing to hand over Osama Bin Laden - who the US claimed was the mastermind behind the Sept 11 Attacks...

Quote:

White House warns Taliban: 'We will defeat you'

CNN.com
September 21, 2001
Refer: http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapc...fghan.taliban/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House bluntly warned Afghanistan's Taliban rulers Friday that "We will defeat you" if they refuse to turn suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden over to U.S. authorities.

The United States has labeled bin Laden a prime suspect in last week's attacks on New York and Washington, which may have killed more than 6000.

In response to this demand, the Taliban offered to hand over Osama, IF the US could supply any "evidence" they had.

Unfortunately though, Bush rejected this "offer", and so the "unavoidable" pre-emptive War had to take place, as any form of "negotion" with the Taliban was not possible - according to the Bush Administration.
Even an offer to hand him over [immediately] to a "third party nation", was not acceptable to George Bush.

Quote:

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over

The Guardian (U.K)
Sunday October 14, 2001
Refer: http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterro...573975,00.html

President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty". In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country".

Since this [unavoidable] war took place, the US War machine then continued on to yet another nation which [apparently] offered [yet another] "immediate threat to the US" - this being Iraq.

Now that George Bush has [claimed] that the "War is over", the US Administration has looked towards... Iran for its next "Pre emptive War" doctrine.

Quote:

The warlords of America

John Pilger
Refer: http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle6777.htm

On 6 May last, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution which, in effect, authorised a "pre-emptive" attack on Iran. The vote was 376-3. Undeterred by the accelerating disaster in Iraq, Republicans and Democrats, wrote one commentator, "once again joined hands to assert the responsibilities of American power".

So the question at hand I guess, and the purpose of this thread, is to discuss - Is the World a "Safer" place, now that the US has coined the fashion of "Pre-emptive War" foregin Policy?

My opinion - NO!.
If adopt Geroge Orwell thoughts from '1984', then maybe..;

Quote:

War is Peace,
Freedom is Slavery,
Ignorance is Strength

-George Orwell
'1984'.

otherwise if we were to follow my belief, we find half the world on the brink of "Pre-emptive" Wars, usually justified through ideological self driven promotion..

For starters, the US has 'effectively' authorised Pre-emptive attacks on Iran.

Now Iran considers 'Pre-emptive' attacks against the US OR Israel - to prevent a possible 'pre-emptive' attack.

Quote:

Iran Warns Of Preemptive Strike To Prevent Attack On Nuclear Sites

Turkish Press
8/18/2004
Refer: http://www.turkishpress.com/turkishp...s.asp?ID=24857

DOHA, Aug 18 (AFP) - Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani warned Wednesday that Iran might launch a preemptive strike against US forces in the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.

"We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly," Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera TV when asked if Iran would respond to an American attack on its nuclear facilities.

Israel has announced several times it's considering 'Pre-emptive attacks on Iran..

Quote:

Is Israel planning to attack Iran?

Martin van Creveld
Friday, August 20, 2004
IHT - International Herald Tribune
Refer: http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?file=534912.html

JERUSALEM Ariel Sharon may be on the warpath again and the target is Iran. In the past, the Israeli prime minister has focused attention on Iran by claiming that it presents the greatest threat to Israel. More than once, defense officials in Jerusalem have said that Israel might attack Iran's nuclear facilities. In response, Iran's defense minister, Ali Shamkhani, warned that should Israel do so, his country would wipe out Israel.

Now Israel, claiming to prepare against a possible "hit on its nuclear reactor," has started distributing antiradiation pills to civilians in townships surrounding it. In a country that has always sought to keep its nuclear activities out of the spotlight, that is a highly unusual step.

India looks towards attacking Paskistan - while citing the US set precendence...

Quote:

India Mulls Pre-Emptive Strike on Pakistan

By Craig Cox, Utne.com
April 2003 Issue
Refer: http://www.utne.com/web_special/web_...s/10453-1.html

The Indian defense minister yesterday said the U.S. invasion of Iraq provided a precedent for a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan.

Georges Fernandes told a meeting of war veterans in the northern Indian city of Jodhpur that Pakistan was “a prime case” for pre-emptive invasion, but he stopped short of threatening such a strike, reports Agence France Presse. “There are enough reasons to launch such strikes against Pakistan,” Fernandes said, “but I cannot make public statements on whatever action that may be taken.”

North Korea looks towards attacking the US - in a 'pre emptive' strike...

Quote:

N Korea threatens US with first strike

Pyongyang asserts right to pre-emptive attack as tensions rise over American build-up

Jonathan Watts
Thursday February 6, 2003
The Guardian
Refer: http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...889600,00.html

North Korea is entitled to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US rather than wait until the American military have finished with Iraq, the North's foreign ministry told the Guardian yesterday.

Warning that the current nuclear crisis is worse than that in 1994, when the peninsula stood on the brink of oblivion, a ministry spokesman called on Britain to use its influence with Washington to avert war.

"The United States says that after Iraq, we are next", said the deputy director Ri Pyong-gap, "but we have our own countermeasures. Pre-emptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the US."

Personally, I can't quite figure out how, that by having...
the US, Israel, Iran, North Korea, India & Pakistan, all considering going to War ONLY SINCE the US announcemnt of this Policy, it [apparently] "made the world a safer place"?

And espically - A Pre-Emptive War Policy does NOTHING to try and stop "Terrorists", considering the US now provides "protection to terrorists", while conducting its "War on Terrorism"

Quote:

U.S. Grants Protection for Anti-Tehran Group in Iraq

ABC News
Refer: http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20040726_458.html

The US Government has granted status as "protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention" to 3,800 persons who belong to a group, the Mujahideen-e Khalq or (MKO), designated as a "terrorist orginization" by Washington

Outside of this,.. I'm not sure which 'Foreign Policy' apporach is worst for the US;
- A 'Pre-emptive' War Policy (like now)
- Or the Policy of (MAD) 'Mutual Assured Destruction' from the Cold War.

The 'MAD' Foreign Policy had a pro active weapons development apporach, on the idea, that if "we" attack "them" - then "we" can pretty much "ensure our OWN destruction".

Synikul · 08-24-04

The world is more dangerous now, and will continue to be in the short term, but Bush has a plan, and I think it's a good one. He intends to civilize the middle-east. He said so before the Iraq invasion in a televised speech to the American Enterprise Institute. He wants to chnge the region so it won't be an extremist breeding ground in the future. This isn't short term thinking. This will require making war with the middle-east, and otherwise keeping our thumb on them for around 20 years.

N. Korea has been spoiling for a fight for ten years. Clinton's approach was to bribe them in exchange for a meaningless promise. I'd rather get it over with. If they send their one or two nukes over to us, they'll be vaporized. Good riddance.

India and Pakistan have been fighting border wars for decades. I'd rather see them just get it over with too.

In both of those examples, the conflicts have been going on, or building for a long time. To blame Bush for their beligerance is innaccurate.

Rat Killer · 08-24-04

The world is far safer, and 50 million people are now free.

Corporate Pig · 08-25-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synikul

The world is more dangerous now, and will continue to be in the short term, but Bush has a plan, and I think it's a good one. He intends to civilize the middle-east. He said so before the Iraq invasion in a televised speech to the American Enterprise Institute. He wants to chnge the region so it won't be an extremist breeding ground in the future. This isn't short term thinking. This will require making war with the middle-east, and otherwise keeping our thumb on them for around 20 years.

How can one claim to be "changing the region, so it WON'T be a 'extermist breeding ground"...

When they're activelly SUPPORTING these "extremists", or more to the point - the Mujahideen-e Khalq?

Quite Logical really...
'to stem the tide of 'Islamic extremism', the US Administration is providing protection for certain Islamic extemism'...

Quote:

U.S. Grants Protection for Anti-Tehran Group in Iraq

ABC News
Refer: http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20040726_458.html

The US Government has granted status as "protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention" to 3,800 persons who belong to a group, the Mujahideen-e Khalq or (MKO), designated as a "terrorist orginization" by Washington

And what happen's when the Mujahideen-e Khalq won't do what the US Administration wants?...
It will stop (finally) providing protection [under the Geneva Convention] for a "Terrorist Group"?

Its good that Cold War Policies never die...
or the idea's of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)

Synikul · 08-26-04

It's simple, we need to bring down the gov't of Iran, so we're using this group like a cheap whore. Once the Islamic gov't collapses in Iran, it won't be replaced by a different Islamic gov't. There is a large movement among the young people of Iran that wants to do away with that kind of system.

Arty · 08-28-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synikul

The world is more dangerous now, and will continue to be in the short term, but Bush has a plan, and I think it's a good one. He intends to civilize the middle-east. He said so before the Iraq invasion in a televised speech to the American Enterprise Institute. He wants to chnge the region so it won't be an extremist breeding ground in the future. This isn't short term thinking. This will require making war with the middle-east, and otherwise keeping our thumb on them for around 20 years.

Bush can't 'civilize the middle-east.' He can't even get a grip on Iraq. It's also worth noting that Iraq wasn't much of an extemist breeding ground.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synikul

N. Korea has been spoiling for a fight for ten years. Clinton's approach was to bribe them in exchange for a meaningless promise. I'd rather get it over with. If they send their one or two nukes over to us, they'll be vaporized. Good riddance.

You must be joking, or else you're spouting nonsense. Is the death of millions better than a few bribes? Really? I don't think you believe that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synikul

India and Pakistan have been fighting border wars for decades. I'd rather see them just get it over with too.

In both of those examples, the conflicts have been going on, or building for a long time. To blame Bush for their beligerance is innaccurate.

Bush can't be blamed for the problems, but in each case war has been avoided so far. War is the worst case scenario in both instances, and Bush is increasing its likelihood.

Corporate Pig · 08-28-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arty

Bush can't be blamed for the problems, but in each case war has been avoided so far. War is the worst case scenario in both instances, and Bush is increasing its likelihood.

as I suggested before...
Maybe Orwell was 'right' ?

Quote:

War is Peace,
Freedom is Slavery,
Ignorance is Strength

-George Orwell
'1984'.

To be at 'peace', one needs to be at War...
To have 'Freedom', one needs to be enslaved...
To have 'Strength', one needs to simply be IGNORANT.

Of course, thats if we adopt an extreme right-wing ideology...

John Preston · 08-28-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synikul

It's simple, we need to bring down the gov't of Iran, so we're using this group like a cheap whore. Once the Islamic gov't collapses in Iran, it won't be replaced by a different Islamic gov't. There is a large movement among the young people of Iran that wants to do away with that kind of system.

So let me get this straight.
We're "stopping terrorism" by using a terrorist-esque organization to take out a government, and of course the group we're using is also highly unstable and might end up biting the hand that fed them in the end?

Yeah...

Corporate Pig · 08-28-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Preston

So let me get this straight.
We're "stopping terrorism" by using a terrorist-esque organization to take out a government, and of course the group we're using is also highly unstable and might end up biting the hand that fed them in the end?

Yep.. thats the "War on Terror" in a 'nutshell'.

Quote:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism

Designations of Terrorists and Terrorist Organizations Pursuant
to Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001

refer: http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/03/fr031902s.html

...
LIBERATION TIGERS OF TAMIL EELAM
a.k.a. LTTE
a.k.a. TAMIL TIGERS
a.k.a. ELLALAN FORCE
MUJAHEDIN-E KHALQ
a.k.a. MUJAHEDIN-E KHALQ ORGANIZATION
a.k.a. MEK
a.k.a. MKO
a.k.a. NLA
a.k.a. ORGANIZATION OF THE PEOPLE'S HOLY WARRIORS OF IRAN
a.k.a. PEOPLE'S MUJAHEDIN ORGANIZATION OF IRAN
a.k.a. PMOI
a.k.a. SAZEMAN-E MUJAHEDIN-E KHALQ-E IRAN
a.k.a. THE NATIONAL LIBERATION ARMY OF IRAN
NATIONAL LIBERATION ARMY
a.k.a. ELN
a.k.a. EJERCITO DE LIBERACION NACIONAL
...

and the ABC News...

Quote:

U.S. Grants Protection for Anti-Tehran Group in Iraq

ABC News
July 26, 2004
refer: http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20040726_458.html

..The U.S. head of detainee operations in Iraq, Major-General Geoffrey Miller, told the People's Mujahideen Organization (MKO) its members held at a base in eastern Iraq had been recognized as "protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention."

By Defenition, this now places the US in the "Axis of Evil", as it is a "terrorist sponsoring state"..

Quote:

Rogue state

Wikipedia Online Encylopedia
refer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_state

A rogue state, in the most general sense, is a state that abides neither by international law nor international standards of proper governance and behaviour.

States that have the label applied to them are typically ruled by authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human rights. They are generally hostile to the West and its allies, and are often accused of sponsoring terrorism and/or seeking to acquire or develop weapons of mass destruction.

Such states may have any number of these qualities:
- Squanders national resources for the personal gain of the rulers, caring little of the needs and desires of the general populace
- Exposits little or no regard for international law, threaten their neighbors, and callously violate international treaties to which they are party
- Possession or determination to possess weapons of mass destruction and/or other advanced military technology, for use in an aggressive manner
- Sponsorship of global terrorism
- Irrationality to the extent that conventional methods of negotiation are ineffective
- Rejection of basic human rights

Iron's Rite · 08-29-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Preston

So let me get this straight.
We're "stopping terrorism" by using a terrorist-esque organization to take out a government, and of course the group we're using is also highly unstable and might end up biting the hand that fed them in the end?

Yeah...

Didn't we do the same thing with Al-queda? Does that seem like a terrible idea or is it just me? . . . No, it must be just me.

Shadout · 08-30-04

I think a pre-emptive strike is often the best way to avoid wholescale bloodshed as it negates the need for true conflict by disarming the enemy before they can mobilise. The trick though is to select the right target. Iraq was the wrong target.

Whatever Bush's reasons behind going to war in Iraq were, they were wrong. Iraq did not have anything to do with Al-Qaeda or September 11 or Osama Bin Laden, the extremist Taliban and Al-Qaeda hated Iraq for having a secular society rather than one ruled by Islamic law. Bush decided to do what his Daddy couldn't and get rid of Saddam, ignoring other more legitimate targets such as Jordan, the Sudan and other known safe havens for terrorists. He also decided to ignore North Korea who have made no secret of their nuclear capacity or their desire to launch an attack on the Western world.

If Bush genuinely wanted to avoid the bloodshed and horror of a 'real' war he should select targets which warrant an attack and take them out swiftly, rather than his chosen tactic of drawing out a conflict to ensure that he is running a wartime government in time for the November elections.

John Preston · 08-30-04

Pre-emptive strikes are an act of war.
They are not a means of defense, but a means of offense.
They are designed to hit your opponent when they aren't prepared, when they aren't even really expecting it.

It takes time to mobilize an armed force.

Thus hitting an opponent out of the blue...well, that means they're still in the middle of getting ready for you.

Those who conduct "Pre-emptive strikes" tend to be called terrorists, since often those attacks do nothing more than create mass panic.

Think on that for a bit kids.

Synikul · 08-31-04

President discusses the future of Iraq

Read it.
I disagree with him on most of it. I'd rather just turn the entire middle east into a sheet of glass, but since that won't happen, Bush's approach is the next best thing.

Quote:

A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq.

Quote:

Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before -- in the peace that followed a world war. After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies, we left constitutions and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety, in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of freedom. In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home.

Quote:

There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. (Applause.) The nation of Iraq -- with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people -- is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom. (Applause.)

Quote:

The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. And there are hopeful signs of a desire for freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the "freedom gap" so their peoples can fully share in the progress of our times. Leaders in the region speak of a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater politics participation, economic openness, and free trade. And from Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward politics reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.

Quote:

Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state. (Applause.) The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training, and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers. And other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated.

I think he's crazy, but it's worth a try.

The point is, this speech laid out the real plan. It was nationally televised.

I'm Synikul, and I approved this message.

Qoji · 08-31-04

Well it's better than your sheet-of-glass proposal.

Lanthros · 08-31-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synikul

The world is more dangerous now, and will continue to be in the short term, but Bush has a plan, and I think it's a good one. He intends to civilize the middle-east. He said so before the Iraq invasion in a televised speech to the American Enterprise Institute. He wants to chnge the region so it won't be an extremist breeding ground in the future. This isn't short term thinking. This will require making war with the middle-east, and otherwise keeping our thumb on them for around 20 years.

N. Korea has been spoiling for a fight for ten years. Clinton's approach was to bribe them in exchange for a meaningless promise. I'd rather get it over with. If they send their one or two nukes over to us, they'll be vaporized. Good riddance.

India and Pakistan have been fighting border wars for decades. I'd rather see them just get it over with too.

In both of those examples, the conflicts have been going on, or building for a long time. To blame Bush for their beligerance is innaccurate.

Wrong, THis type of preemptive and forced conversion of other people IS WHAT CAUSED THE EXTREMISM IN THE FIRST PLACE. Look at ANY other countries reasoning for dislikeing the US and it says as much. Dont just go on thier words though by all means BUT look at when all things started and look at US activity and policies involving said peoples at watch how they coincide COMPLETELY with each other. GET OVER IT. The world should NOT be made in any one countries image ESPECIALY that of the US. If you actually believe that they hate and attack us because they hate our freedom then you are not only more gulible then my 3 year old son but also dumber then my litteraly retarded lab mix.