Pre-emptive Strike in Iraq

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by spillmind, Sep 23, 2003.

  1. spillmind
    Offline

    spillmind Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2003
    Messages:
    780
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Palo Alto, Ca.
    Ratings:
    +13
    since tangents have gotten out of hand, i thought i'd post this here and see if i don't have to write page long posts covering everything from mrs. george bush's xanax prescription to kim jong-il's funky afro.

    anyone care to say where we draw the line on pre-emptive attacks?
     
  2. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Good question, but not easily answered.

    Not to beat on a dead horse, but countries need to be held accountable when supporting terrorism. If they condone it, support it & harbor terrorists, then they can and should expect some sort of action. Anything less will feed their power.

    If a country is working hand in hand with us, or other allies, to try and resolve the issue - then a strike may not be in order. (and before you say it, Iraq was not working with us, but rather against us) (we can argue all day long about thousands of issues, but I think we can at least all agree that Saddam and his regime were obviously being counter productive in negotiations with the USA, the UN and with the inspectors).

    I think the decision on whether or not to take military action needs to be taken care of case by case.

    People need to understand that America will no longer sit back and negotiate for 12 years after the 9/11 tragedy. The days of being hopeful for peaceful resolutions has gotten much shorter. Maybe that'll increase again in time, but for now, it's better than sitting back idly hoping no more terrorism will hit the homeland OR elsewhere.
     
  3. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    If a nation, such as Iraq, constitutes a viable and eminent (sp?) threat to the US, as it did by harboring al-Qaeda terrorists and possessing WMD, then I say that yes, we do have the right to pre-emptively strike.

    And why did the whole pre-emptive strike issue not matter when we attacked Afghanistan? After all, the Taliban didn't attack us on 9-11 - it was al-Qaeda. If it was OK to attack Afghanistan to go after al-Qaeda, why not Iraq?

    And I know that your next question is going to be something like this: "Russia/China/all these other countries threaten the US. When are we going to attack them!" My answer (pre-emptively) is this: those other countries are not openly seeking to destroy the US by any means possible as al-Qaeda and its host nations are.


     
  4. spillmind
    Offline

    spillmind Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2003
    Messages:
    780
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Palo Alto, Ca.
    Ratings:
    +13
    'If a country is working hand in hand with us, or other allies, to try and resolve the issue '

    now anybody want to make a guesstimate at the amount of grey area jeff is referring to?

    first, you should list all the countries in the world not 'working hand in hand' for a better USA, and tell us why we haven't prompted a strike against them.

    and then why don't you elaborate on this one, and use an objective example, like iran might have terrorists. they aren't working 'hand in hand' to help US resolve OUR issue. so a strike will smooth things over for us?

    i'm not following you here.

    and this is great:

    'America will no longer sit back and negotiate' and in the same paragraph, jim was so kind to include everyone else: (i think he means britain) that 'terrorism will hit the homeland OR elsewhere'
    oh, how worldy elsewhere sounds. :eek:

    terrorism will never die, and i just don't see how pre-emption has served to make us safer from a future terrorist attack.

    jeff: if having WMD at one point in time is the exact same thing as having them and plotting to use them, possibly any day, i'll vote republican.
    but i'm afraid they are not. harboring al-qaeda terrorists?

    what numbers and sources exactly are you referring to here? (the old NT arguement. too funny) it's a joke, you don't have to answer that.

    but seriously, there are many countries harboring what we consider terrorists. by attempting to handle it the way we did, only brings what we have now.

    american soldiers unwelcome in a shooting gallery. a ridiculous bill that we all know we don't know the TRUTH on. i wish one of you bushies could give us some REAL numbers and stop calling that puppet a saint that cannot tell a lie. (for another thread). an unstable region that will not grow with international help until the region is STABLE. i argue that this region will never be stable.

    'And why did the whole pre-emptive strike issue not matter when we attacked Afghanistan? After all, the Taliban didn't attack us on 9-11 - it was al-Qaeda. If it was OK to attack Afghanistan to go after al-Qaeda, why not Iraq?'

    what is amazing to me day in and day out is the sheer percentile of the american populace that 'answers polls' STILL BELIEVES that taliban=9-11=iraq!!! stunning. HEEEELLLLOOOO

    someone from the taliban talking to someone from iraq a couple of times is hardly the bonnie and clyde scenario that some of you so wish it was. ok, there is a remote connection... is *anyone* seeing the difference yet?

    i guess you mean millions of protestors world wide are complete uneducated paranoid idiots that hate us because we are free. there was small protest to the invasion of afghanistan (damn crusty hippies)....
    but generally everyone mourned our loss genuinely (aside from radical muslim groups)

    osama was public enemy #1, and i agree with our intelligence on that one. still not proven, but highly suspect. the world also generally conceded, and operation f*** afgahnistan up on a bin laden mission commenced, completed. however, don't ignore this region as a model for iraq. anybody heard any good news from afghanistan lately?

    the bottom line is, america does not have the funds nor the resources to pursue every threat we deem threatening. and since the oil struggle still shackles us to this region, we must place the power/death game. right? why continue to pay that price? soon the money will run out for invading countries, and other options will have to come into play.

    pre-emption is a terrible policy with virtually no measure and will only bring more death and terror home than it had ever hoped to stop.
     
  5. NightTrain
    Offline

    NightTrain VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,425
    Thanks Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Wasilla, Alaska
    Ratings:
    +87
    Whoa! Spillmind is right, everyone! Let's pull back from Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, EVERYWHERE, because it's a waste of money and time, and we're oppressing his brothas from fulfilling their 72 virgin quotas.

    Yep, we need to just huddle up and wait for the strikes to hit us, similar to Israel vs Palestinians.

    When we do this, we'll be reading about the latest Washington D.C. suicide bombing killing infants, youngsters, women and men, and say to ourselves, "Yeah, but at least we're not going after terrorists!".

    Then we'll all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

    What will Spilly say then? Yep, we're intolerant. Misunderstood muslims. We should have sang, "Kumbaya Allah and Spillmind", instead.


    What? Don't ever vote, you idiot!


    Yep. Facts and supporting major news articles are NOT allowed!!

    Common sense??? PuuuuLEASE!! Dayyy-um, Whitey!
    What was you thinkin, mah niglet??


    Really? Again, I think you're full of shit, Homey! Let's see your backup on this.

    Of course you're not going to provide proof of your idiotic statement. What was this cracker thinkin?

    Of course! They're stupid, right, Homey? Modern free governments are NOT for the likes of those, right?? Sheeeiiiitt


    Yo, G-Dog! It be like dis : The Taliban was harboring Al Qaeda. Da Evil White Honky Bush said, ' NO DISTINCTION'. Word! Power to da people.

    Yo, dog! Check dis out! Taliban, dey be not part of Nine Elebben and even da Reverend Sharpton couldnt' lay blame to da honky Prez for dat. De Al Qaeda, dey is! We whupped de shit outta de Taliban because de be harborin' dey terrorists, G! Taliban had nuttin to do wit de Nine Elebbin, dey jus' provided a crib fo Osama! Word!



    Yo, G! You lost a brotha! Sheeeiiiiitt. Why for you be translatin' da taliban to Al Qaeda, dog?

    Heeeell yeah! Dat was Bush and Rummy! And de Oil Companies, Dog! Keep Whitey in power, yo!


    Any brotha heard any neg? Yeah, de brothas just be chillin, dey be waitin for de checks. Welfare. Heeelllll yeah.


    Word! Where's my welfare check?!

    We be broke! Dat be why we be pledging billions to Aids in Africa. Okay, dat's cool. Maybe Rummy and Bushis ain't so evil.

    It be all about de OIIIILLLLL! I wish you honkies be seein dis, dat Rummy and Bushie be evil honkies! Evil!

    Dat's right! We be icin' de bad guys over dere, but we should't. Heeelllll no! We should grab a jacuzzi and smoke a couple, and wait til de terrorists be blowin up shit! Heeeellll yeeaaahhhh!!

    Word!
     
  6. spillmind
    Offline

    spillmind Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2003
    Messages:
    780
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Palo Alto, Ca.
    Ratings:
    +13
    *yawn*

    officially boring.
     
  7. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    I know you wouldn't recognize humor if it bit you in your liberal ass, but regardless of that, you just cannot come up with a logical answer that is supported by anything other than your twisted opinion.

    I'm sure if you laid out the facts (supported of course) in a polite and non attacking manner, you'll see plenty of replies in the same manner.

    You'll lose the debate just the same, but at least you'll leave with a bit of respect from fellow members.

    (NT - that was frickin hilarious!)

    BTW - Spilly - NT is just playing with you obviously, I'm the only true racist around these parts! :D
     
  8. janeeng
    Online

    janeeng Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Now that just was too damn hillarious! I sat here cracking up for sure. And spillmind, Jim is right! it's like you might as well have cut and paste the shit right out of other forums, same crap, different day, bitching about the damn Taliban, nothing to do with this, nothing to do with that, bullshit! Like NT said, harbor them, keep them, then pay the price. Guess you think after 9/11, the US should have just said, ouch, and just let it go! we aren't Canada, france, or germany! we fight for what's right!!!! Sorry, scum like that that came over here to kill the innocent, deserve to die twice. And, if it means that other countries have to pay the price, oh well, don't harbor the terrorists then, they were warned.
     
  9. eric
    Online

    eric Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    NT you crack me up! Had to get my homey ass a new pair of briefs!
     
  10. Spirit_Soul
    Online

    Spirit_Soul Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    "we fight for what's right!!!! Sorry, scum like that that came over here to kill the innocent, deserve to die twice. And, if it means that other countries have to pay the price, oh well, don't harbor the terrorists then, they were warned."

    Then, why are we letting the Arab princes harbor the terrorists in their palaces?

    Giving them sumptous meals will not cure the problem, but it will create more problems.
     

Share This Page