Isaac Brock
Active Member
- Sep 28, 2003
- 1,104
- 44
- 36
While your example of Neville Chamberlain is indeed valid, pre-emptive striking as a doctrine has not always gone well by any means. What about the French who pre-emptively struck the Prussians in the Franco-Prussian war to be routed and sent back to Paris? The Japanese pre-emptively stuck the USA countering US deterrance policy in Asia in 1940. The result was two devastating nuclear weapons. Could you imagine if either the USA or USSR had struck eachother to counter eachother strategic positions? The result is unthinkable. Pre-emption is not an end all and be all strategy. Did it work in Iraq? The future will tell us, but until then, the jury is still out.Originally posted by Merlin1047
I have to take issue with you on these statements.
First, seems to me that the "socially minded nation of pacifists and peacekeepers" needs to take a refresher lesson in history. It won't take long. You need look no further than Neville Chamberlain to see the fruits of such policies.
Canada has not been attacked by Muslims. Our ally, being you, has. There was a clear and present link with Afghanistan and we were there right beside you from day one and we still are. For some reason, the point alway seems lost.Second, had Canada been attacked by muslim idiots, Americans would most likely be helping you find and eliminate those responsible instead of engaging in whiney nit-picking about the methods used. Further, we would respect your right to do what is necessary to defend your country.
Finally, may I point out that it was, in fact, the USA who was attacked. That gives us the right to do whatever is necessary to assure it won't happen again. If that bothers the delicate sensibilities of some Canadians - tough shit. [/B]
Agreed, the USA was attacked, but that does not mean the USA now determines the foreign policies of its allies. That there is the real bone of contention.