The philosophy of pre-emptive wars

Discussion in 'Military' started by mash107, Apr 4, 2009.

  1. mash107
    Offline

    mash107 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    570
    Thanks Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +82
    I want to ask a question for some that think themselves as conservative.

    I firmly believe, like some conservatives, that income taxation is a type of theft. You worked hard for the fruits of your labor, and it's your right to keep and do with it as you please. For government to claim a portion of it is tantamount to slavery. It's simply inexcusable for a government to do it just because it is the government. If it's immoral to do something to your neighbor, then it's immoral to do it via the hand of government.

    I wish to apply this in the context of military action, recently. Obviously, one can say that if an intruder attacks your home you have all rights to incapacitate or even kill said intruder in self-defense. However, one can't say that it's alright to kill a person preemptively because he may intrude and attack you at a later date. One can't also say that it's alright to attack a person's home, where his family lives, because he may have attacked you earlier. The enforcement of laws and a proper punishment, via due process, is the only acceptable course of response for someone that has attacked you. Ultimately, governments, as no surprise, does away with morality of actions, and exert powers they should not have. Nations like the U.S. (vs. Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan), Russia (vs. Georgia), Turkey (vs. Kurd rebels), Israel (vs. Palestinians), etc assume that it's alright to attack another country (or group of people, as is the case with the latter two) under the pretense that they must either preemptively strike or they must retaliate.

    I'm not a pacifist. If you are attacked, you have every reason to support a military to respond with due force, just as the rights given to any individual, but no more.

    In conclusion, I submit to you that if you do believe taxation is a type of theft, and that it's not justifiable for a government to do something which its citizens can not do, then the war on terrorism is equally unjustifiable using the same exact logic.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2009
  2. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    First, I will point out that Afghanistan does not belong in your group of examples.

    Second, it depends on circumstances. You are making a cut-n-dried argument that many variables can be added to.

    If someone threatens to kick your ass and you believe they are serious about doing it, do you wait for them to choose the time, place and method? Or do you go face them down on YOUR terms knowing may inevitably lead to a fight?

    Allowing an enemy to dictate the tactics and choose the battlefield and his choice of weapons is a sure way to lose.

    And when it comes down to survival, do you not do what is in your best interest to survive REGARDLESS the law? Or do you get slaughtered like a sheep and posthumously hope the law catches your killer?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  3. Bfgrn
    Offline

    Bfgrn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    16,829
    Thanks Received:
    2,480
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,060
    Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
    Dwight D. Eisenhower
     
  4. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Well, dismissing something out-of-hand due to lack of an argument certainly works for some.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. elvis
    Offline

    elvis BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    25,882
    Thanks Received:
    4,303
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +4,303
    You mean when Hitler invaded Norway because he thought England would launch an offensive from there? I can't think of any other part of Germany's campaign that was preventive. He wanted to expand Germany's territory to the east, kill all communists and Jews. England and France got in his way. What exactly are you or was Ike referring to?
     
  6. Toome
    Offline

    Toome Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    906
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +259
    First flaw in this thread is the assumption that a preemptive strike is something exclusive to conservatives. Preemptive strikes are a military strategy. Period.

    I will address two very broad scenarios. The first scenario is a conventional military one in, for example, North Korea. The North Korean air force goes on alert, increases its aerial reconnaissance collection activities, begins to stage logistical supplies at forward bases, starts mobilizing its tank forces, etc. These are all measures associated with two general types of military activities: conducting a military exercise or preparing to initiate an invasion. There are certain discriminators between a practice drill and the real thing. The US, in this case, would be well justified to launch a first strike against North Korea based on certain intelligence indicators of North Korean intent to go to war.

    Second scenario gets a bit tricky. Intelligence intercepts reveal that a terror group plans to use weapons of mass destruction against the US. Furthermore, this group is based out of Syria and has historically enjoyed protection by the Syrian government against efforts by Europeans and Americans to bring certain ringleaders to justice. A tip developed through liaison with the Brits indicates that a shipment is due to arrive in Syria and that there may be a connection between this shipment and the terror group. "Chatter" increases significantly. Does the US strike? If so, against whom? What makes the scenario tricky is that there are still too many loose ends in the equation. If we wait until a predetermined burden of proof is met, then it may be too late to stop the attack. Even if it was established, for example, that the shipment contained certain vectors typically associated with biological weapons, these same ingredients could be justified as bio toxins used in medical research to fight plagues that are affecting the agricultural industry or for treating certain diseases affecting certain parts of the population. It's enough to cast doubt as to whether these are truly indications of intent to deliver these items to a terror group. Furthermore, while the group may be based out of Syria, it may physically be located somewhere else such as France or Germany. And even if the Syrian government were sponsoring the terror group, it may be insulated through a series of cutouts that support plausible deniability of any involvement or association with the terror group. The second scenario is very difficult and requires innovation and misdirection as part of the solution.

    This is why we have special operations units: dark clad men with black hearts who bring terror to terrorists.

    Nothing "conservative" about that. It's as American as apple pie. The father of such tactics was none other than George Washington.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    So you're an anachist?
     
  8. mash107
    Offline

    mash107 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    570
    Thanks Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +82
    I never said that. There are some purposes for government. To enforce private property rights (not to take property, or a portion of, away), to punish fraud, to ensure contracts are followed, etc. Basic things. If people want their government to handle schools, roads, etc, then that should be handled at the most local level possible. Remember our Bill of Rights state that all powers not explicitly given to the Federal government is reserved to the states and its people.

    But obviously, even a constitutional government would require funding, and this funding can come from sales taxes, minimal tariffs or voluntary donation. Taking 33% of a person's income as tax is akin to making someone a slave for 4 months of the year. There are less morally repugnant ways.
     
  9. eots
    Offline

    eots no fly list

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    28,995
    Thanks Received:
    2,034
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    IN TH HEARTS AND MINDS OF FREE MEN
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b9aNclVopk]YouTube - Twilight Zone Episode: The Elitist Mindset "Armchair Warriors"[/ame]
     
  10. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    So you're a supporter ONLY of government if you're in charge?

    Me too!
     

Share This Page