The philosophy of pre-emptive wars

[mash107]

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.

 

[Gunny]

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.

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?

 

[Bfgrn]

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

 

[Gunny]

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

Well, dismissing something out-of-hand due to lack of an argument certainly works for some.

 

[elvis]

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

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?

 

[Toome]

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.

 

[editec]

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.

So you're an anachist?

 

[mash107]

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.

So you're an anachist?

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.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b9aNclVopk]YouTube - Twilight Zone Episode: The Elitist Mindset "Armchair Warriors"[/ame]

 

[editec]

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.

So you're an anachist?

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.

So you're a supporter ONLY of government if you're in charge?

Me too!

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

So you're an anachist?

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.

>>> Yea, maybe we can go back to the days before Railway time where there was non-uniform ’local times’ in each town...

And, who needs an interstate highway system... when you leave one state, what's the big deal if the frickin' road ends at the state line...

Take a course in CIVICS...

 

[mash107]

So you're an anachist?

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.

>>> Yea, maybe we can go back to the days before Railway time where there was non-uniform ’local times’ in each town...

And, who needs an interstate highway system... when you leave one state, what's the big deal if the frickin' road ends at the state line...

Take a course in CIVICS...

You think the interstate highway system is good? I'm bogged down on I-84 every single day. I'm sure the local government / county / state would be able to plan for traffic much better than some guy sitting in an armchair in DC. Are you really that naive to say that if there's demand for a road to go a certain way that, that demand won't be met? With local governments, they're actually accountable to people. If people demand something to a local government, and they're paying taxes, that demand will be met a lot more surely than if the federal government were involved.

 

[Gunny]

So you're an anachist?

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.

>>> Yea, maybe we can go back to the days before Railway time where there was non-uniform ’local times’ in each town...

And, who needs an interstate highway system... when you leave one state, what's the big deal if the frickin' road ends at the state line...

Take a course in CIVICS...

Perhaps you should do the same. Neither of your examples supports your lame insult.

 

[Gunny]

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.

>>> Yea, maybe we can go back to the days before Railway time where there was non-uniform ’local times’ in each town...

And, who needs an interstate highway system... when you leave one state, what's the big deal if the frickin' road ends at the state line...

Take a course in CIVICS...

You think the interstate highway system is good? I'm bogged down on I-84 every single day. I'm sure the local government / county / state would be able to plan for traffic much better than some guy sitting in an armchair in DC. Are you really that naive to say that if there's demand for a road to go a certain way that, that demand won't be met? With local governments, they're actually accountable to people. If people demand something to a local government, and they're paying taxes, that demand will be met a lot more surely than if the federal government were involved.

The interstate system is just another one of those bureaucratic, financial black holes that seems to have lost its initial purpose. Eisenhower started the interstate system as a means of rapid deployment for the military nationwide.

I agree with the premise of your argument though. One need look no further than this message board for evidence to back it up. Comments are made on a regular basis that show a complete lack of understanding outside one's own geographical region. I would rather my tax dollars be spent on something locally than foot the bill for some Yankee's friggin' snowplow.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

>>> Yea, maybe we can go back to the days before Railway time where there was non-uniform ’local times’ in each town...

And, who needs an interstate highway system... when you leave one state, what's the big deal if the frickin' road ends at the state line...

Take a course in CIVICS...

Perhaps you should do the same. Neither of your examples supports your lame insult.

If we listened to you pea brained right wing REgressives, America would be a third world country or under the thumb of the Soviet Union...

"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
President John F. Kennedy - September 12, 1962

A pea brain REwrite of JFK's words...
We choose NOT to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, because they are TOO HARD, because that goal will serve to organize progressives and show us right wing pea brains can NEVER measure up and to their energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are NOT willing to accept, one we are hell bent on to postponing, and one which we intend to LOOSE, and the others, too.

Hey...MAYBE each state could have it's own Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines too...

 

[Gunny]

>>> Yea, maybe we can go back to the days before Railway time where there was non-uniform ’local times’ in each town...

And, who needs an interstate highway system... when you leave one state, what's the big deal if the frickin' road ends at the state line...

Take a course in CIVICS...

Perhaps you should do the same. Neither of your examples supports your lame insult.

If we listened to you pea brained right wing REgressives, America would be a third world country or under the thumb of the Soviet Union...

"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
President John F. Kennedy - September 12, 1962

A pea brain REwrite of JFK's words...
We choose NOT to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, because they are TOO HARD, because that goal will serve to organize progressives and show us right wing pea brains can NEVER measure up and to their energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are NOT willing to accept, one we are hell bent on to postponing, and one which we intend to LOOSE, and the others, too.

Hey...MAYBE each state could have it's own Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines too...

Spend much time building that strawman, did you? Not only does your response prove beyond a doubt you cannot address a topic, but that you are more than willing to pigeonhole anyone who doesn't believe your nanny state as a "pea-brain, rightwing regressive."

When you get a real argument and can actually address something without spewing page 33 of of your leftwing, pea-brain, I need to be attached to big brother's tit mentality, come on back.

We have FAR more important things in this country that need to be addressed than whether or not you have a fucking smooth ride for your personal convenience.

If all you want to do is call names and spew rhetoric, get in fucking line. You ain't even close to first.

 

[Bfgrn]

Perhaps you should do the same. Neither of your examples supports your lame insult.

If we listened to you pea brained right wing REgressives, America would be a third world country or under the thumb of the Soviet Union...

"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
President John F. Kennedy - September 12, 1962

A pea brain REwrite of JFK's words...
We choose NOT to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, because they are TOO HARD, because that goal will serve to organize progressives and show us right wing pea brains can NEVER measure up and to their energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are NOT willing to accept, one we are hell bent on to postponing, and one which we intend to LOOSE, and the others, too.

Hey...MAYBE each state could have it's own Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines too...

Spend much time building that strawman, did you? Not only does your response prove beyond a doubt you cannot address a topic, but that you are more than willing to pigeonhole anyone who doesn't believe your nanny state as a "pea-brain, rightwing regressive."

When you get a real argument and can actually address something without spewing page 33 of of your leftwing, pea-brain, I need to be attached to big brother's tit mentality, come on back.

We have FAR more important things in this country that need to be addressed than whether or not you have a fucking smooth ride for your personal convenience.

If all you want to do is call names and spew rhetoric, get in fucking line. You ain't even close to first.

Hey pea brain, here's a big word for your mommy to explain to you...COMMERCE

 

[Gunny]

If we listened to you pea brained right wing REgressives, America would be a third world country or under the thumb of the Soviet Union...

"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
President John F. Kennedy - September 12, 1962

A pea brain REwrite of JFK's words...
We choose NOT to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, because they are TOO HARD, because that goal will serve to organize progressives and show us right wing pea brains can NEVER measure up and to their energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are NOT willing to accept, one we are hell bent on to postponing, and one which we intend to LOOSE, and the others, too.

Hey...MAYBE each state could have it's own Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines too...

Spend much time building that strawman, did you? Not only does your response prove beyond a doubt you cannot address a topic, but that you are more than willing to pigeonhole anyone who doesn't believe your nanny state as a "pea-brain, rightwing regressive."

When you get a real argument and can actually address something without spewing page 33 of of your leftwing, pea-brain, I need to be attached to big brother's tit mentality, come on back.

We have FAR more important things in this country that need to be addressed than whether or not you have a fucking smooth ride for your personal convenience.

If all you want to do is call names and spew rhetoric, get in fucking line. You ain't even close to first.

Hey pea brain, here's a big word for your mommy to explain to you...COMMERCE

That's the best you got? Better step it up some, sonny if you want to play here.

 

[Bfgrn]

Spend much time building that strawman, did you? Not only does your response prove beyond a doubt you cannot address a topic, but that you are more than willing to pigeonhole anyone who doesn't believe your nanny state as a "pea-brain, rightwing regressive."

When you get a real argument and can actually address something without spewing page 33 of of your leftwing, pea-brain, I need to be attached to big brother's tit mentality, come on back.

We have FAR more important things in this country that need to be addressed than whether or not you have a fucking smooth ride for your personal convenience.

If all you want to do is call names and spew rhetoric, get in fucking line. You ain't even close to first.

Hey pea brain, here's a big word for your mommy to explain to you...COMMERCE

That's the best you got? Better step it up some, sonny if you want to play here.

Hey, on second thought, I agree with you...let's eliminate the federal government...no more BIG military, no more BIG federal prison system, no more BIG covert CIA and no more BIG brother FBI...

I always sided with Jefferson over Hamilton anyways...

 

[Xenophon]

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

You really need to avoid trying to discuss history.

There have been many cases of pre-emptive war long before WWII.

A perfect example is the Franco prussia war of 1870. France declared war on Prussia because they thought the Prussians were getting too strong, the bad news is, they were right.

Prussia kicked france's ass.