Pre-Emptive First Strike Logic...
Cosmo
Posts: 12,225
I was wondering...
If it's okay for Israel to launch a pre-emptive fisrt strike against Iranian nuclear facilities because Isreal has the right to defend herself based upon fears that will result in future attacks against Israel...
Does that mean it is okay for Iran to launch a pre-emptive first strike against Israeli air fields because Iran is afraid that Israel is going to launch a future attack on Iranian nuclear facilities?
...
If you are for one side... aren't you justifying the actions of the other?
If it's okay for Israel to launch a pre-emptive fisrt strike against Iranian nuclear facilities because Isreal has the right to defend herself based upon fears that will result in future attacks against Israel...
Does that mean it is okay for Iran to launch a pre-emptive first strike against Israeli air fields because Iran is afraid that Israel is going to launch a future attack on Iranian nuclear facilities?
...
If you are for one side... aren't you justifying the actions of the other?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Hail, Hail!!!
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I know... you can go crazy thinking about it.
In that light, the attack on the U.S. Pacific Fleet in December of 1941 should be seen as a pre-emptive first strike... shouldn't it?
...
On a personal note... not a big fan of pre-emptive first strikes. Just call it what it actually is... military aggression. Buying into the first strike logic means it is okay for China to hit us with a wholesale nuclear assault because they're afraid we might launch an attack on them.
Hail, Hail!!!
Your wondering, it makes sense to me...often does.
Both options presented frighten me.
I have to give this more thought, as my roots come from both (and related) sides.
The unfortunate thing is, sometimes PE strikes can save more lives than would be lost in the PE strike.
With the Iran deal, I'm against a PE strike.
"To question your government is not unpatriotic --
to not question your government is unpatriotic."
-- Sen. Chuck Hagel
Well, maybe if both sides come to the realization that the other side is not going to leave and that old people sending their young people off to kill the other old person's young people is fucking moronic... they'll just stay on their side of the fence and tend to their own matters, instead of everyone else's.
...
Maybe.
(but, don't hold your breath)
Hail, Hail!!!
Agreed.
I'm just wondering if the only difference between a pre-emptive first strike and plain, old-fashioned aggression is defined on which side of the fence you are on.
Hail, Hail!!!
But I'm afraid they will
And then we will back up Israel
and then All Hell Will Break Loose!
:(
jo
http://www.Etsy.com/Shop/SimpleEarthCreations
"How I choose to feel is how I am." ~ EV/MMc
"Some people hear their own inner voices with great clearness and they live by what they hear. Such people become crazy, or they become legends." ~ One Stab ~
Exactly.
It's all linguistic trickery, appeal to instinct, propaganda....mind control, at it's root.
The Bush Doctrine (pre-emption) is only the latest example of long standing policy.
Check out the bumper sticker I saw in Penonome, Panama, (near where Omar Torrijos' plane went down) :
Terrorists to some, revolutionaries and martyrs to others. The 'justification' for violent 'terrorist' reprisal is almost ALWAYS suppression, exploitation, military aggression.
Every US presidential doctrine validates the MIC in some way. American exceptionalism has been the basis for military aggression for nearly two centuries...manifest destiny....Monroe's 'America for Americans' and Roosevelt's soft talk/big stick corollary...Wilson honed the policy of spreading democracy....the war time presidents didn't really need an excuse....the Cold War built on Wilson's approach by playing on people's fear of communism spreading.....The arms race and Central/South American meddling kept the machine rolling for decades...when the Cold War ended, it was back to 'helping' people...the Balkans...Libya...hell, Bush combined preemption with humanitarian war in Iraq, with all his flip-flopping....
Not that the US was the first country to behave this way...'Just War' has been around since man grew thumbs and picked up a stick...shows how far we've evolved, no?
Still, talking about America's Imperialist history so often results in 'you hate America' reactions...those people refuse to see how they've been manipulated to nationalist rationalization of war....
When it's spelled out with plain logic as you've done, Cosmo, it becomes so obvious.
Anyway...excuse the rant, back to my granola.
but they/we won't and we all know it
its all such a horrible game
like a bunch of 5 year olds
jo
http://www.Etsy.com/Shop/SimpleEarthCreations
"How I choose to feel is how I am." ~ EV/MMc
"Some people hear their own inner voices with great clearness and they live by what they hear. Such people become crazy, or they become legends." ~ One Stab ~
and with that i shall reiterate what i said in another thread... men are fucks.
oh and i do not absolve the current US secretary of state from this bullshit either.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You don't think a woman could be corrupted in the highest positions of power, or what?
I know you're just fucking around, but....wtf? These kind of comments don't go over well on the flip side. I guess it's that victim/oppressor angle we see with racist comments....right? Strange thing to bring to this particular table, anyway.
im just looking at the current situation and calling it as i see it. and nowhere did i say women cant be corrupted hence my comment directly at hilary clinton. but right now all those calling the shots, with the exception of the aforementioned secretary of state are men so...
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
jo
http://www.Etsy.com/Shop/SimpleEarthCreations
"How I choose to feel is how I am." ~ EV/MMc
"Some people hear their own inner voices with great clearness and they live by what they hear. Such people become crazy, or they become legends." ~ One Stab ~
shit, I totally glazed over before clueing in to the secretary of state comment....kinda changes the context, doesn't it? sorry bout that.
And thanks Byrnzie.
its ok.. i know how it goes... shoot first ask questions later..
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
im just looking at the current situation and calling it as i see it. and nowhere did i say women cant be corrupted hence my comment directly at hilary clinton. but right now all those calling the shots, with the exception of the aforementioned secretary of state are men so...[/quote]
And right now, all the people strapping bombs to their chests & blowing up innocent women and children are Muslim, so....I'm an "Islamaphobe"!!!
you should probably get that looked at.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
With regard to your question about what if Iran pre-empted an Israeli pre-emption, I guess my feeling is that there would be less justification for such an action. Israel, from what I see, only started talking about attacking Iran after Iran started giving Israel reasons to fear an attack from Iran. I don't see any indication that Israel has a desire to attack Iran independent of the fear that Iran will use a nuclear weapon to attack Israel (or provide an umbrella for others to attack Israel). That being the case, Iran could "preempt" an Israeli strike non-militarily by simply being a good citizen of the world ceasing to build nuclear weapons.
I'm in law school and we just learned self-defense in criminal law. There's a doctrine that there is a duty to retreat before one can legitimately use force in self-defense; essentially you can't justifiably kill someone in self-defense if you could have protected yourself by simply running away. It seems to me that Iran in this instance has a very viable escape route, which up to now they have simply refused to take.
youre analogy is flawed. the someone pointing a gun at you is already armed. iran is not. so self defense doesnt enter the picture in this instance. oh and israel is surviving just fine from what i can see.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I'm very glad that Israel is surviving. I'd point out though that it continues to survive, in the face of violent hostility from all of its neighbors at some point in its history, because of the strength of its military. And if Iran were to get a nuclear weapon and use it on Israel the country's continued survival would be very, very much in doubt, which is precisely why Israelis see the an Iranian bomb as an existential issue.
Does Israel have Nuclear weapons? If they do, then why shouldn't Iran be able to have them? How many countries has either Iran or Israel pre-emptively struck in the last 100 years?
How has the government of Iran threatened Israel? Have there been any actual ultimatums provided to Israel from Iran concerning an imminent attack?
Iran has been implicated in attacks on American troops in Iraq, in funneling money and weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah, both widely considered terrorist organizations, both in a state of armed conflict with Israel. Iran is implicated in helping Syria to massacre its own people, and in bombing Jewish communal sites in Argentina. Iranian leaders talk about wiping Israel off the map while conducting military parades featuring ballistic missiles and depictions of mushroom clouds, and scientists working on the Iranian nuclear program have been quoted as stating that the motivation for their work was to annihilate Israel.
I think that captures why people, especially Israelis are worried about this.
Israel has had nuclear weapons since the 50's and has never used them, despite being in a state of near-constant conflict. Nor do they threaten their neighbors with their use. And if you pay attention to what seems to be motivating Obama on this issue, a key concern is fear of sparking a nuclear arms race in the region, which would be catastrophic given the volatility of the Middle East. A number of countries (Saudi Arabia for example) have made it very plain that they would feel compelled to pursue their own nuclear weapon if Iran were to build a bomb. That speaks to the fear that Arab states feel about the aggressive intentions of a nuclear-armed Iran. The same fears clearly don't apply to Israel; Israel has had the bomb for 60 years, but all its neighbors know that, despite the hostility between themselves and Israel, that Israel can be trusted not to use its nuclear arsenal, which is why up till now none of the other countries in the region have tried to arm themselves.
and IF iran were to get...IF. and IF i were to acquire a gun theoretically i could shoot someone dead. so yeah of course im being literal here...tho i really dont think im being too literal. you really want to play semantics with me? i read what you wrote and i replied... to your words. no one knows its iran intention to attack israel... they say they want nuclear energy... lets allow them to play with the grownups and take them at their word. weve allowed other nations to go the same route... weve even stood by and allowed countries to acquire neclear weapons.. israel among them. and yet funnily enough it is israel with its nuclear capabilites who is most vocal about 'defensive' pre emptive strikes and having the 'right' to defend itself. last time i checked a defence required an offense to act against. becoming nuclear powered is imo NOT offensive.
im tired of the rhetoric spoken by men and women who because of vested interest, make it their duty to keep everyone at odds with each other. im still waiting for that mushroom cloud iraq was apparently capable of. where is it? i can not fathom how supposed intelligent people continue to oppress people and when they react tighten the screws wthout modifying the behaviour that caused the reaction in the first place. weve seen it these past 11 years where the US has chosen not to change its foreign policy, despite it being a major fatcor in a lot of the agression aimed at them, yet has placed so many restrictions on itsown people and those that choose to travel across and within its borders. and we see it with the occupied territories. i see both the US govt and the israeli govt as implacable forces not willing to breath enough to allow change and growth. they both choose to thwart international law that they expect the rest of the world to follow. they both see themselves are righteous in their causes and yet people continue to suffer because of it.. even their own people. how is this any way to govern a country?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Everything you have said in this paragraph is absolute bullshit.This is the exact kind of bullshit that warhawks from Israel and the United States have conjured up to push an agenda of war against Iran. It's disgusting that you would regurgitate it here.
Oh wow....really???
Iranian government officials have been saying for YEARS that Israel doesn't have a right to exist, should be wiped off the map, etc....even going so far as holocaust denial.
These are religious fanatics...they don't issue ultimatums...they just strike...and strike hard with the intention of killing as many people as possible. Wake up, dude!
Actually, the disgusting thing is this. Yosi has made a very clear and concise description as to why yours (and others) suppositions and loaded questions are ignoring certain FACTS in order to make your case. So, I'd walk a mile before you start calling what other folks have to say disgusting.
You may in fact disagree with this 1 paragraph. But, the rest of his discussion would lead one to believe that maybe there's more truth to what he says in this paragraph than what you personally believe based on your past experience. The rest of what he's written is a highly intelligent discussion of the facts in play and why one is pre-emptive while the other is just agressor. Again, you may not agree with that either. But, to call it disgusting seems un-eduated at worst and un-read at best.
Basically, you are saying you prefer Iranians have a nuclear weapon over Israel using their past experience to protect themselves (which I understand is loaded - you don't believe it's PROTECTING). Well, let's ignore that for a mintue - you prefer Iran has a nuclear weapon. Good luck with that.
You could use opening your mind a little. Best of luck.