Pre-Emptive First Strike Logic...

Cosmo

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?

CH156378

you forgot about the pre-emptive, pre-emptive, pre-emptive strike

Cosmo

CH156378 wrote:

you forgot about the pre-emptive, pre-emptive, pre-emptive strike

...
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.

eddiec

Pre-emptive strikes are always good if you think she is going to break up with you, or if you are afraid she knows about you sleeping with her best friend. Wait, Israel/Iran. Sorry, didn't know pre-emptive strikes pertained the real world. My bad.

hedonist

Ah, my friend.

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 wolf

Being the bleeding heart lib that i am, i'm against PE strikes.

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.

Cosmo

hedonist wrote:

Ah, my friend.

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.

...
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)

Cosmo

the wolf wrote:

Being the bleeding heart lib that i am, i'm against PE strikes.

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.

...
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.

StillHere

I sure hope they don't
But I'm afraid they will
And then we will back up Israel
and then All Hell Will Break Loose!

:(

brandon10

Seeing as how Iran never strikes anyone, I think that if Israel attacks Iran then all countries throughout the world should back Iran.

Byrnzie

Cosmo wrote:

not a big fan of pre-emptive first strikes. Just call it what it actually is... military aggression.

Exactly.

Drowned Out

Cosmo wrote:

the wolf wrote:

Being the bleeding heart lib that i am, i'm against PE strikes.

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.

...
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.

Of course it is...but we don't call it aggression anymore, when it's enacted upon us...it's terrorism.
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.

StillHere

brandon10 wrote:

Seeing as how Iran never strikes anyone, I think that if Israel attacks Iran then all countries throughout the world should back Iran.

but they/we won't and we all know it
its all such a horrible game
like a bunch of 5 year olds

catefrances

StillHere wrote:

but they/we won't and we all know it
its all such a horrible game
like a bunch of 5 year olds

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.

Drowned Out

catefrances wrote:

StillHere wrote:

but they/we won't and we all know it
its all such a horrible game
like a bunch of 5 year olds

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.

:silent:
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.

catefrances

Drowned Out wrote:

catefrances wrote:

StillHere wrote:

but they/we won't and we all know it
its all such a horrible game
like a bunch of 5 year olds

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.

:silent:
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...

Byrnzie

Drowned Out wrote:

Of course it is...but we don't call it aggression anymore, when it's enacted upon us...it's terrorism.
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.

Our man Drowned Out is clearly not just a pretty face.

StillHere

Drowned Out wrote:

catefrances wrote:

StillHere wrote:

but they/we won't and we all know it
its all such a horrible game
like a bunch of 5 year olds

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.

:silent:
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.

:roll: :shock:

Drowned Out

StillHere wrote:

:roll: :shock:

:lolno: :eh: :wtf: :think: :crazy: :roll:

catefrances wrote:

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...

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.

catefrances

Drowned Out wrote:

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..

bennett13

Drowned Out wrote:

catefrances wrote:

StillHere wrote:

but they/we won't and we all know it
its all such a horrible game
like a bunch of 5 year olds

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.

:silent:
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...[/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"!!!