Pre-Emptive First Strike Logic...

catefrances

bennett13 wrote:

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.

yosi

I think the initial question suffers from a false premise. A pre-emptive strike (assuming that there is a legitimate fear of attack) is not "good" or "right." I don't think it should be looked at in moral terms. It's a question of survival and self-defense. Imagine that I see someone pointing a gun at me, and I legitimately think that he means to shoot me. If I also had a gun, and I was able to shoot him first, I wouldn't say that by shooting him I had done a "good" or "right" thing. In fact I probably would say that I did a morally problematic thing, in that shooting another person is wrong, but in this instance it was arguably necessary and justified.

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.

catefrances

yosi wrote:

I think the initial question suffers from a false premise. A pre-emptive strike (assuming that there is a legitimate fear of attack) is not "good" or "right." I don't think it should be looked at in moral terms. It's a question of survival and self-defense. Imagine that I see someone pointing a gun at me, and I legitimately think that he means to shoot me. If I also had a gun, and I was able to shoot him first, I wouldn't say that by shooting him I had done a "good" or "right" thing. In fact I probably would say that I did a morally problematic thing, in that shooting another person is wrong, but in this instance it was arguably necessary and justified...

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.

yosi

I don't think the analogy is flawed; you're just being a little too literal in my opinion. But if you like: imagine that the person has a gun sitting on the table a foot to his right...assuming I couldn't run away, I don't think I would have to wait until he picked up the gun and tried to shoot me with it before I would be justified in acting in self-defense.

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.

brandon10

yosi wrote:

I think the initial question suffers from a false premise. A pre-emptive strike (assuming that there is a legitimate fear of attack) is not "good" or "right." I don't think it should be looked at in moral terms. It's a question of survival and self-defense. Imagine that I see someone pointing a gun at me, and I legitimately think that he means to shoot me. If I also had a gun, and I was able to shoot him first, I wouldn't say that by shooting him I had done a "good" or "right" thing. In fact I probably would say that I did a morally problematic thing, in that shooting another person is wrong, but in this instance it was arguably necessary and justified.

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.

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?

yosi

Just because one country has nuclear weapons it doesn't follow that others should as well. Clearly certain countries can be trusted to be responsible while others cannot. I don't think there can be any doubt that it would not have been a good thing if Taliban-controlled Afghanistan had had a nuclear arsenal. By your logic, though, that should have been fine cause hey, Israel has them!

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.

catefrances

yosi wrote:

I don't think the analogy is flawed; you're just being a little too literal in my opinion. But if you like: imagine that the person has a gun sitting on the table a foot to his right...assuming I couldn't run away, I don't think I would have to wait until he picked up the gun and tried to shoot me with it before I would be justified in acting in self-defense.

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.

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?

brandon10

yosi wrote:

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.

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.

bennett13

brandon10 wrote:

yosi wrote:

I think the initial question suffers from a false premise. A pre-emptive strike (assuming that there is a legitimate fear of attack) is not "good" or "right." I don't think it should be looked at in moral terms. It's a question of survival and self-defense. Imagine that I see someone pointing a gun at me, and I legitimately think that he means to shoot me. If I also had a gun, and I was able to shoot him first, I wouldn't say that by shooting him I had done a "good" or "right" thing. In fact I probably would say that I did a morally problematic thing, in that shooting another person is wrong, but in this instance it was arguably necessary and justified.

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.

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?

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!

EdsonNascimento

brandon10 wrote:

yosi wrote:

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.

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.

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.

brandon10

I prefer no one has a nuclear weapon. Iran has stated over and over again that they have no intention of making a weapon. They only want nuclear power like much of the rest of the world has.

You can keep repeating the phrase "wants to wipe Israel off the map" as many times as you want. All it does is show that you have bought into Fox news propaganda and lack the ability to think for yourself. It was proven a long time ago that it was a bad translation of what was actually said. But GOP and right wing warhawks continue to push it knowing that fools will eat it up.

Everthing else that was said in Yosi's paragraph was garbage on so many levels. He said "Iran has been implicated in attacks on American troops in Iraq, funnelling money to Hamas and Hezbollah, and bombing jewish communities around the world". I don't deny that it is possible that some Iranians may have done all of those things. But so have Saudi's, Pakistani's, Egyptians, French, Germans, and many others from around the world. People from all over the world have been doing these things, even people from Israel. But we don't blame the governments for what individuals do. It just doesn't make sense, unless you are trying to push an agenda of war.

So by using Yosi's propaganda bought logic, you could replace Iran at the beginning of his paragraph with many other countries. I guess we may as well have a world war?

The fact of the matter is that Iran has NEVER attacked anyone. Iran is currently surrounded by American and Israeli armed forces. If anyone has the right to a pre-emptive strike it is Iran. Do you even realize how many threats America has levied against Iran??? And America's threats have come from leaders of the GOP, constantly pushing for bombing of a peaceful nation. America is fast becoming the new Nazi Germany.

EdsonNascimento

brandon10 wrote:

America is fast becoming the new Nazi Germany.

Classic ending. Bravo!

And Iran is a peaceful nation. I think their leader would disagree with you in a quieter moment. If you want, I'm sure you are free to join him in his peaceful land where all he wants is nuclear power.

Ever see the kid that needles everyone, causes mischief and is just a general big annoying ass? Then the little guy gets up finally and pops him one in the mouth and he's the one that gets in trouble? Israel is the little guy. The bullies just don't get that he has big guns, yet. Which is amazing b/c he's been beating their asses for almost 60 years now. But, no. They'll keep needling and pulling the wool over some folks eyes (which is amazing unto itself).

Iran the innocent. Oh, I love it. Classic. And the US is bordering on being Nazi Germany.

This thread keeps getting better. Thank you.

bennett13

brandon10 wrote:

You can keep repeating the phrase "wants to wipe Israel off the map" as many times as you want. All it does is show that you have bought into Fox news propaganda and lack the ability to think for yourself. It was proven a long time ago that it was a bad translation of what was actually said. But GOP and right wing warhawks continue to push it knowing that fools will eat it up.

Out of curiosity...what, exactly, is the "good" translation of what was actually said. In other words, what did he actually say?

brandon10

I knew you wouldn't be able to respond to anything else in my post because you know it's all true.

And Israel has been kicking ass?? Oh please Israel is the biggest pussy nation that has ever existed. If it wasn't for the Americans Israel would be toast. They can barely even handle the palestinians..15 year olds with rocks. They'd get demolished by the Iranians if they don't have Americas help and you know it.

bennett13

brandon10 wrote:

I knew you wouldn't be able to respond to anything else in my post because you know it's all true.

And Israel has been kicking ass?? Oh please Israel is the biggest pussy nation that has ever existed. If it wasn't for the Americans Israel would be toast. They can barely even handle the palestinians..15 year olds with rocks. They'd get demolished by the Iranians if they don't have Americas help and you know it.

Biggest pussy nation that ever existed? Dude, are you serious? Have you ever heard of the six-day war? If not, look into it...I don't wanna spoil it for you.

Oh yeah, how's that "good" translation coming along? Have you found it yet?

brandon10

bennett13 wrote:

brandon10 wrote:

You can keep repeating the phrase "wants to wipe Israel off the map" as many times as you want. All it does is show that you have bought into Fox news propaganda and lack the ability to think for yourself. It was proven a long time ago that it was a bad translation of what was actually said. But GOP and right wing warhawks continue to push it knowing that fools will eat it up.

Out of curiosity...what, exactly, is the "good" translation of what was actually said. In other words, what did he actually say?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... omment.usa

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 14/post155

bennett13

Interesting. Thanks for that. Was he misquoted on the whole "Holocaust denial" thing too?

brandon10

bennett13 wrote:

Interesting. Thanks for that. Was he misquoted on the whole "Holocaust denial" thing too?

I don't give a shit about the "holocaust denial". We don't attack sovereign nations because their leaders are idiots and say idiotic things.

gimmesometruth27

bennett13 wrote:

Interesting. Thanks for that. Was he misquoted on the whole "Holocaust denial" thing too?

you can not attack any country for the opinions of it's leader....

the misquotation thing however, is a HUGE issue because most americansand conservative media actually believe that he actually said he wanted to wipe israel off of the map...

at any rate, the only reason israel is talking shit now is because the americans have their back. obama told bibi he did not want the us drawn into another war in the middle east. bibi sure seems to be pressing the issue though in spite of what obama said.

you know what this reminds me of? the kid on the playground who has a problem with another kid, so he recruits a few friends to "help" him kick that kid's ass, but when the fight actually happens, the friends do the majority of the work while the kid who started it sits back and enjoys it because he is risking the least by not really participating...

EdsonNascimento

brandon10 wrote:

I knew you wouldn't be able to respond to anything else in my post because you know it's all true.

And Israel has been kicking ass?? Oh please Israel is the biggest pussy nation that has ever existed. If it wasn't for the Americans Israel would be toast. They can barely even handle the palestinians..15 year olds with rocks. They'd get demolished by the Iranians if they don't have Americas help and you know it.

Umm. Yeah. :? Sort of like when you picked out 1 paragraph of Yosi's commentary. :oops:

There's nothing to respond to, and your ignorance in the above says it all. If the US didn't hold Israel back AND Israel really wanted to, the Palestinian State discussion would have been over 40 years ago. But, yeah. Keep believing the rock throwers are uncontrollable by the Israelis....

This is sort of like saying the OWS folks were winning because the cops didn't beat the crap out of them like they should have. (Hyperbole alert! I'm not advocating beating up law abiding citizens - if there were any there. Just using the hyperbolic analogy device to make a point).