Preemptive war OK?

C

Conservative15

#1
Do you think preemptive strikes are a good thing in certain situations? There is a possibility that we will attack Iran in the future and this is a very important decision that may have to be made by the next administration (unless Bush does it).
 
T

Think for myself

#2
Do you think preemptive strikes are a good thing in certain situations? There is a possibility that we will attack Iran in the future and this is a very important decision that may have to be made by the next administration (unless Bush does it).
Personally, I think that if a threat exists, and diplomacy is not a viable option, then a preemptive strike is appropriate.
 
#3
Do you think preemptive strikes are a good thing in certain situations? There is a possibility that we will attack Iran in the future and this is a very important decision that may have to be made by the next administration (unless Bush does it).
Did you think Pearl Harbour was a good thing? A pre-emptive strike is the cowards way of making war.
 
R

Ronin Tetsuro

#4
Preemptive war is against everything America is supposed to stand for. No, it's not okay, especially when agents of our Republic are very clearly and actively attempting to manufacture reasons to justify preemptive war. That tells me that plenty of other people realize it's not okay and want to justify doing what they know is wrong. If it was okay, we would just do it.
 
P

Pragmatist

#5
Do you think preemptive strikes are a good thing in certain situations? There is a possibility that we will attack Iran in the future and this is a very important decision that may have to be made by the next administration (unless Bush does it).
No they are never good in any situation.
 
C

Common Sense Craig

#6
Do you think preemptive strikes are a good thing in certain situations? There is a possibility that we will attack Iran in the future and this is a very important decision that may have to be made by the next administration (unless Bush does it).
In some cases, sure why not?

Personally, I think that if a threat exists, and diplomacy is not a viable option, then a preemptive strike is appropriate.
And before someone jumps in with an exception clause for other countries, it should then be okay for other countries to employ preemptive strikes if they feel that they are threatened. Right???
 
T

Think for myself

#7
In some cases, sure why not?



And before someone jumps in with an exception clause for other countries, it should then be okay for other countries to employ preemptive strikes if they feel that they are threatened. Right???
I see no reason why other countries should not be able to stave off the inevitable, so I will say yes.
 
T

Think for myself

#9
I wasn't trying to be anti-American, as some may believe, but was just using my Mom-given common sense. :)
Craig, we've both been here long enough to realize that you are not baiting.

You see, because I am the best at baiting, which is why they call me the master baiter.

I digress. To suggest that other countries are not allowed to defend themselves would be a bit counter intuitive. Obviously, diplomacy and sanctions are the first way to go.