Pre-emptive strike was right??

Posted by: Anonymous

Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/14/04 08:59 PM

I found this in the opinion section of yesterdays the USA TODAY newspaper. Is this a case in point for justification of the war. You be the judge (see below)<br><br>Pre-emptive strike was right<br><br>Suppose a person approaches you with his hand in his pockets and threatens you, implying he might have a gun. You ask,” May I see if you really have a gun? and the person replies, "No you may not." You seize the opportunity, wrestle the person to the ground, pull his hand out of his pocket and find there's no gun. Were you justified in taking this violent action against this hoodlum? You bet. Now suppose that person is Saddam Hussein and the possible gun was a weapon of mass destruction. Enough said.<br><br>William S. Pietrazak <br>Warsaw, Indiana<br><br>I personally don't think this was a good example for justification of the war. It's not like Saddam directly threatened us with a WMD and he didn't have his hands in his pockets and not let us see what he had (UN Weapons Inspectors were allowed up to the point of the war)<br><br>Whats your take??<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/14/04 09:09 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Whats your take??<p><hr></blockquote><p>He shot at our planes on a frequent basis. That is a direct threat.<br><br>It's hard to have your hands in your pockets, when they are in the "cookie-for-oil" jar.<br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: sean

Re: Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/14/04 09:12 PM

let me get this straight . . . you mean he actually had the audacity to shoot at our planes flying over his country?<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/14/04 09:29 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>let me get this straight . . . you mean he actually had the audacity to shoot at our planes flying over his country?<p><hr></blockquote><p>What you need to get straight is that the northern no-fly zone can be credited for giving the Kurdish region of Iraq de-facto independence after the Gulf War.<br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/14/04 09:31 PM

Yeah but is shooting at patrol planes a reason for a full scale invasion?? A dog is going to bark and growl if you rattle his cage.<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/14/04 09:33 PM

you mean the kurds who wanted to overthrow saddam after the first gulf war and were encouraged to try by the U.S. yet we let them down and allowed them to be killed by the thousands when their overthrow failed? we sure loved those kurds. <br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/14/04 09:43 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>you mean the kurds who wanted to overthrow saddam after the first gulf war and were encouraged to try by the U.S. yet we let them down and allowed them to be killed by the thousands when their overthrow failed? we sure loved those kurds.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Yes, the same way that the Iraqi's are currently being encouraged to take their freedom into their own hands. We've seen your support for them also.<br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/14/04 09:49 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Yeah but is shooting at patrol planes a reason for a full scale invasion?? A dog is going to bark and growl if you rattle his cage.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Rabid dogs, as well as fanatical extremist are infectious and must not be left untreated.<br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/14/04 09:52 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Whats your take??<p><hr></blockquote><p>War for oil ... something about a pipeline ... something, something ... Bush lied, people died, liberals cried ... something ...<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/14/04 10:07 PM

Are Kurds Iraqis ???? No really I mean where did they come from?? The Iraqi Kurds come from Turkey thats their original homeland, they were forced out because they were not allowed to speak thier language and express thier culture freely amongst the Turks. If anything they are Turkish refugees.<br><br>
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/14/04 10:18 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Are Kurds Iraqis ???? No really I mean where did they come from?? The Iraqi Kurds come from Turkey thats their original homeland, they were forced out because they were not allowed to speak thier language and express thier culture freely amongst the Turks. If anything they are Turkish refugees.<p><hr></blockquote><p> The Kurds have been subjugated by neighboring peoples for most of their history. In modern times, Kurds have tried to set up independent states in Iran, Iraq and Turkey, but their efforts have been crushed every time.<br><br>The Kurdish People<br><br> * 15 million to 20 million Kurds live in a mountainous area straddling the borders of Armenia, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. About 8 million live in southeastern Turkey.<br><br> * The Kurds are a non-Arabic people who speak a language related to Persian. Most adhere to the Sunni Muslim faith.<br> <br> <br> During the early 20th century, Kurds began to consider the concept of nationalism, a notion introduced by the British amid the division of traditional Kurdistan among neighboring countries. The 1920 Treaty of Sevres, which created the modern states of Iraq, Syria and Kuwait, was to have included the possibility of a Kurdish state in the region. However, it was never implemented. After the overthrow of the Turkish monarchy by Kemal Ataturk, Turkey, Iran and Iraq each agreed not to recognize an independent Kurdish state.<br><br> The Kurds received especially harsh treatment at the hands of the Turkish government, which tried to deprive them of Kurdish identity by designating them "Mountain Turks," outlawing their language and forbidding them to wear traditional Kurdish costumes in the cities. The government also encouraged the migration of Kurds to the cities to dilute the population in the uplands. Turkey continues its policy of not recognizing the Kurds as a minority group.<br><br> In Iraq, Kurds have faced similar repression. After the Kurds supported Iran in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein retaliated, razing villages and attacking peasants with chemical weapons. The Kurds rebelled again after the Persian Gulf War only to be crushed again by Iraqi troops. About 2 million fled to Iran; 5 million currently live in Iraq. The United States has tried to create a safe haven for the Kurds within Iraq by imposing a "no-fly" zone north of the 36th parallel.<br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/14/04 10:34 PM

Interesting history of the Kurds<br><br>"The Kurds received especially harsh treatment at the hands of the Turkish government"<br><br>This indeed is very true. My wife is of Turkish Kurdish heritage and has told me stories of how her relative where treated like second class inferior citizens kind of like African Americans during the days of Jim Crow and through the civil right struggle something we can both relate to.<br><br>Kurdish state? This has yet to be seen because they desperately want one and are going to pursue it so it's going to be real interesting to see what the aftermath of this war is going to bring because the Turkish people are really adamant about them not having any representation.<br><br>Unfortunately I think there are going to be as what they have always been “pawns”<br><br>
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/14/04 10:44 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Kurdish state? This has yet to be seen because they desperately want one and are going to pursue it so it's going to be real interesting to see what the aftermath of this war is going to bring because the Turkish people are really adamant about them not having any representation.<br><br>Unfortunately I think there are going to be as what they have always been “pawns”<p><hr></blockquote><p>Not unlike Israel and Palestine:<br><br> Following World War II, the British withdrew from their mandate of Palestine, and the UN partitioned the area into Arab and Jewish states, an arrangement rejected by the Arabs. Subsequently, the Israelis defeated the Arabs in a series of wars without ending the deep tensions between the two sides. The territories occupied by Israel since the 1967 war are not included in the Israel country profile. On 25 April 1982, Israel withdrew from the Sinai pursuant to the 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty. Outstanding territorial and other disputes with Jordan were resolved in the 26 October 1994 Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace. In addition, on 25 May 2000, Israel withdrew unilaterally from southern Lebanon, which it had occupied since 1982. In keeping with the framework established at the Madrid Conference in October 1991, bilateral negotiations were conducted between Israel and Palestinian representatives (from the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip) and Syria to achieve a permanent settlement. On 24 June 2002, US President Bush laid out a "road map" for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which envisions a two-state solution. However, progress toward a permanent status agreement has been undermined by Palestinian-Israeli violence ongoing since September 2000.<br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: sean

Re: Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/14/04 10:48 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>We've seen your support for them also.<p><hr></blockquote><p>what are you talking about? where have you seen what i think about the kurds?<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/14/04 10:53 PM

Yeah but this rabid dog (Saddam) was in his cage (Iraq ), he is only going to infect someone you let him loose( The War). I think we played right into Bin Ladens hands with this one he wanted to start a war with us , lets finish it with him. Remember who attacked America on 9/11? Who used the WMD on us( yes airplanes can cause Mass Destruction?<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/14/04 11:09 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Yeah but this rabid dog (Saddam) was in his cage (Iraq ), he is only going to infect someone you let him loose( The War).<p><hr></blockquote><p>He is certainly in a cage now.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I think we played right into Bin Ladens hands with this one he wanted to start a war with us , lets finish it with him.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Bin Laden started this war in 1996 and we will finish it.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Remember who attacked America on 9/11? Who used the WMD on us( yes airplanes can cause Mass Destruction?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Yes, Fascist Islamic Extremist.<br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/14/04 11:12 PM

Pay attention, Sean. Your ample bobble-headedness is your own distraction.<br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/14/04 11:33 PM

Yes, Fascist Islamic Extremist<br><br>Do you really think we can defeat this. I find it very unrealistic kind of like fighting the war on drugs . You cant stop it . You can use all the bombs and man power in the world but it will just encourage and enrage the ones you are trying to free. They have to want and do this for themselves. Perhaps instead of calling this the war on terror they should call it the war on ideaologies because thats what it bascally comes down to. <br><br>"There's no substitute for the TRUTH....because the TRUTH needs no PROOF..."<br>
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/14/04 11:53 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Do you really think we can defeat this. I find it very unrealistic kind of like fighting the war on drugs . You cant stop it . You can use all the bombs and man power in the world but it will just encourage and enrage the ones you are trying to free. They have to want and do this for themselves. Perhaps instead of calling this the war on terror they should call it the war on ideaologies because thats what it bascally comes down to.<p><hr></blockquote><p>The "TRUTH" is that we have to win. The alternative is submission and extinction.<br><br>Ideology is not "terror". The perversion of an ideology and the indoctrination,<br>coercion and acceptance of the "perverted ideology" is this "terror".<br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: squareman

Re: Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/15/04 12:07 AM

I don't think anyone argues that terrorism shouldn't be stopped. But metaphorically, we're throwing water on a grease fire. We need to snuff the fire, not spread it. Offensive war, whether it's called pre-emptive or not, is still just creating and spreading more terrorists.<br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/15/04 05:08 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> don't think anyone argues that terrorism shouldn't be stopped. But metaphorically, we're throwing water on a grease fire. We need to snuff the fire, not spread it. Offensive war, whether it's called pre-emptive or not, is still just creating and spreading more terrorists. <p><hr></blockquote><p> That makes way too much sense. You must be a bobblehead.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/15/04 08:35 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> I don't think anyone argues that terrorism shouldn't be stopped. But metaphorically, we're throwing water on a grease fire. We need to snuff the fire, not spread it. Offensive war, whether it's called pre-emptive or not, is still just creating and spreading more terrorists.<p><hr></blockquote><p>It would appear, that regardless of what you think, there are some that argue that terrorism shouldn't be stopped.<br><br>If we lived in a metaphorical world, terrorism could be explained and reduced to a "nuisance". We could all be "Betty Crocker", astute to the inherent combustible nature of animal fat and the proper technique of pre-emption or extinguishing of such flair-ups.<br><br>In reality, the proponents of terrorism are hell-bent on the notion that the grease be applied to their squeaking wheel. Unfortunately after they blow them up, they realize that they have destroyed their squeaking wheel and have to recruit a new one.<br><br>The spread of this grease fire is based in the water of education, as is it's quencher.<br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: sean

Re: Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/15/04 08:38 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>there are some that argue that terrorism shouldn't be stopped.<p><hr></blockquote><p>who?<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/15/04 09:06 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>there are some that argue that terrorism shouldn't be stopped.<br><br><br>who?<p><hr></blockquote><p>bobble-bobble...bobble-bobble...<br><br>Abu Nidal organization, Abu Sayyaf Group, Armed Islamic Group, Aum Supreme Truth, Basque Fatherland and Liberty, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, HAMAS, Harakat ul-Mujahidin, Hizballah, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Japanese Red Army, Al-Jihad, Kach and Kahane Chai, Kurdistan Workers' Party, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization, National Liberation Army, The Palestine Islamic Jihad, Palestine Liberation Front, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, al-Qaida, <br>Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, Revolutionary Organization 17 November, Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front, Revolutionary People's Struggle, Sendero Luminoso, Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement<br><br><br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: sean

Re: Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/15/04 09:43 AM

while i don't agree with your "evidence" i also have never seen anyone supporting or representing any of those groups in our discussions. in essensce, you're creating a straw man to give credence to your position. and, even if those groups don't think we should fight "our" definition of terrorists, i am willing to bet that some of those groups think terrorism should be stopped and they might even see the U.S. as a terrorist state. your definition of terror is not necessarily the same as theirs.<br><br>nice to see the groups you named are all significant. i grabbed one at random and:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The Revolutionary Organization 17 November, based in Greece, was one of the most active terrorist groups in Western Europe in the 1980’s. The group's name derives from the November 17, 1973 student uprising in Athens that was violently quelled by the military junta ruling Greece at the time.<br><br>17 November is a violent Marxist-Leninist organization. It's ideology is anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, and anti-United States/NATO. The group has been critical of the Greek government for not addressing issues such as the situation in Cyprus, the presence of US bases in Greece, and Greek membership in NATO and the European Community.<p><hr></blockquote><p>are they even still a group or have they just stopped using violence in the last 10 years?<br>another one at random: <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Kach (Hebrew for "Only Thus") was founded by radical Israeli-American rabbi Meir Kahane. The stated goal of Kach and its offshoot Kahane Chai, which means "Kahane Lives," (founded by Meir Kahane's son Binyamin following his father's assassination in the United States), is to restore the biblical state of Israel. Both organizations were declared terrorist organizations by the Israeli Cabinet in March 1994. This followed the groups' statements in support of Dr. Baruch Goldstein's attack in February 1994 on the al-Ibrahimi Mosqueand their verbal attacks on the Israeli Government. Goldstein was affiliated with Kach.<p><hr></blockquote><p>have they done anything in the last 10 years?<br>Sendero Luminoso? <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Although considered a legitimate insurrection by some and a repressive, reactionary movement by others, no one can deny the violence and bloodshed directly and indirectly attributed to the emergence of Sendero Luminoso. With the beginning of the urban strategy in the late 1980s and the involvement in the coca trade in the Upper Huallaga Valley soon after, it seemed all of Peru was a war zone. Flagrant human rights abuses by the military and its U.S.-trained counter-guerrilla forces (Sinchis) and the numerous killings of independent grass roots organizers, local politicians and unsympathetic civilians by Sendero Luminoso left the people of Peru caught in the middle.<br><br>Then on September 12, 1992 Presidente Gonzalo (Guzmán’s nom de guerre) was captured during a raid of a safe house in Lima. Considerably weakened, Sendero has lost much of its role in determining the future of Peru. <p><hr></blockquote><p>what have they been up to in the last 10 years?<br><a href="http://www.ict.org.il">source for quotes</a><br>many of these groups are a nuisance to the country in which they reside, but most are hardly the global terrorists that we currently battle (not counting the distraction in iraq where we're losing the hearts and minds of the overwhelming majority of the population in the middle east).<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/15/04 10:10 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>while i don't agree with your "evidence" i also have never seen anyone supporting or representing any of those groups in our discussions. in essensce, you're creating a straw man to give credence to your position. and, even if those groups don't think we should fight "our" definition of terrorists, i am willing to bet that some of those groups think terrorism should be stopped and they might even see the U.S. as a terrorist state. your definition of terror is not necessarily the same as theirs.<p><hr></blockquote><p>So, in Clintonesque essence, you want to redefine the word terrorism.<br><br>That "straw man" is not only frightening but also dangerous. <br><br>ter·ror·ism<br><br>The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.<br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: sean

Re: Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/15/04 10:45 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.<p><hr></blockquote><p>and, you don't see how some people in the world might think that trying to force a democracy on a country, without UN support, might fit into that definition?<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: Pre-emptive strike was right?? - 10/15/04 11:18 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>and, you don't see how some people in the world might think that trying to force a democracy on a country, without UN support, might fit into that definition?<p><hr></blockquote><p>I see how some dictators, their appeasers and cohorts might think that freedom is a forced form of democracy. Defining that as "terrorism" would be a generous stretch of tolerance, indicating a loose approximation of character. <br><br>The UN is incredible and I mean that in the most negative way.<br><br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust