9/11 is only an example of a situation. Pearl Harbor is another one. I was only asking if there was an acceptable threat level that warranted a first strike. I say a threat on one US life warrants a first strike. Just my opinion.

2/5/2008 10:08:44 AM

Quote :

"would it have been ok to pre-empt those bastards had we been on our game"

how would you propose we pre-empt an underground terrorist organization. Maybe you are a little rusty on asymmetric warfare b.c you can't exactly send in the troops DDay style to stop bin Laden from conducting his terrorist operations. Even if you do take out the leader a new head will grow.

Quote :

"As a form of unconventional warfare, terrorism is sometimes used when attempting to force political change by convincing a government or population to agree to demands to avoid future harm or fear of harm, destabilizing an existing government, motivating a disgruntled population to join an uprising, escalating a conflict in the hopes of disrupting the status quo, expressing a grievance, or drawing attention to a cause."

Quote :

"Tactics Main article: Tactics of terrorism Terrorism is a form of asymmetric warfare, and is more common when direct conventional warfare either cannot be (due to differentials in available forces) or is not being used to resolve the underlying conflict. The context in which terrorist tactics are used is often a large-scale, unresolved political conflict. The type of conflict varies widely; historical examples include: * Secession of a territory to form a new sovereign state * Dominance of territory or resources by various ethnic groups * Imposition of a particular form of government, such as democracy, theocracy, or anarchy * Economic deprivation of a population * Opposition to a domestic government or occupying army "

If a police officer see someone that looks like they could be a murderer or drug dealer they can not "preemptively" imprison them for 20 years for a crime they have not committed. This is not the fucking Minority Report



[Edited on February 5, 2008 at 10:12 AM. Reason : a]

2/5/2008 10:09:12 AM

Quote :

"9/11 is only an example of a situation. Pearl Harbor is another one. I was only asking if there was an acceptable threat level that warranted a first strike. I say a threat on one US life warrants a first strike. Just my opinion. "

Pearly Harbor is a completly different scenario as you are dealing with a legitimate sovereign nation in a different era of combat style. If word got around that Japan was "planning" a possible attack; diplomacy could possibly be used to avoid the situation. If at some point a reconnaissance plane at some point spotted the Japanese navy heading full steam to Hawaii then this could possibly be construed as an aggressive act of war, warranting the use of force to repel. This is not the same as somehow spotting random dudes w/ box cutters. Had we caught on then these guys would have been arrested an charges of conspiracy.

2/5/2008 10:16:30 AM

you pre-empt them by bombing the fuck out of the Afghan countryside. while the terrorists are not a soverign nation, they still reside inside of one and there are political ramifications. Al Queda left enough foot prints to follow if anyone had been looking. there is a huge difference in that and the hippie pot-peddler down the street.

that said, there is no need for your condescending BS. I cant stand the anonymous internet tough-guys who cant seem to ever have a rational fucking conversation without acting like a 8 year old on the playground.

2/5/2008 10:26:48 AM

anonymous? shit i got enough pics and info in my tww profile that the terrorists could track me down and blow me up if they wanted to.

Quote :

"you pre-empt them by bombing the fuck out of the Afghan countryside. while the terrorists are not a soverign nation,"

bombing the fuck out of the Afghan countryside? Ask any vietnam vet how effective bombing the mostly agrarian N. Vietnam helped out the overall cause.

Quote :

"At 249,984 sq mi (647,500 km²), Afghanistan is the world's 41st-largest country (after Myanmar). Comparatively, it is slightly smaller than the U.S. state of Texas Density 46/km² (150th) 119/sq mi"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan

Good Luck!

I'd say a better strategy would be sending in covert ops.

[Edited on February 5, 2008 at 10:52 AM. Reason : a]

2/5/2008 10:49:55 AM

again, you completely and utterly miss the point.

2/5/2008 10:53:12 AM

whats the point then that i am apparently missing out???

we usa #1 we do whatever we feel like

2/5/2008 10:59:56 AM

the point is not in what specific military action we would take, but if you agree that there are times when pre-emption is acceptable. I gave the examples of 9/11 and Pearl Harbor and asked if we couldve pre-empted those actions would that have been acceptable use of military force to you.

some on here claim there is NO time that pre-emption is acceptable. I say it is acceptable if it saves one US life.

2/5/2008 11:17:21 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7225699.stm

UHHH-OHHHHH Iran is testing rockets in low earth orbit which could[/b] be used to LAUNCH NUKES AT US!!! We better sound the horn and invade preemptively just [i]in case

2/5/2008 2:05:06 PM

if there were evidence they were planning on using them against us...then yes. light their ass up.

2/5/2008 2:06:40 PM

well of course; but the bush administration has known to write fantasies in the past in order to justify a preemptive attack aggressive invasion

2/5/2008 2:14:35 PM

I dont care if it is the Bush administration, the Clinton administration or whoever. Thats not the point either. We are talking about doctrine that crosses Presidential terms.

There are a lot on here that would disagree with your "of course" in response to my scenario, which is what I was talking about all along. I want to know their threshold, so to speak.

[Edited on February 5, 2008 at 2:27 PM. Reason : . ]

2/5/2008 2:26:43 PM

Which doctrine are you refering too???

2/5/2008 2:39:51 PM

the doctrine of when it is appropriate to use military force. I am not talking about an official stance by our current government. I am referring to a doctrine as something that is not limited to a President. it is something like a "code" to live by. I am arguing what I think it should be. not what it is.

2/5/2008 2:45:38 PM

what about other countries; can they also use "preemptive force" if they think their is a "reasonable" threat from another country. Clearly Finland was a threat with its border 25km from Leningrad thus the use of force was understandable by the USSR during the Winter War in 1939

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

[Edited on February 5, 2008 at 3:04 PM. Reason : a]

2/5/2008 3:04:40 PM

wow, you are so thought-provoking.

2/5/2008 4:31:59 PM

Quote :

"UHHH-OHHHHH Iran is testing rockets in low earth orbit which could[/b] be used to LAUNCH NUKES AT US!!! We better sound the horn and invade preemptively just [i]in case"

or lets just ignore when Iran tests rockets cause Iran wouldn't hurt a fly and we should just ignore anything they do

2/5/2008 4:33:44 PM

maybe we just need to invade Iran so we can reinstall democracy and bring freedom to all the americas!

2/5/2008 4:39:45 PM

As much as I hate to agree with *shudder* HUR, the concept of preemption really only works if we're the ones preempting. It could be argued that al Quaida simply launced an asymmetric preemptive strike against American hegemony.

Even if you buy into it, which I do not, you would only want to initiate a preemptive strike when faced with a threat that, through the light of cold, unbiased, intelligence-gathering, that the target poses an imminent threat. That, in and of itself isn't even enough really, as you also need the political capital, public support, and military readiness to conduct the operation in such a fashion that it minimizes the loss of life to your side (we're being Machiavellian here, not altruistic) and does not detract from your ability to meet other threats that may arise.

I'll leave it up to the readers of this forum if Iraq meets those criteria. I can assure you Iran does not.

2/5/2008 4:41:02 PM

^^clearly the only two options are to invade them right now, or ignore them completely and let them do anything they want...no possible middle ground

2/5/2008 5:07:16 PM

i never implied that but we all know what option Bush prefers

2/5/2008 5:28:14 PM

Bush has only preemptively invaded 1 country in the last 7 years

Notice I said preemptively because I consider Afghanistan to be retaliatory

Kind of like Clinton's preemptive strikes on Somalia

2/5/2008 6:04:27 PM

Thats comparing apples to adult diapers, probably the weakest comparison in the history of TWW.

2/5/2008 8:16:16 PM

Quote :

"Notice I said preemptively because I consider Afghanistan to be retaliatory"

agreed.

although your clinton comparison was pretty lame

2/5/2008 9:16:17 PM

hooksaw will be getting a letter in the mail from bill oreilly(sp?) soon

2/6/2008 2:42:45 AM

WTF?! GTFO!

2/6/2008 2:43:50 AM

for real though are you really real...marko wasnt bullshitting about that one time he said you were real?

2/6/2008 2:45:21 AM

Quote :

"Thats comparing apples to adult diapers, probably the weakest comparison in the history of TWW."

well according to HUR Bush invades every country in the world...even though he's preemptively invaded ONE COUNTRY

and what the fuck is so weak about my comparison? Somalia never attacked us...its the exact fucking same thing, just on a smaller scale...did Clinton or didn't Clinton send thousands of troops into Somalia to try and prevent an upcoming oppressive government from taking over during a civil war (that had nothing to do with the US)? Hey also the original timetable for troops to be stationed was extended, kind of like Iraq...hey the scope of the mission was redefined just like Iraq...hey the reason the timetable was extended had to do with unforeseen guerrilla enemies and worrying if the Somalis could handle their own affairs once we left, kind of like Iraq

but its probably the weakest comparison in the history of TWW...

Maybe if HUR would acknowledge that Bush has preemptively invaded only one country, instead of acting like he's gone to war in dozens of countries, i wouldn't feel the need to make these exaggerated comparisons that fools like JCASH can't even understand



But anyway, back to discussing how impractically liberal San Fran and Berkeley's governments are

[Edited on February 6, 2008 at 10:37 AM. Reason : .]

2/6/2008 10:26:29 AM

Well "preemptively" invading one country is more than any other president has done during the last century.

Austria-Hungry merely attacked one country after their prince was attacked by some extremist and look how that turned out.

[Edited on February 6, 2008 at 11:32 AM. Reason : a]

2/6/2008 11:29:50 AM

^^ let them have their hippy haven.

they probably look to the east coast and giggle about the backwardness of small town hicksville mississippi.

2/6/2008 11:33:41 AM

Quote :

"and what the fuck is so weak about my comparison? Somalia never attacked us...its the exact fucking same thing, just on a smaller scale...did Clinton or didn't Clinton send thousands of troops into Somalia to try and prevent an upcoming oppressive government from taking over during a civil war "

Iraq was an invasion with the intent of deposing a dictator and replacing it with a Western supported government. Somalia was a much smaller scale incursion with the intent of ensuring that UN food supplies were evenly distributed and not controlled by Adid. I mean, yeah, uniformed Americans were involved in both, but that is about where the comparison stops.

2/6/2008 11:46:42 AM

yeah you can't really overthrow a gov't that does not exist. Somalia is a GoldenViper paradise minus all the killing

2/6/2008 11:55:05 AM

it was still a military operation against a country that hadn't directly attacked the US

and since the topic of "(when) is it ever acceptable to preemptively attack a country" had come up, I figured that was relevant, simply because it was preemptive military action...and the topic of "(when) should the US get involved in another country's affairs" seemed relevant to that topic

2/6/2008 12:01:43 PM

I disagree with your choice of prepositions. It wasn't "against" anything. We used military force to execute a humanitarian mission as opposed to using military force to accomplish a political goal. Granted, Clinton's use of the military is debatable at best, and he was using it for his own political purposes, but the nature of the operations in Somalia and Iraq are so vastly different from a macro-military perspective as to render your comparison asinine at best.

2/6/2008 12:14:07 PM

Berkeley Backs Off On Banning Marines
Berkeley Mayor Apologizes To Marines Over Recruiting Center Flap

Quote :

"Two City Council members vowed to soften their stance as well."

http://www.nbc11.com/news/15245031/detail.html

Liberals: "Freedom of choice! Unless you choose to join the Marines--then you can fuck off!"

PS: "Nevermind! We're sorry."

ROFLMAO!

[Edited on February 8, 2008 at 11:07 PM. Reason : .]

2/8/2008 11:07:10 PM

hooksaw

Quote :

" freedom of speech unless it is against the government then if you do not like it GTFO!!!"

2/8/2008 11:27:02 PM

^ Worthless.

BTW, since you're having trouble focusing on the latest news again, the Berkeley loons have apologized. So suck on that for a while.

2/8/2008 11:57:43 PM

So you bitch when they make the decision, then you bitch when they correct themselves?

Would a conservative group have just charged ahead with their initial plan?

2/9/2008 1:13:21 AM

^ Obviously, you're having trouble reading--again:

Quote :

"ROFLMAO! "

Which part of that is "bitch[ing]"? STFU.

2/9/2008 1:45:02 AM

Quote :

"BTW, since you're having trouble focusing on the latest news again, the Berkeley loons have apologized. So suck on that for a while. "

dude; fucking damn right they better apologize. I never once agreed with what they were doing nor sympathized their warped rationale. None the less if we are supposedly a "free" country opposition to gov't and the military should be allowed to exist with out suppression. Further originally this country was created under the ideal of separation of powers. Not just within the federal gov't but also the rights of the states and the municipalities of the people living in them.

[Edited on February 9, 2008 at 2:18 AM. Reason : l]

2/9/2008 2:18:14 AM

^ Who the fuck do you think protects the freedom for the rights of those states and municipalities and the people living in them to exist, dummy?

2/9/2008 4:55:33 AM

^ mostly the judicial and law enforcement officials.

2/9/2008 12:09:39 PM

Quote :

"Who the fuck do you think protects the freedom for the rights of those states and municipalities and the people living in them to exist"

you can't be serious.....

i am sure Vladamir Putin agrees with your stance on this issue

2/9/2008 1:01:35 PM

^^ and ^ Then why does the military exist, buffoons?

2/9/2008 6:53:46 PM

^ Not even you can be that dense; unless you are just enjoying your saturday evening troll-a-thon

http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=7849793

Quote :

" to explain why he didn't want Marines training in downtown Toledo."

Quote :

"The Mayor says he and other top city leaders didn't know about it until hours before their arrival, Friday. He says with thousands of business workers leaving downtown on Friday evening that downtown is not a good place for the training. Back in 2006 the Marines used downtown Toledo for their urban exercises to prepare them for situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mayor Finkbeiner says he observed that training and saw citizens walking by. "There was a look of wonderment and some people's faces and a look of fear on other people's faces." "

fuck this mayor and looking over his people. Damn citizens and business leaders need to suck it up and deal with sitting in traffic Friday afternoon. The marines are in down and anyone who doesn't like it can GTFO or end up in a body bag.

Is this a tough enough bad ass response for you hooksaw

The marines should definitely be allowed to train and recruit utilizing the same facets of conducting business as any other government entity. Your idea hooksaw that the marines should be able to trump any form of local gov't within our country and have a free pass to do whatever they want is rediculous.

[Edited on February 10, 2008 at 1:49 PM. Reason : a]

2/10/2008 1:42:58 PM

I was just watching CNN and they had a segment about Mayor of Toledo kicking out marines that were there for training.

These liberals are so funny... http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=7849793

[Edited on February 10, 2008 at 7:19 PM. Reason : oops... a little late on this one]

2/10/2008 7:18:00 PM

^^ Um. . .did you confuse Ohio with California?

2/11/2008 2:42:05 PM

i figured it tied into the thread since some apparently commie ohio mayor did not give the marines the keys to the city to do what they wanted.

2/11/2008 3:36:42 PM

^ Ah, an attempt at wit to cover the stink of your red herring. GG.

2/11/2008 4:55:42 PM

Listen troll fuck not everyone who disagrees with your nutjob ideas (98% of tww) is part of some whack liberal conspiracy to undermine america

2/11/2008 6:48:22 PM