When is a pre-emptive strike acceptable?

[Lord MJ]

Under what circumstances, is a morally, ethically, and legally sound, to strike first against your opponents?


Are there any among you that subscribe to the notion that the nation that strikes first is always the agressor, no matter what actions prompted that strike?


Discuss.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

My impressions are that a preemptive strike is acceptable when there is clear and present danger.

Clear and present danger, by my definition, exists when an enemy force has demonstrated three things:

1. Capability to inflict harm.
2. Intention to inflict harm.
3. Opportunity to inflict harm.

In other words, if they show that they can hurt you, they want to hurt you and they have a chance to hurt you, it is acceptable to hurt them first.

However, we move now from the appropriateness of responding, to the appropriateness of the response itself.

[Wicked Pilot]

A first strike against the DPRK would be a good case study. They spend 29% of their GDP on the military, they do everything they can to distabilize the region, their leader is down right insane, and they're population is starving. In a senerio like this, assuming the intentions of the invader are honorable, then yes a first strike would be legitimate.

[Zoink]

I would agree with Raoul Duke, Jr.

I would also differentiate between pre-emptive strike (act of defense) and intervention (uphold international law).

[SyntaxVorlon]

The idea of a preemptive strike is:
A) Bad for precidence
B) Bad for world opinion
C) Especially bad if there is insubstantial evidence

The fact that the US is attacking preemptively despite lacking two of the reasons Raoul cited, and severe doubt as to a third.
On points 1 and 3 the US lacks evidence, Iraq has not actually been shown to have actual means, and would have no real way to deliver any of the weapons that they are supposed to have. They are not connected to Al Queda, and thus have not been aggressive for a good number of years. And as zoink brought it up, there has been no direct evidence of a breakage of intn'l law. All Hussein really wants is local dominance, but he would not make a move against the other nearby powers, save for Kuwait, had he the opportunity.

This leaves a question, why are we invading Iraq at all if, there is no shown evidence of current wrong doing in ways that would seriously give reason for an attack, no ability to launch an attack(there is a reason why we've never been invaded by Eurasian/African world power in 170 years, it's called the Atlantic Ocean), and limited reason or motivation?
The answer: Oil.
The only threat Saddam posed to the US was to the flow of oil from the middle east to the SUVs that are so critical to highway travel. And as you know "the petroleum must flow."
So what will happen to the dangerous, nuclear proliferating, hostile Dipperck?
Absolutely nothing.
Unless they find natural gas under Seoul.

[Joe]

The answer: Oil.

Proof? Not your bullshit speculations; real proof.

And can't this go to Politics?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Actually, I think the "oil"-boy hijacked bit should be split to politics. The Opening Topic is fine, I think.

EDIT: Ehhh... not that I'm trying to tell anybody what to do, of course. *covers his poor mortal head in a futile attempt to stave off possible impending Mod-Wrath.*

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

The answer: Oil.

Proof? Not your bullshit speculations; real proof.

And can't this go to Politics?

Saddam being a nut might be a part of it, although Bush seemed hell-bent on proving Iraqi ties to terrorism and posession of WMDs. However, a pre-emptive strike against someone that poses no threat to the attacker isn't the easiest thing to justify, even if run by a brutal dictator.

Otherwise I agree with what Raoul Duke Jr. and Wicked Pilot said.

[Joe]

The answer: Oil.

Proof? Not your bullshit speculations; real proof.

And can't this go to Politics?

Saddam being a nut might be a part of it, although Bush seemed hell-bent on proving Iraqi ties to terrorism and posession of WMDs. However, a pre-emptive strike against someone that poses no threat to the attacker isn't the easiest thing to justify, even if run by a brutal dictator.

Otherwise I agree with what Raoul Duke Jr. and Wicked Pilot said.

Agreed. I completely understand most of the objections people have raised to this war (don't necessarily agree with them), but the "war for oil" argument is so ridiculous and full of holes as to be beneath contempt.

[neoolong]

The answer: Oil.

Proof? Not your bullshit speculations; real proof.

And can't this go to Politics?

Saddam being a nut might be a part of it, although Bush seemed hell-bent on proving Iraqi ties to terrorism and posession of WMDs. However, a pre-emptive strike against someone that poses no threat to the attacker isn't the easiest thing to justify, even if run by a brutal dictator.

Otherwise I agree with what Raoul Duke Jr. and Wicked Pilot said.

Well, what are the ethics of doing it for other people? Even if it's not for your country but the people of the country that is being brutalized by a dictator.

[SyntaxVorlon]

Good point, Bush would be trying to make himself popular by finishing what the first one started. I didn't think of that.
I change my opinion in that case.
It is oil politics.
He is attempting to make sure that he has the full approval of his party and the US, and bring up his popularity by attacking an old still hostile foe, while at the same time knocking out one of the few powers that could make his friends' oil stock drop. It makes more sense then just helping friends out.
Of course he would also be securing a future for his friends' companies, especially Haliburton, which got the first contract to go in and make lots of money.

The proof my dear durron, is in the pudding, or in this case in the double standard.
Bush said that Saddam had to fall because he has WMDs, and was hiding them so well that he had no evidence. Kim Jong Il said, hey look I'm gonna make nukes because you have reneged on the light water plants. Bush reacted by saying, let's go into negociations.
Iraq complied with most UN mandates, NK threw out inspectors.
Bush posited further restrictions on Saddam because he did not comply in full, probably to hide a few chem weapons(Despite lack of proof, there is a high probability of chemical weapons, but the lack of data means there is no basis for attack)
Bush has made no connections between Al Queda and Saddam.
Bush has no credible evidence that Iraq ever posed a direct threat to the US. What proof do you have that Iraq had an advanced, running WMD program(s) and enough connections to terrorist networks to pose a threat to anything but the several countries bordering it.
A war in Korea would be far harder than war with war in Iraq, and NK poses no actual threat to the United States, and has ZERO connections to terrorism.
After Iraq is over, and if Bush is reelected, he will decide to turn sights inward to everything domestic. He would probably start several of his faithbased org plans, and he would make very large swaths of conservative policy changes. NK will probably figure out they are not in trouble any more by 2005, and try to renegociate things with the UN.

2015: Middle east will destabilize again because not enough pressure to reform to the left of fundamentalism and facism, and a whole new set of US hating, Oil barons will again fund guerrila attacks, only after getting billions of aid from the US to get rid of a slightly earliar threat.(Ok that's pure speculation, but the last bush decided not to finish the job, there are bound to be plenty of kinks left over after this one)

[Joe]

Of course he would also be securing a future for his friends' companies, especially Haliburton, which got the first contract to go in and make lots of money.

Ding-Ding, it's the bullshit-mobile!

http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsArtic ... ID=2469627

You have no argument.

Oh, and BTW, Dick Cheney was forced to sell his Halliburton stock under conflict-of-interest restrictions.

The proof my dear durron, is in the pudding, or in this case in the double standard.
Bush said that Saddam had to fall because he has WMDs, and was hiding them so well that he had no evidence. Kim Jong Il said, hey look I'm gonna make nukes because you have reneged on the light water plants. Bush reacted by saying, let's go into negociations.
Iraq complied with most UN mandates, NK threw out inspectors.
Bush posited further restrictions on Saddam because he did not comply in full, probably to hide a few chem weapons(Despite lack of proof, there is a high probability of chemical weapons, but the lack of data means there is no basis for attack)
Bush has made no connections between Al Queda and Saddam.
Bush has no credible evidence that Iraq ever posed a direct threat to the US. What proof do you have that Iraq had an advanced, running WMD program(s) and enough connections to terrorist networks to pose a threat to anything but the several countries bordering it.
A war in Korea would be far harder than war with war in Iraq, and NK poses no actual threat to the United States, and has ZERO connections to terrorism.
After Iraq is over, and if Bush is reelected, he will decide to turn sights inward to everything domestic. He would probably start several of his faithbased org plans, and he would make very large swaths of conservative policy changes. NK will probably figure out they are not in trouble any more by 2005, and try to renegociate things with the UN.
2015: Middle east will destabilize again because not enough pressure to reform to the left of fundamentalism and facism, and a whole new set of US hating, Oil barons will again fund guerrila attacks, only after getting billions of aid from the US to get rid of a slightly earliar threat.(Ok that's pure speculation, but the last bush decided not to finish the job, there are bound to be plenty of kinks left over after this one)

Red herrings. You have yet to prove that this is a war for oil.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Proof? Not your bullshit speculations; real proof.

And can't this go to Politics?

Saddam being a nut might be a part of it, although Bush seemed hell-bent on proving Iraqi ties to terrorism and posession of WMDs. However, a pre-emptive strike against someone that poses no threat to the attacker isn't the easiest thing to justify, even if run by a brutal dictator.

Otherwise I agree with what Raoul Duke Jr. and Wicked Pilot said.

Well, what are the ethics of doing it for other people? Even if it's not for your country but the people of the country that is being brutalized by a dictator.

You're asking a different ethical question here. My impression is that you're asking if it's ethical for one big country to help out a little country being (figuratively) sodomized by another big country. Start a new thread?

[SyntaxVorlon]

Proof? Not your bullshit speculations; real proof.

And can't this go to Politics?

Saddam being a nut might be a part of it, although Bush seemed hell-bent on proving Iraqi ties to terrorism and posession of WMDs. However, a pre-emptive strike against someone that poses no threat to the attacker isn't the easiest thing to justify, even if run by a brutal dictator.

Otherwise I agree with what Raoul Duke Jr. and Wicked Pilot said.

Agreed. I completely understand most of the objections people have raised to this war (don't necessarily agree with them), but the "war for oil" argument is so ridiculous and full of holes as to be beneath contempt.

Bullshit
What other reasons can you state that would point to Bush actually moving to topple Saddam.
The oil basis has the obvious double standard between the treatment of Iraq compared to the treatment of the DPRK. Bush has no plans to go after Iran, and none to deal with NK.
And Bush attempted a major coup in Venezuela against the anticorporate sovereigntist government.
Bush's policies have supported the disapproval of renewable energy sources, instead opting for further coal and oil mining. And furthering of coal and oil mining is the ONLY solution that this administration has attempted to make to reduce dependence on foreign oil, and has ruled out alternative energy and conservation.

The fact that a good deal of policy precidence in this administrationhas been set toward the furthering of secure sources of fossil fuels for the US, by itself lends credence to the factors on which the preemptive actions have been based. It is very much a political game, but it is the politics of oil.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Unless, of course (he said, after thinking about it) you're talking about going into a country with a brutal government and fighting to liberate its people. But that will never happen -- Californians don't know they're being abused -- what? This is some other country? Okay.

Here's the problem; it's not our problem. Until it becomes our problem, in which case, CPD ethics apply. Did that make sense to you? It almost made sense to me. Let's try again, without the duct tape under the tongue.

A country's treatment of its citizenry, up to a point, is an internal matter. Communist China's human rights policies are none of Canada's business, for example. Now that holds, until such time as those policies result in a pattern of material harm (i.e. repeated massacres and/or forced relocations resulting in deaths, etc) At that time, it becomes an international matter, and in anyone acts at all, it will probably be the U.S. at the behest of and in cooperation with the U.N. That's why what you were describing is still a different ethical question from C&PD/Preemptive strike ethics.

And most of that was just on a guess, from what I've seen. If I've erred in that analysis, I fully expect a lashing.

[SyntaxVorlon]

Whoops I thought I'd heard that Halliburton got that contract, in fact I remember they saying it on NPR. The fact he has no stock in the company doesn't cheney has no interest.
I'll have to check my sources tommorrow.
Durron, if you have a justification for all this post it instead of simply writing off any opposing opinions as red herrings. The policy of the US has been staunchly toward reserving oil and fossil fuel resources, domestic and foreign. Getting Iraq under the control of US companies would secure large amounts of oil at low prices for the US, and severly undercut Saudi Arabia.
I've shown conclusions, you have not.
I've given facts, sorry about halliburton I must have heard wrong on that one, mostly correct, but you have yet to posit anything but vague writeoffs.

[Joe]

Bullshit
What other reasons can you state that would point to Bush actually moving to topple Saddam.

Revenging Daddy, maybe? Whatever the case, we're largely responsible for the mess in Iraq and we ought to clean it up.

What other reasons can you state that would point to Bush actually moving to topple Saddam.
The oil basis has the obvious double standard between the treatment of Iraq compared to the treatment of the DPRK. Bush has no plans to go after Iran, and none to deal with NK.

Iran is liberalizing; it's not quite the problem that Iraq is, nor do we have a history there. And the NK claim is bunk. It's true that the administration has not been very clear about what its NK policy is, but there is a policy; NK is to be dealt with diplomatically, with the assistance of Russia, China, and Japan, all of whom have an interest in seeing a nuclear-free North Korea.

And Bush attempted a major coup in Venezuela against the anticorporate sovereigntist government.

Supporting a coup against a genuine prick like Hugo Chavez is one thing. If we were really so interested in the Venezuelan oil fields, we would be massing our troops at the border. For that matter, we would have seized the Kuwaiti oil reserves twelve years ago when we had the chance. And we wouldn't be making high-profile, public promises guaranteeing the transfer of the Iraqi oil reserves to the new Iraqi government.

Bush's policies have supported the disapproval of renewable energy sources, instead opting for further coal and oil mining. And furthering of coal and oil mining is the ONLY solution that this administration has attempted to make to reduce dependence on foreign oil, and has ruled out alternative energy and conservation.

FEASIBLE renewable energy sources? For example?

BTW, if you are so sure this is a war for oil, I invite you to join me in supporting the Bush plan for drilling in Alaska. Anything to prevent more war for oil, right?

The fact that a good deal of policy precidence in this administrationhas been set toward the furthering of secure sources of fossil fuels for the US, by itself lends credence to the factors on which the preemptive actions have been based. It is very much a political game, but it is the politics of oil.

Of course the U.S. has an interest in making petroleum as cheap and easily accessible to Americans as possible. It does not follow that they've started a fucking war over it.

So far, your argument has greatly resembled the divine fallacy; "I can't think of any other reasons for this war than oil, so that must be the reason."

[Joe]

Whoops I thought I'd heard that Halliburton got that contract, in fact I remember they saying it on NPR. The fact he has no stock in the company doesn't cheney has no interest.
I'll have to check my sources tommorrow.
Durron, if you have a justification for all this post it instead of simply writing off any opposing opinions as red herrings. The policy of the US has been staunchly toward reserving oil and fossil fuel resources, domestic and foreign. Getting Iraq under the control of US companies would secure large amounts of oil at low prices for the US, and severly undercut Saudi Arabia.
I've shown conclusions, you have not.
I've given facts, sorry about halliburton I must have heard wrong on that one, mostly correct, but you have yet to posit anything but vague writeoffs.

Can you name some foreign oil reserves that the U.S. has taken over? Like the Kuwaiti reserves that we COULD have taken over twelve years ago but didn't?

Your "opposing opinions" are red herrings, at least where this discussion is concerned. They do not prove that this is in fact, a war for oil.

And how exactly would lower oil prices help American oil companies? Increased supply means lower prices means lower profit margins.

Yes, you have posted conclusions, I'll give that to you. What you have not posted are premises to those conclusions.

[Sea Skimmer]

Bullshit

Sure moron

What other reasons can you state that would point to Bush actually moving to topple Saddam.

The last four years of war we've been fighting with him for starters

The oil basis has the obvious double standard between the treatment of Iraq compared to the treatment of the DPRK. Bush has no plans to go after Iran, and none to deal with NK.

Neither of which where fighting the US on a daily basis. And if Bush is after oil, why DOESNT he have plans to go after Iran? Its oil fields are only a few miles from the Iraqi boarder.

And Bush attempted a major coup in Venezuela against the anticorporate sovereigntist government.

The US supported an attempted bloodless coup politically, and soon backed away from that. Now do you have proof that the US was behind it, or just your own bullshit?

[neoolong]

Saddam being a nut might be a part of it, although Bush seemed hell-bent on proving Iraqi ties to terrorism and posession of WMDs. However, a pre-emptive strike against someone that poses no threat to the attacker isn't the easiest thing to justify, even if run by a brutal dictator.

Otherwise I agree with what Raoul Duke Jr. and Wicked Pilot said.

Well, what are the ethics of doing it for other people? Even if it's not for your country but the people of the country that is being brutalized by a dictator.

You're asking a different ethical question here. My impression is that you're asking if it's ethical for one big country to help out a little country being (figuratively) sodomized by another big country. Start a new thread?

Actually I was trying to suggest another situation where it would be acceptable for one country to pre-emptively strike another. In the case where it's trying to help out the people of that country. I guess I interpreted opponent differently than you meant.

[Sea Skimmer]

The idea of a preemptive strike is:
A) Bad for precidence
B) Bad for world opinion
C) Especially bad if there is insubstantial evidence

Of course the fact that the US has been actively at war with Iraq for the last several years is ignored by your delusion.

[kojikun]

on oil: the US stands the benefit more from locking up Iraqi oil. An inlux of new oil would dramatically reduce the value of American oil, making companies more profitable. Its the same reason we dont print money to make everyone rich, more goods > lower value > less profits.

Thats why theyre trying to push for an american based hydrogen economy, so were not dependent on foreign fossil fuel that makes ours worth less.

[Joe]

on oil: the US stands the benefit more from locking up Iraqi oil. An inlux of new oil would dramatically reduce the value of American oil, making companies more profitable. Its the same reason we dont print money to make everyone rich, more goods > lower value > less profits.

Thats why theyre trying to push for an american based hydrogen economy, so were not dependent on foreign fossil fuel that makes ours worth less.

Don't you mean "less profitable?"

[Wicked Pilot]

The answer: Oil.

Alright, let's be honest here, it is oil. If there was no oil, we wouldn't give that much of a shit. Saddam could gas his people and his neighbors almost all he wanted and while we may impose political and economic sanctions, we would never put a single soldier on the ground to try and stop him. A lot of pro-wars people don't want to admit this, but while I dislike the idea, I recognize it's truth. We liberated Kuwait, contained Saddam for 12 years, and are now trying to overthrow him because he poses a threat to his neighbors that not only we, but the rest of the industrial world depend on for our economic stability and future growth. The fact that the man is a brutal murderous dictator who keeps his population in line through fear, intimidation, and murder just makes doing our job even easier. Saddam Hussein is a cancer. If he was benign, then we wouldn't care, but he is malignant, so we will cut him off, and we will kill him.

[Joe]

Alright, let's be honest here, it is oil. If there was no oil, we wouldn't give that much of a shit.

Gulf War I was about oil, and there was no attempt made to deny this. Bush and Thatcher were quite open about it. This one isn't; if we were interested fundamentally in oil, the U.S. would be pursuing a different foreign policy. The U.S. does not need Iraqi oil.

Saddam could gas his people and his neighbors almost all he wanted and while we may impose political and economic sanctions, we would never put a single soldier on the ground to try and stop him.

Sadly true, to an extent. Although, I believe that the motivation for this way is to avenge Daddy and clean up unfinished business, not oil.

A lot of pro-wars people don't want to admit this, but while I dislike the idea, I recognize it's truth.

I would be happy to recognize it as truth with ample evidence.

We liberated Kuwait, contained Saddam for 12 years, and are now trying to overthrow him because he poses a threat to his neighbors that not only we, but the rest of the industrial world depend on for our economic stability and future growth.

The presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia is enough to both contain Saddam Hussein and by extension ensure a continual supply of Saudi oil to the West. We do not need to invade to contain him, really. In fact, if oil interests really were driving the war, an invasion would be the last thing they would considering, since the release of Iraqi oil to the market would decimate their profit margins.

he fact that the man is a brutal murderous dictator who keeps his population in line through fear, intimidation, and murder just makes doing our job even easier. Saddam Hussein is a cancer. If he was benign, then we wouldn't care, but he is malignant, so we will cut him off, and we will kill him.

Fair enough. We've been tied down so long in Iraq that this war is inevitable. Twelve years in the making.