Pre Emptive war with Iraq sets a dangerous precedent...thoughts?

[6SpeedTA95]

I'm not making this thread to say all pre emptive action is wrong or dangerous. However, I believe pre emptive action along the lines of the Iraq war could be very VERY dangerous to the US and future stability of the planet.

By going into Iraq 6 mos to a year prior to them having nuclear weapons which is what the intel at the time showed (we realize now that was a house of cards) we set a precedent for action prior to their being a need for action. Sept 11th was viewed by many extremist as redemptive and pre emptive action on the US to try and criple us before we the "great satan" grew in ferocity. Granted not many people truly view the US as the great satan, but I use this to merely illustrate a point. That we can not use pre emptive action unless the threat is immediate and immenent.

Now many would say that we should not and can not allow our enemies to gain strength and this is true. However, what constitutes an enemy? We could have easily wound up plunging the world into a nuclear war had we taken "pre emptive" action against the USSR. We did not, we kept our cool. Had any one of our cities been attacked sure we could have looked back and said "we should have struck first" but instead no attack happened. Russia could have easily used the same logic but they did not.

We were prepared for a pre emptive strike on Cuba during the missile crisis but it was averted through humiliation of Russia in the international community and strenuous talks behind the scenes. Disaster averted!

I think Iran could warrant some pre emptive action but not an invasion but perhaps some strategic bombing. But that begs the question, is that for the US to take up or the EU/Israel/Africa who are in the immediate shadow of Iran's soon to be nuclear arsenal?

Pre emptive strikes should never be taken off our list of options but I feel that using them in the manner that we did in Iraq (looking back on it) was wrong and while strategic airstrikes could have easily been warranted an all out invasion and destabilization of the country and really the region was a huge mistake.

So what/when is pre emptive action necessary? Relevant and a proper solution? Will all pre emptive action end up with us the people looking back on it thinking what a cluster that turned out to be? I think not, Israel has launched pre emptive strikes that looking back were clearly a smart thing to do. So again I believe pre emptive action is ok in some circumstances but clearly they should be limited.

That also means that if/when the US mainland or territory or embassy is attacked that the attackers are met with a swift retaliatory response. If God forbid a terrorist or nation were to carry out a successful nuclear strike on the US or its interest it should also be met with a full retaliatory response by the US arsenal.

Thoughts on pre emptive action guys?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

By going into Iraq 6 mos to a year prior to them having nuclear weapons which is what the intel at the time showed (we realize now that was a house of cards) we set a precedent for action prior to their being a need for action.

No. Iraq failed to comply with a ceasefire. That allows the signing parties to restart the war if they choose.

(not trying to argue the merits of the war)




And real pre-emtive strikes are fine, provided there is something strong.
Examples, Germany lining up on the USSR border in WWII
Iraq lining up on the SA/Kuwait borders.
Egypt, Jordan, Syria lining up on the borders before the 6 day war.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

No. Iraq failed to comply with a ceasefire. That allows the signing parties to restart the war if they choose.

(not trying to argue the merits of the war)

Whoa, where did I dispute the legality of the war in my post?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Whoa, where did I dispute the legality of the war in my post?

???

Iraq wasnt a preemptive strike. Dont know why you used it as an example of one.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

And real pre-emtive strikes are fine, provided there is something strong.
Examples, Germany lining up on the USSR border in WWII
Iraq lining up on the SA/Kuwait borders.
Egypt, Jordan, Syria lining up on the borders before the 6 day war.

Ahh yes thsi would be a justification of preemptive action. Just like Russia putting nuclear missiles on Cuba. I agree that in such situations preemptive action is ok. But in all of the scenarios you mentioned the threat was real and now.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

???

Iraq wasnt a preemptive strike. Dont know why you used it as an example of one.

Because the president did numerous times, talking about taking the war to the terrorist and why preemptive action was necessary because of the impending WMD threat.

[thomez]

It sets a terrible precedent and many have said that all along.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by thomez

It sets a terrible precedent and many have said that all along.

What do you think about preemptive action in general? What makes an action appropriate? or not appropriate? Do you have any details behind that statement?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Because the president did numerous times, talking about taking the war to the terrorist and why preemptive action was necessary because of the impending WMD threat.

that was just bullshit used to justify the war. The real reason was given in the Iraq War Resolution and is basically he signed a cease fire and hasnt followed it for 12 years.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

that was just bullshit used to justify the war. The real reason was given in the Iraq War Resolution and is basically he signed a cease fire and hasnt followed it for 12 years.

So do you think pre emptive action should be taken against Syria, Iran or North Korea?

[thomez]

here, old news rehashed

Senator Byrd - Senate Speeches

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

So do you think pre emptive action should be taken against Syria, Iran or North Korea?

Syria
They havent done anything close to forcing a war.

Iran
not even a possibility until Iraq and Afghanistan are safe bases for invasion. And even then there isnt anywhere near enough justification for war.

North Korea

HELL NO. We lost 50,000 Americans in Korea last time and that was without them having chem, bio, and nuclear weapons. Fighting the criminally insane is a good way to get millions of Americans, South Koreans and Japanese killed.

Not to mention what happens if China disagrees with the war.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Syria
They havent done anything close to forcing a war.

Iran
not even a possibility until Iraq and Afghanistan are safe bases for invasion. And even then there isnt anywhere near enough justification for war.

North Korea

HELL NO. We lost 50,000 Americans in Korea last time and that was without them having chem, bio, and nuclear weapons. Fighting the criminally insane is a good way to get millions of Americans, South Koreans and Japanese killed.

Not to mention what happens if China disagrees with the war.

I agree on all three accounts I just wasn't sure how you felt.

edit BTW preemption doesn't have to be invasion it could easily be airstrikes.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I agree on all three accounts I just wasn't sure how you felt.

edit BTW preemption doesn't have to be invasion it could easily be airstrikes.

Airstrikes are worthless unless you are trying to destroy one specific target (Israel's attack on the Iraqi nuclear plant).

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Whoa, where did I dispute the legality of the war in my post?

You should, many that nations that signed on to the ceasefire disagreed with the US's interpretation, the cease-fire was not a sole-negotiation with the US to continue on forever

[Thorgrim]

I could make a big long post about why international scholars and state officials in amongst our allies believe the Iraq invasion was not just stupid but unjustifiable

Is anyone actually interesting in that or would I be wasting my time?

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I could make a big long post about why international scholars and state officials in amongst our allies believe the Iraq invasion was not just stupid but unjustifiable

Is anyone actually interesting in that or would I be wasting my time?

If you make a thread I'd be interested in reading it, this one is about preemptive action not whether Iraq was justified.

I would like your thoughts on preemptive action. I think looking back it is blatantly obvious that Byrd was right

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

No. Iraq failed to comply with a ceasefire. That allows the signing parties to restart the war if they choose.

(not trying to argue the merits of the war)

Really, what exactly clause did they violate?
I have never even seen this ceasefire

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Really, what exactly clause did they violate?
I have never even seen this ceasefire

UN Security Council resolution 687 and 686

ofcourse, note, it's not US resolution, and all except 2 of the states that formed the resolution said it didn't apply in 2003

there's more but im tired and its another thread for another day, but u have enough to google

[Kytro]

After having a look at those resolutions I find it concerning that the US should take it upon itself to decide if the resolution had been violated or not.

There is no point to creating resolutions if the authority of the governing body is displaced