India taking \"preemptive action\" against Pakistan?

From Yahoo!/AFP

Well, now that Pandora's Box has been opened, the demons inside will start to raise havoc all over the world.

You knew this was coming. I bet this is the first in a long line of ""pre-emptive"" strikes.

It wouldn''t surprise me to hear our buddy in North Korea use this angle soon.

Calling it a Pandora Box is apt. We really set a dangerous example IMHO, with the pre-emptive strike. Now we''ll get to see where it all goes.

"Drunkagain" wrote:

Calling it a Pandora Box is apt. We really set a dangerous example IMHO, with the pre-emptive strike. Now we''ll get to see where it all goes.

We haven''t set any example with this. Many countries have done it and we''ve done it before. Where do people get the myth that his is the first time we''ve done it?

When has the United States gone to war over the possiblity of a danger from another country?

More specifically, when has the US went to war over the possibility of danger from another country that wasnt even fighting anyone at the time.

We haven''t set any example with this. Many countries have done it and we''ve done it before. Where do people get the myth that his is the first time we''ve done it?

Ah, well that excuses it. Hey, we''re doing the same stupid thing that we did before, so it must be right. I suppose you could say we preemptively attacked in vietnam to prevent the domino effect, and that was a smart idea. But, then again, you really don''t like using Vietnam as an example. Not sure if we exactly pre-emptively attacked the native Americans for impeding manifest destiny, it''s kind of a gray area. I think the Nazi''s did an interesting job of preemptively attacking the Polish and French. Then again, the French under Napoleon had some bang up pre-emptive action. Then there was Richard I and the original Gulf War ... that was pretty preemptive. Of course, all these examples don''t count, right? You know, because they don''t make us look very good. Only the preemptive actions that make us look good are valid ... right?

Pre-emptive action without strong evidence of impending attack is indefensible. And please, please, please don''t suggest that Iraq was going to attack us. It just sounds ridiculous.

If anything, the ease of the US victory should be proof positive that Saddam Hussein didn''t pose even a small threat to the US.

Ah, well that excuses it. Hey, we''re doing the same stupid thing that we did before, so it must be right. I suppose you could say we preemptively attacked in vietnam to prevent the domino effect, and that was a smart idea. But, then again, you really don''t like using Vietnam as an example. Not sure if we exactly pre-emptively attacked the native Americans for impeding manifest destiny, it''s kind of a gray area. I think the Nazi''s did an interesting job of preemptively attacking the Polish and French. Then again, the French under Napoleon had some bang up pre-emptive action. Then there was Richard I and the original Gulf War ... that was pretty preemptive. Of course, all these examples don''t count, right? You know, because they don''t make us look very good. Only the preemptive actions that make us look good are valid ... right?

Stop talking down to me. I haven''t done it to you. What you''re arguing is that since America''s past isn''t perfect we have no right to correct mistakes. I have pointed to many situations where we have acted pre-emptily and it''s worked out.

Pre-emptive action without strong evidence of impending attack is indefensible. And please, please, please don''t suggest that Iraq was going to attack us. It just sounds ridiculous.

When have I ever said that Iraq would attack us? I have always been for this war because I believe that we cannot let a Dictator sit in office and kill millions of people. That''s why I am for the war. Haven''t I made that clear yet? Did we know that we were going to be hit on 9/11, no!

If anything, the ease of the US victory should be proof positive that Saddam Hussein didn''t pose even a small threat to the US.

We defeated the Taliben in a month. No one says that any country can stand up to us when it comes to military strength. That has never been the case. I''m tired of some of you throwing up straw men. The whole point is that Saddam is a supporter of terrorism, he''s a despot who has killed millions of people, he has broken the cease fire after the first gulf war, and he''s developing WMD and those weapons could be handed off to terrorist. Notice where WMD are on my list. THEY ARE THE LAST REASON I WASA FOR THE WAR.

You savants keep talking about how North Korea can do all of these bad things to us. Well guess what no one believes the U.N. has any teeth. All the U.N. does is have meetings and waste money. You have people from countries that GDP consist of mud and they come here and are treated well. If people actually felt that the U.N and members had a backbone and if you kill your own people we won''t sell you weapons, buy your oil, and give you enough money to live as royalty while your people live like bugs, maybe we wouldn''t need war.

Let''s follow the yellow brick road of what you guys would do and what I would do.

You: Inspectors stay in and we keep Saddam in his box. The results? The Iraqi people continue to die and instead of two million people being killed by Saddam it goes up. Why? Because you don''t care. You say Saddam is a bad guy but you give lip service to it. Do you want Saddam out of power? Well yes but we can''t do anything about it. I''d hate to break it to you but sitting on your collective asses and hoping the problem will go away doesn''t work. Buying off dictators (which we are still doing) doesn''t solve the damn problem. They need to know that if they do not change then we have a problem with them. They know that we can take out any government in the region in a matter of weeks. That scares them. Maybe now they know that we aren''t a paper tiger. You know the Israel/PLO conflict? Guess when the last time real progress was made? After the first gulf war. Why? Because they respect power. We need to tell Israel to stop building the settlements and to get out of the land which everyone knows is going to have to go to the PLO and we need to tell the PLO to stop using terrorism as a means to force political change.

So instead of sitting here on your high horses and telling some of us ignorant sluts how we''re wrong. Why don''t you offer an alternative plan? Because you have NONE; you''re intellectually dishonest. None of you have offered any side plan that could work.

I have always been respectful and made it a point to make the difference between the anti-war people who are full of it and the people who have real concerns. I would like the same treatment for me.

This is a quote from Discworld #25:

People on the side of The People always ended up
disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended
not to be grateful or appreciative or forwardthinking or obedient.
The People tended to be smallminded and conservative and not
very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so the
children of the revolution were faced with the ageold problem: it
wasn''t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was
obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people.

It says so much.

"Ulairi" wrote:

You savants keep talking about how North Korea can do all of these bad things to us. Well guess what no one believes the U.N. has any teeth. All the U.N. does is have meetings and waste money. You have people from countries that GDP consist of mud and they come here and are treated well. If people actually felt that the U.N and members had a backbone and if you kill your own people we won''t sell you weapons, buy your oil, and give you enough money to live as royalty while your people live like bugs, maybe we wouldn''t need war.

You''d better pray like hell the UN can stop the North Korea crisis from flashing over now that China has checked in on the DPRK''s side (story), any aggressive move could spark World War III (or if you''re a devout James Woolsey follower, World War V). And believe you me, war with China will destroy both countries.

You''d better pray like hell the UN can stop the North Korea crisis from flashing over now that China has checked in on the DPRK''s side (story), any aggressive move could spark World War III (or if you''re a devout James Woolsey follower, World War V). And believe you me, war with China will destroy both countries.

North Korea is a client state of China. It''s just a matter of time before China falls from the inside.

Doubtful. The only way to bring down the Chinese government is (regretably) military action. The government has gotten good at repressing dissention, they''re in no danger of going broke like the Soviets, and there is no push from the government to start reforms that may anger the military, like Gorbachev and the Soviets.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Doubtful. The only way to bring down the Chinese government is (regretably) military action. The government has gotten good at repressing dissention, they''re in no danger of going broke like the Soviets, and there is no push from the government to start reforms that may anger the military, like Gorbachev and the Soviets.

The government is already reforming their economic systems. Change is coming.

Their economic system, not their basic government. The Communists will get richer and unlike the Soviets be able to go toe-to-toe with the US in the looming arms race.

Sorry, Ulairi.

I was in a mood last night. It had nothing to do with you. You''re right, I was out of line.

But. We have offered a plan. You just reject it, much like we reject yours.

Well, if anything, I agree with Ulairi (shoot me now) regarding the UN - they''re useless.

""I have always been for this war because I believe that we cannot let a Dictator sit in office and kill millions of people. That''s why I am for the war.""

So, let''s make a list of the Dictators you will remove this next few years,ok?
I only have Fidel and Kim, but it seems you''re going against Syria and Iran next.

But anyway... I read an article the other day saying that the whole ""World Cop"" attitude of the US was actually harmful in the long term for the countries you ""helped"", because you made them dependant, and every country should have its own revolution from the inside, and you should save yourself the trouble, etc etc etc.

So, let''s make a list of the Dictators you will remove this next few years,ok?
I only have Fidel and Kim, but it seems you''re going against Syria and Iran next.

I never said we have to go to war with every nation that is ruled by a dictator. We don''t have to do business with them. I don''t think we should be buying oil and proping up dictators.

"Ulairi" wrote:
So, let''s make a list of the Dictators you will remove this next few years,ok?
I only have Fidel and Kim, but it seems you''re going against Syria and Iran next.

I never said we have to go to war with every nation that is ruled by a dictator. We don''t have to do business with them. I don''t think we should be buying oil and proping up dictators.

True, but what does not buying oil have to do with starting a war? Couldnt we have just stopped giving him money? Oh, that wouldve pissed off the corporations, so well just get people killed instead. Im not saying you promote this, but thats just the way I see the situation. Getting people killed was the easiest for Administration to justify, so they did it.

Thats my viewpoint, that this war wasnt the best way to remove people who promote terrorism from power.

And as for doing this war for humanitarian efforts, screw them. Call me a heartless bastard, but unless theyre American, Im not dying to free them. They can free themselves. In the long run, I think theyll be better off if they learn to defend thier own freedoms, like we have to.

People on the side of The People always ended up
disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended
not to be grateful or appreciative or forwardthinking or obedient.
The People tended to be smallminded and conservative and not
very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so the
children of the revolution were faced with the ageold problem: it
wasn''t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was
obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people.

So what side are you arguing again? I thought you were arguing for the freedom of the Iraqi people and the installment of a democratic government.

I think its another ''bash the lefties'' fad, he''ll get over it.

"Pyroman[FO" wrote:

""]So what side are you arguing again? I thought you were arguing for the freedom of the Iraqi people and the installment of a democratic government.

Personally, I thought he was moments away from belting out ""People who need people.""

"Koesj" wrote:

I think its another ''bash the lefties'' fad, he''ll get over it. :wink:

I hope not.

If anything, the ease of the US victory should be proof positive that Saddam Hussein didn''t pose even a small threat to the US.

Sure in a direct millitary threat kinda way...

However, politically and indirectly he was 100 times more dangerous. He was a very big thorn. Some of it has to do with the fact that we always paid attention to him, but not all.