Are there any circumstances where a pre-emptive strike would ever b

Are there any circumstances where a pre-emptive strike would ever be wise ?

Only when there is unrefutable evidence that we are imminent danger. Iraq obviously failed miserably with that standard.

Difficult to say as once it happens, no one can know what the alternative may have been.

With Iraq, we know that the alternative would be hundreds of thousands of people still alive today had we not invaded.

We did that in Iraq...so far, it was clearly *unwise*.

Difficult to say as once it happens, no one can know what the alternative may have been.

Sure, they can speculate, but no one can know for sure.

Kiasu

With Iraq, we know that the alternative would be hundreds of thousands of people still alive today had we not invaded.

Or maybe Saddam and his criminal regime would have killed more innocent people than that by now jimahl.

As I said, we don't know what the alternatives would have been.

:-(

Thats funny, I didn't hear Iraq anywhere in your question.
Is it worth our nation security to pass off threats as being free speech?
Is it worth our national security to pass of other nations who don't allow weapons inspectors as freedom of privacy. (I doubt Saddam was hiding a candy corn factory)
Is it worth our national securty to allow nations to push our limits.
Is it worth our national security to punish the citizens of that country rather then the leaders through sanctions.
I would rather send our military who are trained to search and destory rather then the alternative.

Or maybe Saddam and his criminal regime would have killed more innocent people than that by now jimahl.

And how would he have doen that with inspectors in the country and the whole world watching. If we had seen anything like that going on, we could have easily gone in and stopped it then. It did not require a pre-emptive strike. Are you actually trying to say that we went into Iraq to stop genocide?

As I said, we don't know what the alternatives would have been.

And as I said, the alternative would have been hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive today.

Thats funny, I didn't hear Iraq anywhere in your question.

Well since Iraq is the only country the US has ever pre-emptively attacked, it is only logical it would come up as an example of how wrong it is.

Is it worth our nation security to pass off threats as being free speech?

Care to elaborate?

Is it worth our national security to pass of other nations who don't allow weapons inspectors as freedom of privacy. (I doubt Saddam was hiding a candy corn factory)

At the time we invaded there were inspectors on the ground wth full access. Bush chased them out so he could begin the shock and awe that killed hundreds of thousands of people.

Is it worth our national securty to allow nations to push our limits.

Define push our limits?

Is it worth our national security to punish the citizens of that country rather then the leaders through sanctions.

Huh? Are you talking about Iraq? We did not impose sanctions, the UN did.

I would rather send our military who are trained to search and destory rather then the alternative.

And destroy they did. They also searched, and found NOTHING!!! The choice was launch a pre-emptive war that kills hundreds of thousand on a country that did not pose any threat to us or its neighbors... or not attack and allow the inspectors to finish their job. Our national security was NOT threatened by Iraq.

Thats funny, I didn't hear Iraq anywhere in your question.

Well since Iraq is the only country the US has ever pre-emptively attacked, it is only logical it would come up as an example of how wrong it is.

jimahl, just a small piece of advice, the internet is worldwide and there are other countries outside of the USA. I don't see USA mentioned anywhere in the original question.

Just to clarify my earlier response, anyoneone or any country that carries out any sort of pre-emptive action runs the serious risk of criticism as they claim they were taking early action against what MAY have happened had they not acted.

This would even apply to Social services who make decisions to sometimes remove children from families and situations where they believe they are at risk.

In such cases, they are condemed for taking a child away yet if they fail to act and a child is harmed, they are condemed for NOT taking the child away.

Are you actually trying to say that we went into Iraq to stop genocide?

I dont believe this for a minute and do not believe this was the correct action. I would be more likely to believe that it was all about money and looking for a scapegoat following the twin towers attack and in lieu of Ossama who the US are unable to find.

It is interesting that in the weeks following the twin towers attack, many Americans had been led to believe that Saddam was behind this.

PS - Just a general lighthearted observation.

For the 1000's on non-Americans who use this site could we please have some consideration when referring to 'our military', our nation, our national security etc.

There is life outside of the US and if everyone from a different country who posted on here used the same terminology, I think it would be very hard to follow a thread.

:-)

Kiasu

The US is the most powerful nation on earth, more than capable of striking back, and everyone knows it. When the US makes a pre-emptive strike, it is an act of aggression, not defense.

That said, other countries with much more limited abilities, might legitimately strike first if they are threatened, to prevent an enemy from wiping them out before they could react.

jimahl, just a small piece of advice, the internet is worldwide and there are other countries outside of the USA. I don't see USA mentioned anywhere in the original question.

I understand there are many non-americans here, but the person who asked the question is an american, as well as the person I was responding to. And both have been supporters of our disasterous actions in Iraq, so I was answering from an american point of view.

Just to clarify my earlier response, anyoneone or any country that carries out any sort of pre-emptive action runs the serious risk of criticism as they claim they were taking early action against what MAY have happened had they not acted.

This would even apply to Social services who make decisions to sometimes remove children from families and situations where they believe they are at risk.

In such cases, they are condemed for taking a child away yet if they fail to act and a child is harmed, they are condemed for NOT taking the child away.

Apples and oranges... Deciding whether to remove a child from a home does not run the risk of killing hundreds of thousands of people. But both would require evidence before taking action. There was no evidence of Iraq being an imminent threat, or of saddam preparing to commit mass murder of his people. Your point that had we not invaded, he MIGHT have killed hundreds of thousands is not a valid one, since there is not one shred of evidence that that was going to happen.

I dont believe this for a minute and do not believe this was the correct action. I would be more likely to believe that it was all about money and looking for a scapegoat following the twin towers attack and in lieu of Ossama who the US are unable to find.

I am glad you don't believe it, because it had nothing to do with our invasion. As far as not being able to find bin Laden, they didn't try very hard before they diverted all attention to Iraq. And the only reason we did that was not necessarily money, but oil.

It is interesting that in the weeks following the twin towers attack, many Americans had been led to believe that Saddam was behind this.

I don't find it interesting, I find it distrurbing. But yes, we were lied to by Bush/Cheney. They had there eyes on Iraq long before they took office, and once 9/11 happened, they took advantage of the pall that hung over the American people by lying to them about Saddam's involvement, even though there was none. They kept us afraid so we would not be paying attention to their real goal, to overthrow saddam and gain control of Iraq's vast oil reserves.

I guess in the liberal's eyes you must be fired upon before you respond. I'm sorry if you point a weapon at me and make a threat I will kill you before you get the chance to fire. I'm supprised you libs don't understand this, Charles Darwin called it survival of the fittest.

I guess in the liberal's eyes you must be fired upon before you respond.

Not necessarily, but there has to be at least some credible evidence that they have the weapon to fire upon us with.

I'm sorry if you point a weapon at me and make a threat I will kill you before you get the chance to fire.

But Iraq was not pointing a weapon at us. In fact Saddam had allowed inspectors in with full acces to prove he had none. But Bush wouldn't let them finish.

I'm supprised you libs don't understand this, Charles Darwin called it survival of the fittest.

This is an Idiotic comment

you know what? it really pisses me off that people think that the Iraq campaign was a failure. tell me wheres the failure. we took down husseins corrupt regime. stopped him from using chemical weapons to wipe out whole villages of inncoent people (which we have proof of by the way), set up a new diplomatic government, and are now keeping the peace and helping rebuild. you are pathetic if you believe US forces are just going around killing innocent civilians. the media will say anything for a good story.

saints504, you say:

'and are now keeping the peace'

I think you may want to investigate your statement above and then look up the definition of the word 'peace'.

There are many killings every day throughout Iraq between different religious factions and this will increase 100 x that once the US pull out for good.

A different situation than the one under Saddam but hardly what would be defined as peace.

PS
All your recent replies to questions on this site appear to just be in support of the US regardless of the facts. You may find it interesting to research the subjects in an unbiased way and then post replies from a more informed point of view.

You may love your country and there is nothing wrong with that but your love appears to be totally unconditional regardless of the facts.

Just a bit of friendly advice.

Kiasu