Originally posted by TOC:
Imagine if preemptive attacks became an acceptable method of self defence in the United States, on American soil, among ordinary Americans. Imagine if you could attack and kill your neighbour preemptively, because people say bad things about him, and he really did beat somebody up ten years ago. Imagine that you could break into his apartment and kill him preemptively to make sure that he won't attack you some time in the future. And by the way, not only do you kill him, but you kill two of his kids as well: one teenager who is already on his way to becoming a gangster, and one toddler, three years old. And afterwards, you tell the court that this wasn't murder at all, but a preemptive strike to protect yourself and your family from being harmed in the future. And the court says that you acted within your rights. Would you like to see that sort of "preemptive killing" become an acceptable form of self defence within the United States itself, Roger? Remember that for all you know, your neighbour could kill you and get away with it, by claiming that it was a case of preemptive self defence.
In a non-nuclear age, I'd agree with you. The policy of pre-emption is a difficult one to take on but the consequences of failure are immense today. It's one thing to compare neighbor against neighbor but when you're talking about the slaughter of millions in a single strike, no president can afford to sit still and play defense. One bomb could destroy an entire city. Try to imagine that kind of carnage and how you'd feel if the perpetrator were one of the identified terror sponsors. One life against millions is not a accurate comparison. That is why the president chose that policy and why I agree with it. The consequences are just too high. September 11 was an awakening to the real dangers in the world. With suitcase nukes out there and willing buyers in al Qaeda and sponsors of terror like Iran freely providing money and training to those out to kill us, what choice do we have? Wait for them to come here?
Some have recommended covert operations. Those are completely useless against state sponsors of terrorism. In Iran alone there are potentially dozens of nuclear enrichment facilities close to being able to produce weapons grade fuel.
It only takes one attack to kill many of our citizens and to set back our way of life by many decades. Knowing that threat is out there now, can we sit back, cowering in fear, hoping our acquiescence will keep our enemies from hurting us again? No, against entities like al Qaeda, they must be destroyed before they can succeed again. State sponsors of terrorism have to stopped one way or another. Negotiations is the preferable approach such as with our attempts in North Korea and Iran, but when those fail, you must have a stick to back up the carrot.
I once heard an interview with Roger Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
You mean John Bolton, the guy with the really big whiskers?
Roger, do you think it is at all reasonable that other people in other country will not love the United States when they hear a high-ranking representative for the U.S. administration talk about America's right to kill others as they see fit in order to prevent future attacks on America?
It's perfectly reasonable if a country is a state sponsor of terrorism. Those countries who are not have nothing to fear from the US. Every country has the right of self-defense. This is self-defense by hitting the terrorists before they can kill millions of our citizens.
The US is THE target of terrorists. We are in much greater danger than most of the countries of the world. When you are sitting in the bull's eye, perhaps you'll have a different opinion.
I ask again, why is it Europeans don't care what Americans think of them? We feel Europeans (collectively, not individually) are cowardly do-nothings who hide under our nuclear umbrella and won't lift a finger to help us when we're in danger (with the sole exception being Great Britain), unlike how the United States stepped in to help Europe when it was overrun by the Nazis. The Nazis had not been a threat to the United States at the time of the American entry into World War II. Since the Nazis hadn't done anything to us, why is it we went into Europe to save it? Does Europe regret that the United States preemptively entered the war in Europe? Despite being attacked by Imperial Japan, the US committed the bulk of its forces to Europe as we felt it was the greater threat. If European opinion today is any indication, they would have opposed US entry into the European theater as none of our business, unless they, of course, were the ones occupied by the enemy.
We thought the Nazis were a threat and the greatest generation died by the thousands to bring freedom to Europe. The US dispatched 12 million soldiers to Europe and lost over a quarter of a million of them in the defense of our friends.
I had a bit of a tongue-in-cheek post above in response to Carol's question about whether we could have won WWII with today's media (bonus points if you got the reference to the quote, "Aww, nuts"). It was humorous because the comparisons were so true. History repeats itself over and over. That's why I support our war effort and our policy of preemption because I am a student of history. I've read about the mistakes made in ignoring threats. We've paid the price over and over again. Some still don't learn from those painful lessons.
According to what you said, we had no business invading North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and France. The Nazis had done nothing to us but yet we thought they were a future threat to our survival. We preemptively attacked them and killed five million Germans through a process of total war against both military and civilian. Bombers of the US Eighth Air Force flew dangerous daylight raids to destroy German infrastructure, costing us 80,000 of their lives in the process when even the British were too afraid. Their Lancasters flew only at night. Often these B-17 aircrews bravely flew in without air cover, dying by the hundreds on each raid, all in a cause we thought was just even though it did not directly involve us until we involved ourselves. It was so rare for a crew to survive its 30-35 missions that a movie called "Memphis Belle" was made honoring the first aircrew to survive all of its missions without losing a life.
When we came to France in 1917, General John J. Pershing said, "Lafayette, we are here," in honor of the brave Frenchman who fought alongside General Washington in our fight for freedom in the American Revolution. Americans have long memories. We paid back that help many fold in blood, tears, and treasure with many crosses and Stars of David dotting the Normandy beaches and countryside. With the exception of the British, we're still waiting for that General Pershing to come to our aid. It seems we'll have even longer to wait since your opinion is so common.
I think that the idea of preemptive strikes is a wholly new one.
Not really. See above.
