By this definition, then you fully support American forces going into the Palestinian territories and conquering it or maybe the entire Middle East.
No, I certainly don't. Israel kills so many more Palestinians than any Palestinian organisation kills Israelis. Imagine your neighbour again. Suppose he's being bothered by one of his neighbours. They jeer at him, dump trash on his lawn and paint graffiti on his house. In response, your neighbour rents a bulldozer and flattens his tormentors' house. If you help your neighbour flatten that house, you help him being a bully.
Imagine that your neighbour has some other neighbours, too. They shout insults at him because he flattened those other people's house. Your neighbour doesn't like being shouted at, so you rent a bulldozer and flatten all those other people's houses, too. Have you carried out a preemptive attack? No, but I'd say that you are guilty of a horrible case of bullying.
Ann
There's a big difference between bullying somebody and setting off a nuclear bomb in someone's back yard. If it were a person bullying my son, for instance, I'd go talk to his parents and see what they can do to stop him from being a bully. If I knew someone was about to flatten my house, I'd go to the police. If I knew somebody was ready to detonate a nuclear bomb, I wouldn't go talk to his parents. The seriousness of the danger determines the response. You do not respond the same way in all circumstances.
Nice analogy but the consequences simply aren't comparable. Even the law separates between harm against property versus great bodily harm. In the case of the threat of great bodily harm, the law allows you to act in self-defense, killing the perpetrator.
Again, I ask. When is it appropriate to use force? After we've buried our dead? Some would say that it's a matter of proportionality. If someone commits a terrorist act and kills one or two, a million dollar missile fired at a ten dollar tent, hitting a camel in the butt is the appropriate response. Taking out the whole country isn't.
Since so many believe in proportional response, then that implies that only the death of thousands would merit an attack on another nation. Again, though, that means we have to wait to be killed before we could respond. Is that what you support? There are no situations where you would advocate taking preemptive measures?
Bottom line is that you're advocating that they have to take a shot at us before we are allowed to respond. If that shot is a good one, gets through our defenses, and successfully kills, say the entire city of Malmo, would your conscience be satisfied that no one acted until after the attack even though your Prime Minister knew there was the possibility of that happening but had not acted upon his intelligence reports? Or would you do everything in your power to stop it?
-- Roger
"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." -- Benjamin Franklin
