or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Prevention without preemption.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Prevention without preemption.  

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 
I found myself reflecting on the whole "preemption" deal, as it pertains to the fight against terrorism and the war in Iraq.

Although the term preemption deals with land purchasing or federal vs. state land grabs, and has hints toward imperialism or colonialism. In short it has a negative connotation, so I am not sure that it is the proper word to use to describe the current admin's plans, but for lack of a better word, let's use it.

In Afghanistan, most agree that it was a necessary war or at least a warranted reaction. In less politically correct days, a atomic bomb would have been a viable option, incurring a sizable and acceptable amount of casualties. But in this case it was decided to overthrow and then occupy that country, and then install an US friendly government. Although I happen to agree with the decisions, some may point to that as a form of imperialism and maybe so. But the decision to install an US friendly government, I consider a preemptive (rather preventative) measure. I think most would agree that simply cleaning up the Taliban and leaving would just lead to another infestation.

In Iraq, preemption was taken up a notch or two - agree or not, the decision does give the US a logistic and an intelligence advantage.

On the home front, all kinds of measures, most have been the opposite of convenient, some would argue that some of the measures are encroaching on our liberties, have been taken to prevent terror strikes. Three years seems a reasonable preliminary measure of ongoing success or lack thereof.

It seems to me anyway, that prevention and preemption are inseparable terms on all fronts in this fight.
post #2 of 21
If we ignore home grown terror for the moment (since I think you're talking about foreign instigated terror), I think we went 8 years without an attack. With the announcement from yesterday/today, I'd say after 3 years we haven't done much good yet.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #3 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
If we ignore home grown terror for the moment (since I think you're talking about foreign instigated terror), I think we went 8 years without an attack. With the announcement from yesterday/today, I'd say after 3 years we haven't done much good yet.

This new threat was found out about in part to a capture in the ME, so yes this latest threat was outside. But so was WTC ver. 1.0.

Edit: Don't forget the strong ties to Iraq in WTC 1.0.
post #4 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
In Afghanistan, most agree that it was a necessary war or at least a warranted reaction. In less politically correct days, a atomic bomb would have been a viable option, incurring a sizable and acceptable amount of casualties.



Man, naples, you really know how to blow it when you have it. Right when you got some points for reading on some blog or website about the preemption ~= grabbing territory before enemy, you manage to immediately blow it with a totally OUT THERE comment about americans at any time in history supporting careless and insane use of the a-bomb. By doing so you've described and supported the earth's most irresponsible and literally insane military action while demonstrating, through the juxtaposition of the preemption comment with the nuclear one, how a powerful idea (or tool) in the hands of someone not ready for it can result in it being totally misused and abused.
post #5 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by giant


Man, naples, you really know how to blow it when you have it. Right when you got some points for reading on some blog or website about the preemption ~= grabbing territory before enemy, you manage to immediately blow it with a totally OUT THERE comment about americans at any time in history supporting careless and insane use of the a-bomb. By doing so you've simultaneously described and supported the earth's most irresponsible and literally insane military action while demonstrating, through the juxtaposition of the preemption comment with the nuclear one, how a powerful idea (or tool) in the hands of someone not ready for it can result in it being totally misused and abused.

Thank you for demonstrating uncontrollable knee-jerking. But as usual, you missed the point. I was simply contrasting the use of a response (missiles, nuke, take your pick) vs. preemptive (wrong word as I pointed out) measures.

I know there is a civil person inside of you... somewhere. I don't suppose that a simple "I think your reasoning is flawed" or "I don't think I can buy into that" or something, would have sufficed? Is there some primal need to insult?

And one last note; I got the definition and word history from... DRUM ROLL PLEASE... a little thing that I like to call a dictionary and other reference BOOKS, with some additional research online. And it wasn't an AAC audio-book either.

Anyway, thanks for wasting electrons and my time.
post #6 of 21
Unbelieveable . . . the use of NUkes in Afghanistan!!!!!

To even imagine that, and then, what's worse, to imply that considering it deplorable is un-PC, is absolutely unbelievable . .

goes to show what has been revealed so often: you are a socio-path

There was never a time when Nukes were simply just a matter of PC or not to PC!!

Wake up!
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

post #7 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
Unbelieveable . . . the use of NUkes in Afghanistan!!!!!

To even imagine that, and then, what's worse, to imply that considering it deplorable is un-PC, is absolutely unbelievable . .

goes to show what has been revealed so often: you are a socio-path

There was never a time when Nukes were simply just a matter of PC or not to PC!!

Wake up!

You are so right.

Those words that I used and the order in which I put them, mean nothing.

How would I have guessed that, of all people, pflam and giant would take my words and twist them! Imagine that.
post #8 of 21
Yeah, right. Any time Nipples is wrong he accuses others of "twisting his words". He implied very clearly (no Nipple twisting required) that nuking another country was once an acceptable solution to a problem like Afghanistan.
post #9 of 21
Why would anyone need to twist words, that are already pretty damn twisted?
eye
bee
BEE
eye
bee
BEE
post #10 of 21
One thing I like about nipples, is tweaking them. Now that is X rated.

Oh yeah, nuke the ME, that will solve all your problems.
post #11 of 21
Preemptive is usually, collectively understood to be, one nation attacking another in a first strike to preempt the other from striking first.

Preventive is just a convenient and clean term for the USA invading another country for no other reason than politics, not even realpolitik politics at that. Saddam Hussein was essentially overthrown for a thought-crime, at least that's the excuse the President is using now. Realpolitik would have been to make Hussein our friend once more, and giving him enough arms to invade Saudi Arabia and Iran! That would have pissed off bin Laden to no end, assuming he wasn't killed first in this fantasy. That could even be called preventive.

For Islamic Terrorism, we've done nothing preemptively, or even "preventive", about it except for helping to overthrow the Taliban. We can't even convince Pakistan to let US soldiers into Pakistan to kill them. Or stop Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, et al from funding madrassas. Or pressured all of these Islamic dictatorships and police states to have some sort of free press, market economies, modern human rights, equal rights, women's movements. We've really done squat to make Islamic terrorism melt away.

Terrorism really has nothing to do with war or with preemption. Terrorism exists because the losing side has already lost and the only thing left are singular acts of violence. The acts of violence can't hurt us.

If in fact this al queda terrorist network is a well funded millitant and resistance group, funded or allowed to be funded by nations, then perhaps we can call a spade a spade and say that it was really an act of war from said nations and act accordingly. We have not been acting like that at all.
post #12 of 21
Naples, you're a genius!

Maybe Afghanistan will turn out like Iran. Democratically elected government overthrown by the US and UK for nationalising the oil industry; pro-US government installed. Prominent Muslim leader --Ayatollah Khomeni -- exiled (in his case for arguing against immunity for US military). Installed leader -- the Shah -- acts pro-US but forgets to act pro-Iranians.

OK, think the Iranians. The Shah has to go. We tried democracy. The US wrecked that.

What are our options? I know! Radical Islam!

Installing a government that fits your desire gives the lie to the bullshit about democracy. It makes people resentful and hateful about their lack of ability to shape their destiny, and makes people think the US are liars. It means people decide 'democracy' means 'what the US tells us to do,' and makes it less attractive.

If you hate the US and think democracy is bullshit, who are you going to turn to?

If you read some history books you'll realise 'democracy' can never be imposed; interfering with a people's ability for self-determination always, ALWAYS, bites you on the arse. Oh, and your glib, chummy approaval of imerialism is nauseating.
meh
meh
post #13 of 21
Thread Starter 
Although, I can appreciate all of your outrage, no matter how "Hollywood", but it seem that so far, those who have posted can't read or don't have the capability to see the underlying point.

I can only imagine the conversation:

"I know!", "Let's totally ignore the thread title and the actual point of the original post, and let's attack the guy for even mentioning nuclear warfare."

"Sounds logical. Let's do it."

Anyway, the point in short, if you care to discuss it, (although readily apparent in the previous posts) was, in the form of a question:

How do you truly attempt to prevent terrorism without adopting preemptive measures?

I say, as things sit, you can't.

What say you?
post #14 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
"I know!", "Let's totally ignore the thread title and the actual point of the original post, and let's attack the guy for even mentioning nuclear warfare."

"Sounds logical. Let's do it."

Nice try.

Except I didn't.

And if you say something really fucking stupid expect to get called on it, no matter how reasonable the rest of your post was.
meh
meh
post #15 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
Naples, you're a genius!

Maybe Afghanistan will turn out like Iran. Democratically elected government overthrown by the US and UK for nationalising the oil industry; pro-US government installed. Prominent Muslim leader --Ayatollah Khomeni -- exiled (in his case for arguing against immunity for US military). Installed leader -- the Shah -- acts pro-US but forgets to act pro-Iranians.

OK, think the Iranians. The Shah has to go. We tried democracy. The US wrecked that.

What are our options? I know! Radical Islam!

Installing a government that fits your desire gives the lie to the bullshit about democracy. It makes people resentful and hateful about their lack of ability to shape their destiny, and makes people think the US are liars. It means people decide 'democracy' means 'what the US tells us to do,' and makes it less attractive.

If you hate the US and think democracy is bullshit, who are you going to turn to?

If you read some history books you'll realise 'democracy' can never be imposed; interfering with a people's ability for self-determination always, ALWAYS, bites you on the arse. Oh, and your glib, chummy approaval of imerialism is nauseating.

You're right. So what's the answer?

Pull out of the ME altogether?

The fact that you seem to breeze by is that everyone in the world, when there is trouble, who do they petition for help? Hmmm?

That's right, the US.

Do we stop offering help for fear of retaliation from the "jilted" party. Do we only help if everyone agrees to the terms?

I am not sure that Iran has a clean, sterile or even palatable solution in it's future. Iraq may be the same, who knows. Maybe the ME is doomed to murderous dictators for all eternity. At least the US can say "We tried to help solve the problem." I am not sure that anyone has the answer to that region's problems.
post #16 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
Nice try.

Except I didn't.

And if you say something really fucking stupid expect to get called on it, no matter how reasonable the rest of your post was.

Um, your post was not the ones I was referring to, it had some good points up until the last sentence.

But even that comment I can live with. So let's debate it. But as the previous posts show some don't even want to debate the issue, they just default to name calling and character assignation.

It is actually funny - the fact that I can almost predict what pflam and giant are going to say, practically verbatim as I am typing.

But as usual the point is lost in the minutia...

The spinning vortex of sewage now called PO... wee take a ride!

Watch as the drain-cock giant and flush-master pflam give you the ride of your lives! Say goodbye to boring old civility and level headed debate. That's right! Let the good times roll with the patented frantic spinning action of the VORTEX (add echo). Don't let it's innocent looking facade fool you folks, this ride is fact-falsifying, framework-failing, fellow-forsaking, fustian-following, flimsily feigned flat-out fun for the whole freakin' family!

TRY IT! IT'S FREE.
post #17 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Some don't even want to debate the issue, they just default to name calling and character assignation.

snip

Watch as the drain-cock giant and flush-master pflam give you the ride of your lives!

IBL
meh
meh
post #18 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
IBL

Once again you missed the forest for the trees.
post #19 of 21
Your a-bomb leveled your forest.

Or maybe it just made everyone realize that there wasn't really a forest there in the first place.

Not that harald's posts even have anything to do with that.
post #20 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
You're right. So what's the answer?

What to do? Reduce energy consumption. That's the main thing.

At times the US supported Saddam Hussein, overthrew democracy in Iran, invited the Taliban on nice trips to Texas, trains Latin American terrorists in the School for the Americas and currently actively supports violent dictators such as in Turkmenistan and Saudi Arabia.

If there are hydrocarbons involved.

It also craps on about how much it supports democracy.

Take the two together and no-one trusts the US or thinks it has anyone's interests at heart but its own. You may wish to believe otherwise but you'd better believe you've lost the trust of the world. At this point the response is usually "So what? Who cares? We won WWII" or something.

But I digress. If the reliance on oil comes down, then this hypocritical foreign policy can end. When the US then wishes to smack the shit out training camps producing people who want to kill Americans, people will mind even less then they did. You won't be hated and have to interfere with people.

Installing ex-Unocal (Afghanistan) or CIA (Iraq) operatives to run countries is not the best way to achieve stability either.

However, as I've pointed out again and again, it's dollar hegemony based on petrodollars that keeps the US economy impossibly strong. If oil becomes less important then you get a massive correction in the US economy down to the international average. This is what the whole importance of oil is and why we're steadfastedly ignoring the fucking huge cliff we're running toward. At that point the US empire (which you fine about) will vanish.

On the plus side, obesity will cease to be a problem in the USA.
meh
meh
post #21 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Um, your post was not the ones I was referring to, it had some good points up until the last sentence.

But even that comment I can live with. So let's debate it. But as the previous posts show some don't even want to debate the issue, they just default to name calling and character assignation.

It is actually funny - the fact that I can almost predict what pflam and giant are going to say, practically verbatim as I am typing.

But as usual the point is lost in the minutia...

The spinning vortex of sewage now called PO... wee take a ride!

Watch as the drain-cock giant and flush-master pflam give you the ride of your lives! Say goodbye to boring old civility and level headed debate. That's right! Let the good times roll with the patented frantic spinning action of the VORTEX (add echo). Don't let it's innocent looking facade fool you folks, this ride is fact-falsifying, framework-failing, fellow-forsaking, fustian-following, flimsily feigned flat-out fun for the whole freakin' family!

TRY IT! IT'S FREE.

If you have a problem with a specific post or member report it to one of the moderators or admins or ignore it. DONĀ“T make random insults like these.

With that said topic closed for now. And NOONE makes a rebuttal on this.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Prevention without preemption.