At what point is a preemptive strike actually justifiable?

Ziggurat said:
Decreased US government involvement with Latin America might be a good thing, but trade barriers aren't. Isolationist impulses can bring both. Be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...
Few things are simple but IMO, on balance, US non-interference outweighs increased US trade barriers. The trade barriers on cocaine are damn' high already and it doesn't seem to matter much. :)
 
Mycroft said:
Oh bull-crap. Everything I said works just as well with the other two definitions. I quoted just the one for brevity.

For example:

Widely recognized prominence, distinction, or importance: a position of prestige in diplomatic circles. (the part you excluded)

Prominence, distinction and importance are all words that have meaning in comparison to other things. If you have a “position of prestige in diplomatic circles” it implies there are others in those same circles who don’t have the same level, as well some that might exceed your prestige.

Nice try, though.
Click to expand...
I excluded the example because it's not part of the definition. (That's why it's italicised, by convention.)
Prestige is not only measured against others, it varies in the individual. A reservoir has a level regardless of any other reservoir. US prestige now can be compared with US prestige as it was in the past. When you say "If the prestige of the United States is low, one should wonder what entity has a high level of prestige" it has no bearing on the reduced prestige of the US. It's not a zero-sum game, lost prestige can just go into the Void.
You ask who measures prestige, and the answer is "The Audience". Prestige is as much about spin and flim-flam as it is about reality.
 
I had always taken "Murrican" to be a Bushism. Granted, this assumption came without much thought or research. Am I mistaken?
 
CapelDodger said:
Anyone can bring up the word "annihilate". I just did. Do you have a concrete example that worries you?


Sorry, don't get the banter.
Click to expand...


Nerf toys......foam rubber replicas of items that in their original,non-foam rubber state would make formidable weapons. Baseball bats,swords,"bullets", and hammers are some examples. Very popular with "Murrican" children.
We like to instill that killer instinct in our kids at an early age.

They are of course relatively harmless.


It relates to your statement I quoted about Iran not really advocating the killing of Jews.

I agree with Grammatron that to dismiss claims of "annilihation" and "wiping Israel off the map" is either insane or incredibly naive given the overall context of the situation.
 
Ralph said:
I agree with Grammatron that to dismiss claims of "annilihation" and "wiping Israel off the map" is either insane or incredibly naive given the overall context of the situation.
Click to expand...
Grammatron's reference to "annihilation" I'll look up later. As to "wiping Israel off the map", a map is a diagrammatic representation of a real situation. In this case it would clearly refer to a map of political boundaries. Such a map, and its underlying reality, can surely be changed without mass murder.
 
CapelDodger said:
Such a map, and its underlying reality, can surely be changed without mass murder.
Click to expand...

Yes it can. I don't think that's what Iran has in mind though.

Do you think that if Iran had the miltary power to invade Israel tomorrow---without fear of retribution from Israel or the US they wouldn't?
 
Cecil said:
I think that there needs to be a legitimate threat of imminent danger in order for a preemptive invasion to be condonable.
Click to expand...
From here.

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction - and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack.
Click to expand...
It's OK to take up two spaces parking the Chrysler 300 with the 5.7-liter Hemi. Just don't do that with the Hyundai.
 
gnome said:
I had always taken "Murrican" to be a Bushism. Granted, this assumption came without much thought or research. Am I mistaken?
Click to expand...
There's a large element of that, which is perhaps why the term won't survive the inevitable return of power to the North where it so obviously belongs.
 
Ralph said:
Yes it can. I don't think that's what Iran has in mind though.
Click to expand...
On the evidence, I think you think the Iranians want to kill Jews because they're Jews. Best guess. What evidence you're going on I don't know.

Do you think that if Iran had the miltary power to invade Israel tomorrow---without fear of retribution from Israel or the US they wouldn't?
Click to expand...
Invasion is not equivalent to annihilation. It also hasn't been a modern Iranian habit. For what that's worth. The glory-days of Iranian imperialism pre-date Islam, and their evocation is associated with the Shah and secularism. On the Islamist side, nothing pre-dating the Prophet is worthy of note. (In Iraq it was the anti-Islamic Ba'athists who promoted Mesopotamia's early greatness as national myths.)

Would the current Iranian regime want young Iranian men exposed to the reality of a Westernised country? Safer to keep them at home, I'd have thought.

What about retribution from the Arabs? The chip on their communal shoulder would get even bigger if the Iranians could achieve what the Arabs tried and failed to do for so long. A reckoning would be called for.
 
I love how this becomes 'what justification would the americans need to start blowing the crap out of another country'. But you can't go down this path without looking at the other sides point of view.

At what stage based on US threats can Iran justifiably launch a preemptive attack on the US?

Also while on this subject ... given that the US nuked cities in the past (so this must be a justifiable act of war) at what stage based on US threats and posturing would some form on nuclear attack on US cities by Iran be justified?

Once you've decided on the answer to these questions, then apply the same rules to the question of when the US can launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran and you'll get your answer.
 
pjh said:
I love how this becomes 'what justification would the americans need to start blowing the crap out of another country'. But you can't go down this path without looking at the other sides point of view.

At what stage based on US threats can Iran justifiably launch a preemptive attack on the US?

Also while on this subject ... given that the US nuked cities in the past (so this must be a justifiable act of war) at what stage based on US threats and posturing would some form on nuclear attack on US cities by Iran be justified?
Click to expand...

When the Americans attack the Iranian Pacific Fleet of course.

pjh said:
Once you've decided on the answer to these questions, then apply the same rules to the question of when the US can launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran and you'll get your answer.
Click to expand...
Yep, course there's no difference between dropping a thermo nuclaur device over a major urban center and launching airstrikes against military facilities.
 
Ralph said:
Do you think that if Iran had the miltary power to invade Israel tomorrow---without fear of retribution from Israel or the US they wouldn't?
Click to expand...

Interesting question. I was just thinking the same about the U.S.

If we had the military power (we MIGHT have had it before Iraq) to invade Iran tomorrow . . . without fear of reprisals from the rest of the Muslim world, wouldn't we also do it?
 
Last edited:
Kerberos said:
When the Americans attack the Iranian Pacific Fleet of course.
Click to expand...
:)

Yep, course there's no difference between dropping a thermo nuclaur device over a major urban center and launching airstrikes against military facilities.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing their equivalence, I'm arguing that before you decide when a pre-emtive strike *by* your country is justified, you should examine when a pre-emtive strike *on* your country is justified.

If you end up with 2 sets of rules then you need to admit that either you're being a hiprocrite, or that your country/people are somehow special.

The nuclear attack is an example of deciding what types of attacks may or may not be justified.
 
pjh said:
I'm arguing that before you decide when a pre-emtive strike *by* your country is justified, you should examine when a pre-emtive strike *on* your country is justified.
Click to expand...

Excellent point, pjh!

I've always used the example of two guys arguing on the street. A pre-emptive strike is NEVER considered appropriate unless the person doing the pre-emptive striking can PROVE that his life was in immediate danger.

You just can't legally punch someone in the face just because you think he might punch you!

(edited to add) Welcome to the forums. :)
 
Mephisto said:
Excellent point, pjh!

I've always used the example of two guys arguing on the street. A pre-emptive strike is NEVER considered appropriate unless the person doing the pre-emptive striking can PROVE that his life was in immediate danger.

You just can't legally punch someone in the face just because you think he might punch you!

(edited to add) Welcome to the forums. :)
Click to expand...

Say it looks as if the other guy is going for a gun. In fact he's stood around the neighbourhood making rants about how when he gets a gun he'll blow you/your friend away.

At what point does the pre-emptive strike become acceptable? At around the same time it becomes unworkable?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom