Quote:
Originally posted by mmm3587
While we're at it, how should we determine which preemptive wars to enter into? Which of the following conditions are sufficient? Which are nececssary for one reasoning for preemptive war, but not sufficient for that reasoning?
(a) State A will probably attack us, and has the WMD to do it.
(b) State A would attack us if it had the WMD, but it doesn't have the WMD, but we think they do.
(c) State A attacked us, and State B was friends with them, so we attack State B.
(d) State A commits atrocities.
(d) State A commits more atrocities than anyone.
(e) State A commits religious atrocities.
(f) Our President's father kind of went to war with State A to protect our ally.
Also please comment on how resources weigh in. Should we get into WWIII with 12 countries because of all the atrocity in the world? What about if we have oil interests there?
|
I love these sort of posts. They get no substantive response. Dead air for about a half an hour, until someone posts somehing about how Hussein threw kittens into ceiling fans for fun.
The chief frustration of the GOP neocons and chickenhawks with the left (and the reason they take to insulting the left as "elites" and changing the subject all the time) is because, as far as I can see, at least on Iraq, they've got no rebuttal. They're throwing haymakers all over the place while the left ducks and weaves and flurries them with body shots.
The GOP should throw its one good punch - "Hey, stupid, the war is over there now, not here!" Sure, that'll anger the Mideast and the French, but fuck it... you can repair those rifts after you get re-elected.
Threaded Mode