Welcome to Gaia! ::

<3 </3

Please read my veiw then answer. Is a Pre-Emptive War intrinsically wrong?

Total Votes:[ 0 ]
This poll closed on August 2, 2004.
No longer accepting new votes.
< 1 2
Doesn't "kill Americans" fall under the "fire in a crowded theater" clause?

Btw, Dark Ren - even intent is a casus belli to me.
DarkRen
GaeaHorned
Not to mention all that Anti-air weapons Iraq keep throwing at our planes.


Umm.. considering those planes weren't invited by Iraq to fly over their airspace and were(if I remember right), flying over US sanctioned(not UN) no-fly zones, why shouldn't Saddam have been firing at them? Especially when they took liberties to blow up things on occasion?

Or did I miss something?
They blow things up because those radars were targetting them. Pardon them for protecting themselves stare As for the No-Fly Zone: It was an international one.

danjel

I'm sorry, are you a moderator? Could you please not do our job?
How is commenting the management or the lack there of doing moderator's job? Given the blatant violations I see against the stickies and ome of the stories I hear about banning, it all adds to my voicing of a personal opinion.
GaeaHorned
They blow things up because those radars were targetting them. Pardon them for protecting themselves stare As for the No-Fly Zone: It was an international one.


So, in other words, they were shooting at each other. Good enough. That's what happens when the military is deployed over a hostile nation. Nothing out of the ordinary there.
Let's do a little flow chart here:
GIVENS:
Premtive strikes are a sign of agression
The right takes appeasement is worse then acting falsly
The right belive the alternative of appeasement is invasion.

Now. the US did a premtive strike on Iraq,

Why isn't Hannity calling for an invasion of america, why is the rest of the world appeasing the US!?
Edward Yee
Btw, Dark Ren - even intent is a casus belli to me.


I don't recall mentioning intent. I specifically said that mere belief without 'valid' evidence is something I don't condone. Beyond that it becomes a case by case situation depending on numerous factors. Belief doesn't imply that the person only has intent. It implies circumstantial evidence and conjecture without clear indication that anything is truly brewing.

Intent is a piece of circumstantial evidence that doesn't stand up by itself, but can with some corroborating evidence in my opinion. Mostly because intent is, without said evidence, largely an interpretation of opinion and not measurable.
GaeaHorned
SofiaDragon
(Then again, the patriot act says we have no rights, so I guess it would be OK.)
If you are a conservative and said a line like that, your a** would be banned/warned.


The liberal Gaian media? Somehow I doubt it. I have to say I think we have a fairly balanced moderator team, Kid Nasty and Colonel Armstrong haven't been banned or warned. Dubyamn has gotten away with sexist jokes, I really think you're being a bit paranoid.
SofiaDragon's avatar

Interesting Citizen

6,650 Points
  • Autobiographer 200
  • Wall Street 200
  • Conversationalist 100
Edward Yee
Quote:
We don't arrest people because they have a high probability of commiting a crime, it is unconstitutional.
Actually, at last check, that's what "conspiracy to [do whatever]" covers eek

arrow Nope. You can only be charged with "conspiracy to commit murder" if someone is dead or wounded. The same applies to other crimes in the conspiracy catagory. You have to have done something that is concreate and measurable: built a bomb, hijacked an airplane, shot someone, whatever. You can be charged if the person lives or you are caught in the act and no one is hurt, but the accused must have done something.
DarkRen
GaeaHorned
They blow things up because those radars were targetting them. Pardon them for protecting themselves stare As for the No-Fly Zone: It was an international one.


So, in other words, they were shooting at each other. Good enough. That's what happens when the military is deployed over a hostile nation. Nothing out of the ordinary there.
Finally! Some common sense!!! 3nodding

So how many times do we have to slap a gun out of a mad man's hand before wising and and b***h-slap the man himself?
im for it, screw being civil, if someone threatens you you knock their block off as quickly as possible.....in any way possible, i thik alot of people have forgotten what war is about, its about eliminating the opposition in any way possible, either by making them bend to you will till they submit, till they are all destroyed, or if you crush them in someother way(financialy, treaty, intimidation, tactics, coup, what have you)
GaeaHorned
So how many times do we have to slap a gun out of a mad man's hand before wising and and b***h-slap the man himself?


Personally, I didn't see the no-fly zones as particularly useful. They were meant to keep him from invading another country, but considering the thrashing he got that time, I doubt he would have been quick to do so again. Of course, if you're talking about slapping down mad men, there were worse than Saddam.
danjel
GaeaHorned
Quote:
I.E.:
Catch that bomber before the thing goes off, but not before he made the bomb. We'd have to let him go and maybe pay damages if we caught him before he made the bomb, since we are stepping all over his rights.

Quote:
(Then again, the patriot act says we have no rights, so I guess it would be OK.)
If you are a conservative and said a line like that, your a** would be banned/warned.


I'm sorry, are you a moderator? Could you please not do our job?
yo he was making an observation, are you that insercure with your ego and your little slice of power?
SofiaDragon's avatar

Interesting Citizen

6,650 Points
  • Autobiographer 200
  • Wall Street 200
  • Conversationalist 100
pimpkilla
danjel
GaeaHorned
Quote:
I.E.:
Catch that bomber before the thing goes off, but not before he made the bomb. We'd have to let him go and maybe pay damages if we caught him before he made the bomb, since we are stepping all over his rights.

Quote:
(Then again, the patriot act says we have no rights, so I guess it would be OK.)
If you are a conservative and said a line like that, your a** would be banned/warned.


I'm sorry, are you a moderator? Could you please not do our job?
yo he was making an observation, are you that insercure with your ego and your little slice of power?

Hold up! eek
May I ask what rule I may or may not have broken here? All I did was voice my opinion and people are going on about banning/warning me. What was so wrong about that one sentance? Can no one understand sarcasm here?

What I get for ignoring an obviously close-minded indiuvidual for 5 second...
We should always get the our Allies permission and thier opinion, becaues they will be the ones to help America if it ever got invaded. Our Allies our one the only thing this coutry has or at least had. When we rush into a war our Allies our obligated to help. We should always combine intlligence and opinions before going into a country.
GaeaHorned
SofiaDragon
I just can't agree. We don't arrest people because they have a high probability of commiting a crime, it is unconstitutional. If there is any doubt we spare convicted criminals of the death penalty. (I'm for the death penalty for repeat offenders / multiple murders by the by.)
Yet we don't leave our doors unlocked, pass out guns and ammo for free, and use a dumpster as a bank. The government has already pre-emptively struck against the society by means of law.
Quote:

How can you pass judgement on a belief?
How do you know the judgement was passed based on belief?

Quote:
Now, mobilizing armed forces in such a way that they are a threat to our borders/people is not a belief, that's proof. If we hear about someone doing something we have every right to stop them.
They've been screaming about "Kill Americans!" for years, I see that as a declaration of war/clear danger. Not to mention all that Anti-air weapons Iraq keep throwing at our planes.


Quote:
I.E.:
Catch that bomber before the thing goes off, but not before he made the bomb. We'd have to let him go and maybe pay damages if we caught him before he made the bomb, since we are stepping all over his rights.

Quote:
(Then again, the patriot act says we have no rights, so I guess it would be OK.)
If you are a conservative and said a line like that, your a** would be banned/warned.

Quote:
For a country, things get rather obvious. They move their military to such and such a location and we say: Yo, back off there! That's our territory! Then they don't and we blast them like an angry farmer pointing a 12 guage at a tresspasser.
If that's the criteria, the fact they fire at our fighter is justified enough to blow them back to hell.

Quote:
If they hint that they might do it, we respond in kind and hint that they might get their tail kicked.
Well, we've been hinting back and forth for awhile now. You can only get so close to someone's nose without getting sucker punched.


No, acts that are criminal occured before people thought to make laws against doing them. For example, someone had to steal before people established stealing is upsetting.

Passive attitudes is what made the US great. Mostly when they go into a war they have no business doing for political reasons, they get their a** handed to them. Inversely, if they sit on their tails until some people get killed their luck in the war gets better. Such things as WW1, WW2 and the Spanish-American war are perfect examples. I admit in the last case nobody can prove the Spanish responsible as the strocity was a lie created by news papers but the classic 'wounded innocent' is the role the states excells at.
SofiaDragon's avatar

Interesting Citizen

6,650 Points
  • Autobiographer 200
  • Wall Street 200
  • Conversationalist 100
biggrin Looking at the poll results, I can honestly say I'm glad more people are for more causious policies about war. Being an agressor is quite dangerous.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games