Pre-emtive strike vs innaction

Post-9/11 Era Forum

I just want to start a discussion. Hopefully we can can a solid fundimental understanding of the difference between not supporting a pre-emptive strike on Iraq, and not acting on intelligence before 9/11.

If the president had attacked Afganistan on "sketchy" evidense before 9/11 -- we possibly wouldn't have had to see the horrible images of people jumping to their deaths from the top of a burning building.

Of course, Bush would have been scrutinized worse than he is now. That's a given.

Bush ousts Saddam Hussien: A man who deserves to be tied to a rock and dropped in an 8 foot deep pool of Kurdish Piss.

Why is that so bad? I think a reasonable Liberal will agree it's not. An extremist Liberal would say "Bush = pure evil and this war is for oil and he's responsible for planning 9/11. Saddam did NOTHING wrong." An extremist Conservative would say "Let's nuke 'em all!"

Do you think Bush should have acted on the sketchy intelligence before 9/11?

Are you certain that Saddam Hussien wasn't a threat? WHAT IF he was? We wouldn't know until 9/11 V2.0.

Arguments/discussions -- ready.......




set.....











Goose!





Ha! gotcha...






ok...



GO~

Sayzak21


Yes I agree Bush should of took pre-emptive action before 9/11, by shooting Dick Chaney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and the rest of his administration. Then swallowing a suicide pill.

Ohhh yeah. you're the one that's convinced Bush and his entire administration are Nazi freaks who murdered thousands of people to get the oil, even purposely leaving clues behind on the second-to-last 20 dollar bill.

If it were possible to think more extreme-to the left, I'm sure you would find that thought. It's so far left it's out of sight. I'd have to drive left on a propoganda wagon for years to get there. How are the recourses out there? What's life like? I'll tell you what. Life in the middle feels pretty good. Can you say the same?

Disclaimer: That is, of course, just my opinion.

PS -- I must credit you with a "lol" because you did phrase that perfectly. Pretty funny.

A very good question and those on the right don't seem to want to ask it - why was Bush's security so inadequate before 9/11 and hasn't there been a satisfactory enquiry? Of course he isn't going to take the blame, in fact it seems no one is taking responsibility.

Bush blew any support he had in the Middle East after 9/11. Bin Laden's networks might have been snuffed out by now if we'd have got full backing from Arab nations while the world was simpathetic. I actually beleived after 9/11 the world was going to change but no, it's same old, same old. I can't imagine what I was thinking - give the neo-cons the slightest chance and they will always go for WAR!

If pre-emptive attack does become the norm then don't start moaning if North Korea actually does fire nukes at Washington. They have every reason to fear they will be invaded as have Syria. Luckily you can all rest easy in the US because no country would ever actually attack the US. Terrorists? Now that's a different matter. They will probably attack the US again.

sayzak, you went and asked a question of the left-wingers and anti-U.S. propagandists. Now what kind of answer did you expect from them?

Originally posted by DaveDom

A very good question and those on the right don't seem to want to ask it - why was Bush's security so inadequate before 9/11 and hasn't there been a satisfactory enquiry? Of course he isn't going to take the blame, in fact it seems no one is taking responsibility.

Bush blew any support he had in the Middle East after 9/11. Bin Laden's networks might have been snuffed out by now if we'd have got full backing from Arab nations while the world was simpathetic. I actually beleived after 9/11 the world was going to change but no, it's same old, same old. I can't imagine what I was thinking - give the neo-cons the slightest chance and they will always go for WAR!

If pre-emptive attack does become the norm then don't start moaning if North Korea actually does fire nukes at Washington. They have every reason to fear they will be invaded as have Syria. Luckily you can all rest easy in the US because no country would ever actually attack the US. Terrorists? Now that's a different matter. They will probably attack the US again.

Take a look at this post. Dave accuses Bush of not putting enough effort into security prior to 9/11, and he accuses administration as an entity of not investigating this issue. When Bush actually took these warnings into consideration and acted before something worse could have happened, Dave accuses him of unjust war. Then Dave reminds us about NKorea which does possess nuclear weapons, slightly hinting on why doesnt US take action against NKorea before it strikes first. Despite how much did US already do to cool down the crisis in that part of the world.

It is possible that Bush planned and supervised 9/11 acts, attacked Afghanistan to build an oil-pipe going thru it's territory, captured Iraq with it's oil, and now has ground to dominate the whole region - which is full of oil. But what is the chance of this being true?

But I should have realized sooner that the more you get him to spew his rhetoric the deeper he digs his own manure hole.

They are just funny. Especially when they think they are smarter. At least admit you are fools, it will make your life easier.

Whatever Dave.

You're right, whatever.

Well I think the entire adminstration certainly wanted to get rid of saddam long before 9/11. 9/11 only opened a lot of people's eyes. The world has changed, whether you or I like it or not. The fact is, the United States is waging a war on terrorism.

But I feel as if this thread has started drifting from the original point. And I wasn't just talking to the left-wingers.

I want to see an analysis on the pros and cons of waiting for intelligence, and striking pre-emptively -- from both sides (left and right). I think it would help us all understand eachother's arguments better, and maybe we'd find some common ground so we wouldn't have to insult eachother so much. I have a lot of respect for everyone on these forums as much as I disagree with a lot of people. I'd like to participate in a debate where I'm not insulted -- and I think everyone should be given that chance.

Dave, you are wrong about NK not being an easy invasion. When we went into iraq in 90, at the time they had the 4th largest army in the world, and we all know how difficult that turned out be...
The reason why the Evil US Empire will never go into NK is because of the proximity of SK. NK would lash out against SK at the first sign of attack. There are some estimates of over a million SK casualties in the first hour of the war, something that the US would never allow to happen.
Now i realize that you would much rather the US not consider casualties when we make decisions, you want us to seem as terrible as possible. The fact is we spend billions of dollars developing weapons that minimize collateral damage and we spend countless more dollars taking care of the citizens of our enemies. Has any other war machine in the history of the world taken such actions? Is any other country in the world held to as high of a standard?

Sayak the problem I have with this thread is there isn't really any negative to the idea that if Bush considered Saddam a threat then he had to attack Saddam. Even if I say maybe Saddam wasn't a threat its still the same problem. the question itself leaves you with just one real answer. Attack Iraq!
The questions that are more relevant to Sept 11th Are was Saddam a genuine threat? Is America and the world going to be a better safer place because of Iraq? is this a 'repeatable 'solution? (ie will America do the same thing spend $100 billion plus to remove the next threat!) and could the money spent have been used in a much better fashion to reduce the risk of terorism (Something that has been largely ignored in this Forum.)
To deal a little with one aspect of this problem, is the world a safer place well what does Osama and his band of merry murderers want from Iraq?
What if it's America to suffer, Lots of American targets to attack, lots of new recruits in Iraq, Saddam, as a nonsecular Ruler, gone and perhaps even America to suffer a Vietnam like defeat. If one assumes that he might want these things it looks like ( at this point ) gravey all the way for Osama. Don't forget that Osama like the NVA is more than prepared to take a few hits to achieve his goals America won most of the battles but it still lost the Vietnam war. At this Point does Iraq look like a victory over Saddam? or a (possible) victory for Al Qada?

I prefer giving each individual their own chance to prove they can be respected on a personal level. I have been attacked as an extremist republican simply because I agreed with something you or USA1 said months ago. The person accusing me didn't even know me. I won't forget that, but I insisted for them to get to know me for the credibility of argument. If you pull away the true understanding of the issue, the argument degresses into mindless yelling. "I hate Liberals" "Oh yeah? I Hate republicans, eat that!" "Eat that? Well screw you! Ha! Clinton sucks!" "Bush is retarded!"

I think it's absolutely crucial for an argument not to judge a persons character by their words. Rather, judge their words on their credibility and that will filter down and discredit the claim -- without the insulting. That way arguments can be wrapped up and easier to understand! That would be my ideal argument... Personal insults can be done through a private message, or a letter. (I'm certainly not trying to play moderator... Maybe being a Matrix Mod is getting to my head a little bit!).

I do know where you stand on the issues Americaaah, and I happen to agree with you on a lot of things. I also know (as well as everyone else) where you stand personally with DaveDom and Search4Truth (Who has, by the way, become a Mod for this forum).

That's my humble lil opinion.

Amen to that sayzak

Well if the question is why not act on a piece or pieces of intelligence?
You have to be careful of intelligence. The worth of most information we get has to depend on its abilty to stand up to critical evaluation. the ability if you like for someone to say this is wrong, make their best case that it is wrong and fail. by Definition Intelligence finds it hard to meet this test. This is why you can get the CIA to be telling the world the Soviet Union is a major threat. When the reality is the Soviet Union is about to implode. Or Saddam Huessein has WMD that he can use in 45 mins when the reality is What WMD? So if you are going to spend $100 - $200 Billion I suggest logically it would pay you to be very cautious and (perhaps) make sure the weapens inspectors had the maximum oppertunity to do their jobs before launching a war!
My earlier arguements still stand If as you say Saddam Might be a threat, you still want to know if its a likely source of terrorism you don't want to attack Saddam a few months before Osama sails a uranium bomb into San Franciso Bay! you want to know its a good way to fight Terrorism are you avoiding investing in good methods to fight terror just because you are obcessed with attacking Saddam? is this going to be a repeatable processs? and will it encourage more Anti-americanism among Arabs?
Your 'solution' may in fact be making the problem worse.
Finally Yes I know Osama has a price on his head I think he knows that too! you are not seriously trying to get anyone to believe this means he has given up and gone away are you? this was my point He may want what Bush is doing!

Originally posted by Americaaah

Unlike you I DO NOT hold any respect for these types and I'm not going to pretend that I do in order that we may all hold a polite little discussion to pass our time.



they will take every opportunity to twist and spin reality to suit their condemning agenda.

I repeat: each and every opportunity.
Paranoids.

They will never concede due credit to the U.S./Bush administration. And on the rarest of occasions when they do concede something they are quick to steer the emphasis to what's really "important": 'Sure the U.S. did this good thing but look at this and this and that evil thing that they did back then and are doing now and will do in the future.'

Imperialist basterds americans (along with zionists) started conquering the world long time ago, taking lands away from natives. Then there was GM, Chrysler and Ford doing business with nazis, and finally 2003 - Bush with his war for oil. Got the picture? We are all screwed up big time boyzzz, lets get our asses outta here...

You have to consider the way the United States developed.

1. Christopher Columbus accidently found this land.

2. Our founders forced the Natives off this land, killing those who didn't move.

3. Traded slaves and used them to do horrible labors to get the country going.

The Civil War, the Industrial Revolution, both World Wars, and the Vietnam war have all come and gone in the last 150 years. The year is 2003.

America is SO young. Kind of amazing isn't it?

sayzak i was joking!

Sayzak21 even though I don't agree with many of your points of view, I can respect that you have the respect to accept someone else’s opinion. UNLIKE AMERICAAH.

Americaah strikes me as a war zealot. I get that from his posts here and in other forums. Anyone who disagrees with his point of view about Bush is anti-American.

I may be mistaking but isn't this country founded on free speech? As ridiculous as I think Americaah can be, I respect the fact that he does stand for something. Unlike himself who seem to resort to name calling and degrading.

Anyway, as for my opinion, I think pre 9.11 America was very arrogant to say the least. We refused to believe that we were as vulnerable as we were and believed that no one would ever dare attack us on that level fearing our retribution.

If you all can remember, we had numerous indicators prior to 9.11 that we were going to be attacked in some way. We had intel that suggested something was in the works. We even had a prisoner in the German jail trying to tell us prior to 9.11 that that was the plan, to hijack planes and we dismissed him.

Fact is, because we had no major attack in this country prior to 9.11 we became laxed. Had we attacked Afghanistan prior to 9.11 it wouldn't have stopped this tragic day because the plan was in motion in the US not in Afghanistan. Besides Osama is still on the loose. He's not the mastermind anyway, just the financer and symbol for the Arab terrorist Al Quaeda.

What could have prevented this was if we'd heeded the warning signs that lead up to that terrible day. Whoever's watch it was on, it’s was their responsibility. After all, what ever happens positive on your watch, you jump to take credit for. Likewise whatever happens negatively on your watch, you are just as responsible.

If the media and the democrats continue to try to convince the American public that the Iraq war is a failure, it will become one. What critic of the war has come up with a plan that would have led to victory in Iraq, completely rebuilt Iraq's infrastructure and created the foundation for an Iraqi democracy with the death of fewer than 400 American soldiers in seven months? On the whole, the Bush Administration has done an excellent job. Just ask the Iraqi citizens.

JAMES MURDOCK
Denton, Texas

Have we Americans forgotten our own history? We did not become a perfected democracy overnight. Although we declared our independence in 1776 and most think of that as the birth date of our nation, George Washington was not elected President until the U.S. Constitution went into effect in 1789. That was 13 years later. Many in our country and around the world seem unwilling to wait 13 months in Iraq's case, let alone 13 years for a constitution and a President. Let's give the process a little more time before judging the effectiveness of the Bush Administration.

GREGORY J. CHILCOTE
Orem, Utah

When rain falls the unsheltered ground outside gets wet.

Just wondering if you were going to challenge the statement, is all.

Well maybe someone would if they know what the hell you were talking about.

A woman was shopping at her local supermarket where she selected a half gallon of 2% milk, a carton of eggs, a quart of orange juice, a head of romaine lettuce, a 2-pound can of coffee, and a 1-pound package of bacon.

As she was unloading her items on the conveyor belt to check out, a man standing in line behind her, who was rather drunk, watched as she placed the items in front of the cashier.

As the cashier was ringing up her purchases, the drunk calmly stated, "You must be single."

The woman was a bit startled by this, but she was equally intrigued by the man's intuition, since she was, indeed, single. She looked at her six items and saw nothing particularly unusual about them that could have tipped off the man to her marital status. Curiosity getting the better of her, she said, "Well, you know what, you're absolutely correct, but how did you know that?"

"Cause you're ugly," replied the drunk.

I'm saving that one