Indian defence minister joins Pakistan pre-emptive strike chorus

[OFFascist]

Originally posted by: MaxDSP
Right, cause if India and pakistan throw nukes at each other, the rest of the world's just gonna sit by, watch, and cheer their side.

So you think if India and Pakistan start tossing nukes at each other the rest of the world will mobilize to fight over an irradiated mess?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: OFFascistform an oligarchy to prevent any other nations from becoming nuclear capable, by any means necessary.

why do you have an American flag for a avitar and support fascism? i mean i agree with freedom of speech and all; but that is just creepy though.

 

[chiwawa626]

I dont think anyone in the right mind in this day and age would have an all out nuke attack on any country. In my opinion pakistan does harbor terorists and Musharaf publicly supports their cause, this is just like israel vs palistine. Personaly i dont think anyone is stupid enough to use nukes in a conventional war, especialy since those two countries are sooo close togather.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think, Dave, that India is referring to our preemptive strategy as enviably imitable, no?,

I hope not.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

India, the world's largest democracy, has been under assault from its petulant neighbor for decades. Clinton and Bush gave India a cold shoulder for their nuclear program and then Bush cozied up with the dictator Musharraf when it became convenient for US foreign policy. I think Bush's policy of a pre-emptive war is BS . . . but India certainly can argue on the merits of theirs.

 

[Kaiynne]

What is happening in Iraq is not a preemptive war. This war is a preventative war. They are two very different things, firstly a preemptive war has military precedent, for example the 6 day war. This is the quintessential preemptive war, you have intelligence that an attack is imminent, ie troops are moving towards your border, So you attack them. This is justified, and there are precedents to support it.

The war in iraq is a preventative war, it is being waged to ward of something which may happen but is not yet happening. Whether or not you agree that it is justfied, it certainly has no precedent. Which is why the US is working to set that precedent. Now when they do so they certainly do not intend for countries such as India to turn around and use that same precedent to launch a war on anyone, that is unacceptable. The precedent is being set for US use only, this is clear and obvious from what is coming from the defense department.

Now that doesn't mean that India will not try to use the precedent set by the US to launch such a war on Pakistan or anyone else. They might do just that but it is unlikely that the US would stand by and let them, even were they to be able to show as much evidence as the US has for their war. It would be fairly trivial for them to do so as everyone knows that Pakistan has WMD. So the real question then becomes would it be justified for the US to attemp to stop them from launching a war with the same amount of evidence using the precedent that is less than a month old. The answer has to be no. Will the US attempt to do so anyway, of course.

 

[Moonbeam]

Kaiynne, your post makes much sense, I think. I use the term preemptive aware of the inaccuracy, but with knowledge that it is the term improperly applied to just what you describe as preventative.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Well . . . sounds like semantics to me . . . a distinction without difference.

The following is for demonstration purposes only and not intended as a representation of real people.

Pre-emption: Moonie calls Dave a right-wing slave to jingoist jargon. Dave calls Moonie a tree hugging leftist with an amoebic backbone matched only by his equally ineffectual thinking capacity. Moonie slaps Dave. While Dave prepares his response, I hit Dave over the head with an unabridged Webster's. I've pre-empted his attack.

Preventative: Moonie calls Dave a right-wing slave to jingoist jargon. Dave ignores Moonie.

Not Preventative: After a brutal overthrow of a regime a dictator invades a neighboring country. The US response during the first decade is to provide tacit and occasional overt support. After this dictator invades ANOTHER country the US repels the invaders and imposes sanctions (which essentially never work; particularly when other countries don't agree). The regime left in power slaughters the citizens who believed the foreign power would actually support their uprising - I wonder who gave them that idea

.

Not Pre-emption: After a peace accord brokered by the previous administration fails . . . the new administration chooses to ignore the situation for almost a year and then claim it wants to broker a new peace accord but delays it for months at the behest of an individual . . . in the meantime, hundreds die on both sides of the dispute.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Well . . . sounds like semantics to me . . . a distinction without difference.

The following is for demonstration purposes only and not intended as a representation of real people.

Pre-emption: Moonie calls Dave a right-wing slave to jingoist jargon. Dave calls Moonie a tree hugging leftist with an amoebic backbone matched only by his equally ineffectual thinking capacity. Moonie slaps Dave. While Dave prepares his response, I hit Dave over the head with an unabridged Webster's. I've pre-empted his attack.

Preventative: Moonie calls Dave a right-wing slave to jingoist jargon. Dave ignores Moonie.

Not Preventative: After a brutal overthrow of a regime a dictator invades a neighboring country. The US response during the first decade is to provide tacit and occasional overt support. After this dictator invades ANOTHER country the US repels the invaders and imposes sanctions (which essentially never work; particularly when other countries don't agree). The regime left in power slaughters the citizens who believed the foreign power would actually support their uprising - I wonder who gave them that idea

.

Not Pre-emption: After a peace accord brokered by the previous administration fails . . . the new administration chooses to ignore the situation for almost a year and then claim it wants to broker a new peace accord but delays it for months at the behest of an individual . . . in the meantime, hundreds die on both sides of the dispute.

1. I hope Moonie didn't break a nail when he slapped me and . . .
2. What's a Webster's?

BTW don't think I didn't notice you insulting me. I'm just doing that preventative thing.

 

[Moonbeam]

Nope, I've bitten them all off contemplating what Bush will preempt next. I forgot to mention, in regard to your, I hope not, that while there may not be envy, the article makes clear that the Indian notion was in reference to our, US, preemptive doctrine as the claim was made that it was superior, more justified, than our own and with some justification, I think, as AndrewR pointed out.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nope, I've bitten them all off contemplating what Bush will preempt next. I forgot to mention, in regard to your, I hope not, that while there may not be envy, the article makes clear that the Indian notion was in reference to our, US, preemptive doctrine as the claim was made that it was superior, more justified, than our own and with some justification, I think, as AndrewR pointed out.

Don't you remember the "new world order" that Bush the Elder was trying to introduce? All non compliers are in line according to the value of their assets divided by their armed forces squared... It is all in the mathamatics.

 

[Moonbeam]

Thanks HJD1, I knew they were operating on the theory of what's in it for me, I just didn't know how they arrived at the answer.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

2. What's a Webster's?

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

BTW don't think I didn't notice you insulting me. I'm just doing that preventative thing.

The following is for demonstration purposes only and not intended as a representation of real people.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Thanks HJD1, I knew they were operating on the theory of what's in it for me, I just didn't know how they arrived at the answer.

Oh... they, the saviors of Freedom, have got it all figured out... cept for the hard part which is: How can we create plausable denial when the oil is a pumpin to pay the cost of our intervention in their domestic inequities. Of course, It could be real... the WMD and Terrorist issues which gives all well meaning nations the right to introduce the international version of our Fourth Ammendment on search and destroy.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Kaiynne
What is happening in Iraq is not a preemptive war. This war is a preventative war. They are two very different things, firstly a preemptive war has military precedent, for example the 6 day war. This is the quintessential preemptive war, you have intelligence that an attack is imminent, ie troops are moving towards your border, So you attack them. This is justified, and there are precedents to support it.
*************
So it would have been appropriate for Iraq and et al to drop their MOAB on the invaders... preemptivly preventive speaking, that is.

The war in iraq is a preventative war, it is being waged to ward of something which may happen but is not yet happening. Whether or not you agree that it is justfied, it certainly has no precedent. Which is why the US is working to set that precedent. Now when they do so they certainly do not intend for countries such as India to turn around and use that same precedent to launch a war on anyone, that is unacceptable. The precedent is being set for US use only, this is clear and obvious from what is coming from the defense department.
*************
But, Iraq invaded Kuwait in order to prevent them from continued non compliance with Iraq's 19th province doctrine and the potential for violent reaction thereto.

Now that doesn't mean that India will not try to use the precedent set by the US to launch such a war on Pakistan or anyone else. They might do just that but it is unlikely that the US would stand by and let them, even were they to be able to show as much evidence as the US has for their war. It would be fairly trivial for them to do so as everyone knows that Pakistan has WMD. So the real question then becomes would it be justified for the US to attemp to stop them from launching a war with the same amount of evidence using the precedent that is less than a month old. The answer has to be no. Will the US attempt to do so anyway, of course.

*************
Mountbatten allowed the state of Pakistan as a comprimise to the Indian solution so Pakistanis are really Indians once removed. Any action there would simply be a reunification effort and no cause for alarm. The use of nukes would be an unexpected illumination in the darkness of precedent.

 

[GoodToGo]

Gosh, no one seems to care that more than 10 times the number of people have died in Kashmir since the terrorist activities began in 1980's. Pakistan is responsible for all these actions by funding these organizations and giving them "moral and diplomatic" support

The fact is so widely accepted now that every newspaper prints it wihtout any hesitation whatsoever. If USA was in the same situation, well it would have bombed the country back to the stone age. Of course none of that matters as the SAME country is involved in the anti-terrorist coalition. Now George W Bush has broken the preemptive strike rule and so it has to be taken advantage of from India's point of view. As for Pakistan trying to nuke India, it will be their first and last mistake.

 

[Moonbeam]

The use of nukes would be an unexpected illumination in the darkness of precedent.
----------------
HJD1 may merit some close observation.
------
----------
Bali:

The following is for demonstration purposes only and not intended as a representation of real people.
-----------
But Dave is unreal.

 

[Conky]

My opinion of the India/Pakistan nuclear conflict? More muslim hate.

Both countries have unbelievable poverty and literacy rates and yet they spend Billions to get nuclear weapons.

Pakistan is so backward they make India look modern. Go India, kick those beloved patriot's in the jimmy.

I dislike Pakistan simply for the reason that I used to have to deal with Pakistani financial leaders and government officials there in a previous job. All the Indians I've ever dealt with were fairly reasonable and intelligent people but man, those beloved patriot's are their own little trip. They make their own rules and don't care what anybody else thinks. I would rather Saddam have nuclear than those wacky beloved patriot's.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

2. What's a Webster's?

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

BTW don't think I didn't notice you insulting me. I'm just doing that preventative thing.

The following is for demonstration purposes only and not intended as a representation of real people.

Both were jokes, Doc. I am, however, still hurting from when you called me a computer nerd. I'll probably need therapy.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'll probably need therapy.
--------------------------
You came to the right place.

How do you feel?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The use of nukes would be an unexpected illumination in the darkness of precedent.
----------------
HJD1 may merit some close observation.
-----

Not to worry, Pakistan has all Saddam's chemical WMD, Iran the Bio WMD and Syria the Nukes. I'm sure, however, we'll see the light sooner or later. The three wise men looked to the star that shone over..... where was that...

 

[Moonbeam]

Nah, I'm not afraid, I was merely making a mental note that anybody who could pen "The use of nukes would be an unexpected illumination in the darkness of precedent." could prove a source of further gems.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I'll probably need therapy.
--------------------------
You came to the right place.

How do you feel?

Like sh!t since you asked.

I've got a SecDef who is on TV with a big grin on his face like he just found the cure for cancer. He's hammin' it up for the cameras, being his usual asshole self to the press, uttering little gems like "stuff happens". In the meantime we got people on the ground fighting and dying. Yeah Dick, stuff happens. If you had listened to Franks we would have enough troops on the ground to keep the hospitals from getting looted and your supply lines from getting ambushed. I hope you're having a good time though. In the meantime a good friend of my wifes, who is a PO2 here on base, finds out her brother died. He was a Marine and his name was Silva. Then to top it off, I try to get in contact with an old friend of mine, he's the COB on a Trident, to congratulate him on making Master Chief and I find out his son has been killed also. His name is Rosacker. It's been a shitty week but Rummy appears to be having a great time.

You asked and I'm going to bed.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well you made me cry. I'm very glad you let that out. I'm not only deeply moved but once again impressed by your openness and humanity. I'm very sorry for the sadness these losses will bring. I read a Hiku many years ago by a zen master that contains a whole universe in a few words to me. It was written on the death of his son.

This little dew drop world

it may be only a dew drop

and yet and yet
--------------

Even the soul that would fly on clouds feels the pull of earth.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I'll probably need therapy.
--------------------------
You came to the right place.

How do you feel?

Like sh!t since you asked.

I've got a SecDef who is on TV with a big grin on his face like he just found the cure for cancer. He's hammin' it up for the cameras, being his usual asshole self to the press, uttering little gems like "stuff happens". In the meantime we got people on the ground fighting and dying. Yeah Dick, stuff happens. If you had listened to Franks we would have enough troops on the ground to keep the hospitals from getting looted and your supply lines from getting ambushed. I hope you're having a good time though. In the meantime a good friend of my wifes, who is a PO2 here on base, finds out her brother died. He was a Marine and his name was Silva. Then to top it off, I try to get in contact with an old friend of mine, he's the COB on a Trident, to congratulate him on making Master Chief and I find out his son has been killed also. His name is Rosacker. It's been a shitty week but Rummy appears to be having a great time.

You asked and I'm going to bed.

Speaking of which, did you catch Rumsfeld's response to a question regarding the looting going on in Iraq? He started sounding like Donahue!