Opinion Time: Why do you approve or dissapprove of preemption policy?

[Genesys]

please, by all means, discuss.

Personally, I have no problems with it, since I use a preemption like policy in just about every decision I make, so to me it makes a lot of sense. For example, while working, if i get a sense that someone is going to try and be senaky and spread some type of rumor or try and get me in trouble, i'll take the necessary steps to prevent anything bad from happening to me [by whatever means necessary].

Or another example. when playing Quake- why would I let my enemy pick up a rocket launcher? I know hes going to try and kill me, so im going to try my best to cut the head off the snake and kill my opponent before he gets a more powerful weapon. I dont care if he complains that its cheap, its what keeps me on top. Win by all means necessary [except in the case of video games, no cheeting]

 

[sandorski]

Pre-emption, the preffered choice of Histories most infamous leaders. Could they all be wrong?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

George Will has an interesting take on preemption, and I agree with him. On occasion it is necessary to avert an imminent attack. This policy hinges on one thing, and that is to get it right. Mistakes are inexcusable. War is ALWAYS evil. The fact that it is sadly needed at times makes that no less true. Also, the action taken needs to be proportional to the threat. Sometimes you do not need to bludgeon someone to death who you suspect is going to bump into you on the subway.

Let's look at your examples. You use whatever means necessary. You advocate shooting someone in the head if they insult you. That is precisely what you say. Any means necessary. You are using methods that were probably not needed, and certainly not warranted. You did act preemptively though.

I was going to use Quake, but this is a vid game, and I doubt you have had any real blood on you.

Hows this one...
A police officer is in a bad neighborhood with a recent history of attacking cops. He is walking down the street, and a black kid goes running across in front of him. Now, he "knows" the kid is up to no good, and shoots him. Problem is that the kid was scared and took off. Oops. Well he was black and we know about "those" people, don't we? Now suppose that this kid had a history of knocking off a liquor store or two. He has a bad history. Well, it's OK to have shot him, because you know he is going to do it again, right?

Fact is that before you start shooting you had better damn well know that you are right in doing it. If you haven't the ability to do so, it is encumbent on the aggressor to restrain itself from war until there is something better than "clearer than truth" That is what Will believes and so do I.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Genesys
please, by all means, discuss.

Personally, I have no problems with it, since I use a preemption like policy in just about every decision I make, so to me it makes a lot of sense. For example, while working, if i get a sense that someone is going to try and be senaky and spread some type of rumor or try and get me in trouble, i'll take the necessary steps to prevent anything bad from happening to me [by whatever means necessary].

Or another example. when playing Quake- why would I let my enemy pick up a rocket launcher? I know hes going to try and kill me, so im going to try my best to cut the head off the snake and kill my opponent before he gets a more powerful weapon. I dont care if he complains that its cheap, its what keeps me on top. Win by all means necessary [except in the case of video games, no cheeting]

This is exactly how mental patients are. They hear voices warning them that this and that is about to happen and then they take action. Their first introduction to the psychiatric institute is when they become so proud of their talents they begin to brag of them openly.

 

[Witling]

The problem of a preemptive strike assumes that "the other" exists. Right thinking people just want to have an opprotunity to live decent lives and raise children. "The other" hates freedom loving people so much that they're willing to trash their lives to get us. When Gulf W I happened, a woman appeared before Congress and testified to Iraqi soldiers dumping Kuwaiti babies out of incubators to steal the incubators. This story made national press and was subsequently thoroughly discredited. But who among us would dump a baby out of an incubator? Why are we so ready to believe that "the other" could be so inhuman?

To return to the question, we know that we would never attack without provocation. But, the fact that "the other" might attack without provocation is justification for us to do so. I spent 15 years teaching my kids not to strike others. We threw that over in nanoseconds with the Bush administration. I mean, if you want to deal in "might happens," hey, Canada "might" attack us. IMO, the Bush preemptive strike policy -- which you will NEVER see applied in North Korea -- sets civilization back approximately 200 years.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Hows this one...
A police officer is in a bad neighborhood with a recent history of attacking cops. He is walking down the street, and a black kid goes running across in front of him. Now, he "knows" the kid is up to no good, and shoots him. Problem is that the kid was scared and took off. Oops. Well he was black and we know about "those" people, don't we? Now suppose that this kid had a history of knocking off a liquor store or two. He has a bad history. Well, it's OK to have shot him, because you know he is going to do it again, right?

Fact is that before you start shooting you had better damn well know that you are right in doing it. If you haven't the ability to do so, it is encumbent on the aggressor to restrain itself from war until there is something better than "clearer than truth" That is what Will believes and so do I.

if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the kid is going to be committing some illegal act that night, then yes, the cop sould take necessary actions to neutralize the kid before his act can be committed. does that mean shooting to kill? no. but fire a shot in fron of the kid to scare the crap outta him, then arrest him.

Let's look at your examples. You use whatever means necessary. You advocate shooting someone in the head if they insult you. That is precisely what you say. Any means necessary. You are using methods that were probably not needed, and certainly not warranted. You did act preemptively though.

and please do be logical about statements like this. im a law abiding citizen, im not going to kill someone if they try to get me fired or slander my name. however, im not above incapacitating them for a while so they cannot commit their act.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This is exactly how mental patients are. They hear voices warning them that this and that is about to happen and then they take action. Their first introduction to the psychiatric institute is when they become so proud of their talents they begin to brag of them openly.

This is exactly how liberals act, they love to put words into other peoples mouths, they love to make it seem as if someone said something that they actually did not. Moonie, not once in my post did I ever say I hear voices in my head.

lol, what would I ever do without you Moonie?

 

[Witling]

Gen, I agree with Moonie. It may be hard for you to believe, but I NEVER feel like people are out to get me. People are mostly friendly. They're hardwired that way. Yes, some have short circuits, but they're very rare. Then, to go on to this piece of nonsence:

"If the officer has reasonable suspicion that the kid is going to be committing some illegal act that night, then yes, the cop sould take necessary actions to neutralize the kid before his act can be committed. does that mean shooting to kill? no. but fire a shot in fron of the kid to scare the crap outta him, then arrest him."

The kid is either stealing hubcaps or gas, it's not clear. And we're supposed to put a shot (preferrably nonleathal) through him for this?

 

[tnitsuj]

"If the officer has reasonable suspicion that the kid is going to be committing some illegal act that night, then yes, the cop sould take necessary actions to neutralize the kid before his act can be committed. does that mean shooting to kill? no. but fire a shot in fron of the kid to scare the crap outta him, then arrest him."



Ha, that made me laugh. That is just about the most reckless ill conceived scenario ever. If you would really do something like that, then I am glad you are not a police officer.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well I know you didn't say that but apparently without me you've not learned essentials. I was referring, of course, to the phenomenon of projection. Projection works like this. We have bad feelings about ourselves we repress out of consciousness where they fester in unconsciousness and leak back in in odd ways. Extreme forms of repression lead to psychotic break. Less severe we hear voices or see thing in random patterns. Less sever still and we imagine we know what others are thinking about us. That we imagine is what we repress, how worthless we feel. So while you don't hear voices they are voices all the same. Old voices from childhood. Everything we fear has already happened. And if you'd deal with larger issues and not little picayune things, you could save me some time.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Gen, I agree with Moonie. It may be hard for you to believe, but I NEVER feel like people are out to get me. People are mostly friendly. They're hardwired that way. Yes, some have short circuits, but they're very rare. Then, to go on to this piece of nonsence:

"If the officer has reasonable suspicion that the kid is going to be committing some illegal act that night, then yes, the cop sould take necessary actions to neutralize the kid before his act can be committed. does that mean shooting to kill? no. but fire a shot in fron of the kid to scare the crap outta him, then arrest him."

The kid is either stealing hubcaps or gas, it's not clear. And we're supposed to put a shot (preferrably nonleathal) through him for this?

'Is Going to' means has not yet done anything.
An Officer needs probable cause to even disrupt the free passage of a citizen, running or jogging or whatever. Additionally, the proportional force issue comes into play. Not to mention Reckless Disregard.
I'd not want someone to serve and protect with a mindset containing preemption..

 

[Gaard]

What happens when a mistake is made?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard
What happens when a mistake is made?

What happens when a real threat is ignored?

 

[naddicott]

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." - Ben Franklin

I just wish we would apply the same burden of proof (as opposed to acting on poorly supported suspicions) to military prevention as we apply to implementing policies designed to prevent environmental harms, where lately the evidence has to be 110% that something bad will happen before we lift a finger to prevent life threatening scenarios. Not completely certain of a possible harm? How about a few more years of (unfunded) studies...

Actually, I think the proper preemption criterion is somewhere inbetween the two standards. You can never be 100% certain of anything, but the standard of proof for the Iraq threat was set far too low, IMO.

You have to weigh an estimated chance of something bad happening, keeping in mind the magnitude of the possible harm, against the chance that something wouldn't have happened, and the damage done by the events following a false-positive pre-emption. That metric, properly applied, should have kept us out of Iraq. Except our intelligence, or at least the administration's interpretation of the intelligence, didn't give Americans and Congress a very accurate picture of the relative risks.

My perspective is that the evidence needed to truly justify an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation would be credible enough to convince world opinion that the action is just, or at the very least convince the leaders of countries that have traditionally been our allies. The opposition from France and Germany before the war may have been a sign that our case was not locktight, or perhaps just that our administration has poor diplomatic skills. I'm very concerned by the damage done to America's international reputation and credibility by the current administration.

The way Bush and administration spokesmen were so certain about the Iraq threat before the war reminds me of tone deaf American Idol contestants who are convinced that they are the next big thing - there's no convincing them otherwise. Except with the Administration, if someone who knows what they are talking about says something that doesn't fit into the administration's delusions, the administration just retaliates by leaking an undercover CIA agent's identity to the press... that'll teach 'em what happens to people who don't support the President.

Pre-emption would be fine if we could trust our leaders to make well informed, rational, and unbiased decisions based on quality intelligence. Unfortunatly, throughout history, there have been very few examples of polititians truly worthy of that trust (Winston Churchill's early warnings about Germany come to mind as one of the rare exceptions).

 

[Witling]

The problem is, there's about a 100 to one ratio on mistakes made as opposed to real threats.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard
What happens when a mistake is made?

What happens when a real threat is ignored?

I'll get back to you when this happens.

 

[Martin]

Its not preemption that I have a problem with, its prevention.

The difference is that preemption is imminent and almost certain. For example if Syria secretly moves its army into a position to attack Israel, and Israel finds out, it is acceptable for them to attack.

Prevention on the other hand is bad as it requires that you take action based on shaky speculation. For example, you know someone has commited a crime in the past, so you decide to kill him, just in case he decides to do something in the future. You know racial group X commits more crime than racial group Y, so you decide to kill off X and prevent a lot of crimes. It smacks of paranoid delusions and you can take it as far as you wish, no need to stop a simple invasion :rolleyes;


And yes, "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof?the smoking gun?that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." (Bush, Oct 8, 2002) is a paranoid delusion.
Quote source: http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/bush.iraq/

 

[Sahakiel]

Stance for approval : The planet can be pretty well summed up as a closed system with limited resources. That means prepare to fight. Successful preemptive strikes gain an advantage to the attacker. Therefore, it is much better to hit first and gain an advantage in the coming conflict.

Stance for disapproval : War is bad, so any type of conflict should be avoided. Preemptive strikes are based on inconclusive data because they must invariably predict the future which is inherently unreliable. There is always a possibility the reasons for preemptive action are invalid and would never occur.

As a nation, preemptive action is arguably better. Having a policy of measured response and sticking to it is inherently suicide. There exists a large (virtually certain) probability that an enemy force can wipe you out in a single attack. Once you're gone, you can't retaliate.
Economic sanctions are great for moral support, but are largely a waste of time. Blockades and other forms of economic strangling take time for the effects to be felt and serve mainly to fester resentment against you. As the years pass, poverty sets in as a permanent facet of their daily lives. Even though they have little or no power to resist, you waste valuable resources with the containment policy and end up fencing in a bunch of people who hate you as much as any one is able. Even if you were to provide economic help, it would be hard to control without military forces within the region and it's more than likely the aid do little to appease stilted pride.
On the other hand, military action provides an alternative possibility. Nothing quite gets your point across like your army marching through their streets. A full military occupation immediately destroys the enemy's power structure and leaves you in control. After the war, if you govern the area correctly, eventually successive generations see less reason to rebel against your rule. In the short term, the conquered people resent your rule as much as long term economic sanctions could produce. However, being a military occupation, you are effectively the only police force. Rule fairly and evenly and each successive generation loses the personal touch with the reasons for resentment the first generation experienced. It's quite difficult to hate words written in a history book. In the end, you can eventually withdraw the army and leave in place a proper police force culled from the conquered people.

No, these are not my original ideas. If I remember correctly, they come from Machiavelli.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard
What happens when a mistake is made?

What happens when a real threat is ignored?

Ya can't keep someone from doing or trying to do but, ya can break them of the habit! That is what you do! And, by breaking them of the habit you set an example. To do otherwise invites reverse preemption or MAD activity.
'An ounce of prevention' does not imply preemption... deterrence comes in many forms.
To use deadly force, as in Iraq, we had better be positioned with facts in hand that but for those facts the invasion would not have been necessary. A man with a gun in hand in his own land does not create a threat if the bullets can't reach your body..

 

[Czar]

disapprove because if it becomes a valid reason to invade then everyone can invade, it creates total chaos and allows everyone to attack everyone else on whatever grounds they come up with. A very very dangerous direction to go to.

 

[maluckey]

War is the ultimate in economic and political tools. It also has the greatest chance of negative fallout. It should be used, but with great reservation. Pre-emptive strikes are NOT first attack. A pre-emptive strike assumes that your country is in danger of some sort that diplomacy and politics CANNOT handle. If you are not under any sort of grave threat, it's called expansionism, or empire building. Much like Hiltler did for Liebensraum, or the Romans did in England, or the Huns, or the Vikings. The list goes on, and the the one thing that ties them together was their desire for expansion, and wealth, not protection.

Sure, pre-emptive strikes to protect your country. As long as there are bullies, there will be fights, and whether you run away or fight is a choice you have to make after weighing the good and bad to it all. The thing is, the bully won't stop fighting even though you do. If it were that simple, there wouldn't be crime, wars, or even hurt feelings. We live in the real world however, where there are people than kill for kicks, and nations that invade for money.

 

[dpm]

Hmm. What about Pearl Harbor?
Thats a classic example of a country that felt pressured into a pre-emptive attack.

 

[chess9]

Oh, preemption has been used by some of the greatest men of all time. Let's talk about them:

1. Hitler (Poland, Czech., Russia, etc.)
2. The KKK (gotta keep those knee grows down on their hands and knees)
3. Male dominated cultures (In America, women were chattels that men could usually beat with a willow rod no bigger than their thumb. Opposition to women voting was a form of preemption.)
4. What America did to the American Indians (Too many ugly stories here, but preemption was big in the 18th and 19th centuries.)

And so it goes. If you see 'em blink, smack 'em hard.

Re Whitling's example, not the best, but I think we all got the gist of it. His idea is right on. (I don't recall police officers being trained to draw their guns to fire a warning shot! We'd have a lot of dead cops if they started doing that. )

Preemption is a terrible idea except in very unusual circumstances. Perhaps that's why it hasn't been adopted by the U.N.? There is one caveat and that is this: Presidents shouldn't take preemption off the table. They should speak publicly and to dictators as though they would use it, but only use it in extreme cases after everything else has failed. I believe this has been the general American policy in the past, with a few exceptions.

-Robert

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard
What happens when a mistake is made?

What happens when a real threat is ignored?

I'll get back to you when this happens.

its called crime. or terrorism if you want a larger scale.

 

[maluckey]

chess9,

Hitler was expanding his empire to cement his powerbase. He said so himself in many of his speeches in public. He stated that Germany needed room to expand, and that under his leadership, and the expansion into to these lands, the Reich, and Germany, would flourish.

dpm,

You are on the right track. Japan was cornered, and felt there to be no reasonable way to bargain with the United States for the steel that they so desparately wanted. They struck out, hoping to recieve a quick response, possible capitulation, and newfound bargaining power. They got a quick response all right, but not the way that they wanted it. We had been aggressor towards them for quite some time, even to the point of sending the Chinese, warplanes and pilots to intercept Japanese bombers. We had barred steel, and ore exports, and it had hit home rather hard.

Pre-emptive strikes must be planned carefully lest they backfire.........If done right, it can shorten the duration, and casualties of the inevitable war in question.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard
What happens when a mistake is made?

What happens when a real threat is ignored?

I'll get back to you when this happens.

its called crime. or terrorism if you want a larger scale.

Then that is the risk we take. I do not want police shooting people because the might one day do something. There has to be a certain minimum standard for action with the threshold for war being very very high indeed, and with solid protocols regarding measures taken. If police acted as loosely as Bush did, we would have lynchings all over. For some that is acceptable. For me it is not.

Edit: BTW, Iraq was not demonstrated to be a credible terroristic threat nor a substantial danger to other countries.

Like I said, let me get back to you when a real threat is ignored.