"principles"

You do know that "preemptive strike" and "surprise attack" are not the same thing, right?

Dubya is frequently scary, but I think Palladium is scarier.

Uhh... where I live, there is a much higher percentage of people who are armed. and you THEY ARE THE ONES I'M AFRAID OF. Now, I suppose arming myself would at least mean that I could shoot back, if shot at, or maybe shoot first if threatened. The only problem is if I'm dead I can't shoot back, and if there are more of them I'm still dead even if I shoot first. So, I guess I could go get some bigger guns and shoot sooner, oh wait, now I'm the reason all of those people armed themselves, and they are proven right. Shit, guess I'm outta luck.

I was referring to the *legally* armed people. There's no real reason to be afraid of them; as a group they are much more law-abiding than the general population.

Where *do* you live?

No adjacent country to these so called 'axis of evil' see any threats even when presented 'evidence' from this administration. Where is the threat? And since no one except the US administration fears this threat, then there is only one kind of preemptive strike. Surprise attack.

Should one of the world's largest militaries attack N Korea because N Korea threatens to develop a nuclear missile and have already launched missiles over Japan? Do we also advocate a preemptive - meaning surprise - attack by Japan on N Korea?

International law does not permit a preemptive strike. Of course, preemptive strikes are never necessary. Appropriate responses such as military buildups diplomatic negotiation, and international alliances against such threats are more than sufficient. However history is quite specific on this - as how many times demonstrated in prevous posts. To permit a legitimate attack, that nation must first attack another. World law is about perserving international borders. Keep within your borders and don't attack others, don't violate international law, and no other nation has the right to attack. American international principals and diplomacy is also based upon same.

Therefore and again, the only attack on Iraq must be a surprise attack. The only attack on N Korea is a surprise attack. The only attack on Iran would be a surprise attack. There is no reason to attack any of these nations - nor to even suggest a need. Any attack on these nations would be a surprise attack - in direct violation of international law and even the principals of US justice.

Pakistan has terrorists that attack India. Therefore India has every right to attack Pakistan with nuclear weapons? Again, the preemptive strike would be a surprise attack. According to rediculous ideas posted without supporting facts - India should attack Pakistan. Ironic that one who would all but encourage world war - who proposes exactly what Tojo and Curtis LeMay promoted - would accuse others of ranting and foaming. Ironic that one who openly advocates violations of international law and advocates warmongering routinely avoids a single fact in support of those anti-American thoughts. Not one legitimate reason has been presented to justify surprise attacks on the axis of evil. Look at US allies response to the evidence. Cold and unsupportive of this George Jr administration because his attacks are not even based upon valid evidence.

Where does this extremist logic come from - that we should attack another sovereign nation? Premptive attacks are only advocated by American extremists who want surprise attacks. Such attacks have always been rejected as anti-American. Now and suddenly, all that changes only because we ignore the lessons of history and our presidental staff is paranoid? Get real. A preemptive attack is a surprise attack - as anti-American today as it was wrong in history. To preememptive strike - a surprise attack on another nation - was wrong in history and is still wrong today. So what is justification for such an extremist position? "Comfort". Curtis LeMay was also comfortable with preemptive strikes on Cuba. Comfort was also the word he used to advocate a surprise attack! We know now how stupid that reasoning was. Fortunately people who understood the lessons of history - the Kennedys - prevailed so that we are all still alive.

A premeptive strike is a surprise attack - if for no other reason it would be a direct violation of international law. A preemeptive strike could not be executed any other way. Be fearful of any nation or president that promotes surprise attacks. Surprise attacks and those who advocate them just don't solve anything and instead make things worse.

I guess "visiting the Temple Mount" counts as a pre-emptive strike.

Assassinating Rabin was a preemptive strike. ;)

Uh, not if it's announced in advance. To be a surprise attack there must be *surprise*, you see.

You can rant about LeMay and Tojo all you like, and what's wrong with other "people like me"--whoever *they* might be. Not to mention how "un-american" the people you disagree with are. As long as we're name-dropping, that didn't work for Joe McCarthy, and I doubt it will work for you

And it's still "principles". Principals are people.

All of us except the Kennedys, anyway.

Have you forgotten that JFKs success in dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis was *totally* dependant on the perception by the Soviets that he was willing to order one of those nasty un-American premptive strikes if it was his judgement that it had become necessary.

And if he had, *nobody* should have been surprised.

The Cuban Missile Crisis (CMC) was about both Kennedy and Krushchev desperatedly trying to rein in their extremists. Do you not read history? CMC was not about perceptions of a first strike. It was about something much bigger - such as asking "if we do this, then what"? Extremists who advocate preemptive strikes could not be bothered to ask such questions. That lesson is repeated constantly in history.

Details of history. "... after ... LeMay had argued strongly that military attack was essential, the President asked what the response of the Russians would be. General LeMay replied: "There would be no reaction"." Of course there would be a reaction. Extremist simply resorting to short term, big muscle solutions without looking beyond - what is next. That is what preemptive strikes are all about.

In the movie, "Sum of All Fears", nuclear war almost happened because extremists were not being challenged to first think - review the bigger picture - collect facts. The threat of big military action was not 'the' problem. 'The' problem was to get extremists out of revenge mode and to first start asking bigger questions. Preemptive military attacks are about solving problems that may not even exist. Preemptive surprise attacks only because of fear.

MaggieL's reasons to attacking Iraq, Iran, and N Korea are based on the same reasoning provided by Curtis LeMay. In Tojo's case, no one bothered to question extremist logic which is why Japan executed a Pearl Harbor attack without ever asking what the consequences would be.

Arthur Schlesinger describes why extremists did not get us in nuclear war over Cuba. "An invastion would have been a mistake - a wrong use of our power. But the military are mad. They wanted to do this. It's lucky for us we have McNamara over there." So extremist were those who advocated preemptive strikes, that Kennedy at one point took personal command of ship placements and actions. McNamara literally spend all his time trying to keep military extremists in line - because that was the lesson of CMC. Preemptive strikes based only upon fear are counter productive.

To not understand even something so obvious as Cuban Missile Crisis is to demonstrate ignorance of history. Extremists advocated "strike first and ask questions later". CMC is mostly about reining in extremists - both in the USSR and in the US. So fractured was USSR leadership that someone may have sent a belligerent message in Krushchev's name without his knowledge.

Extremists are dangerous people. Excellent as foot soldiers. But inferior officer material because they cannot see beyond their noses.

Ironically, during the Persian Gulf, extremists in Washington had to be reigned in by historically educated military men who first demanded that those extremists define the objectives. Who made those demands? Colin Powell among others. One reason why the military was so successful in the Gulf War - they forced extremists to first think and to first define the strategic objective. Those now advocating preemptive strikes only out of fear also have not defined their strategic objectives - or even an end game stategy.

Ironically those same extremists are the reason why Saddam is still there. Those extremists failed to think even about terms of surrender. It was their job. But they were in belligerence mode.

That failure is endemic of those who seek solutions in a surprise attack. History demonstrates that preemptive attacks don't coincide with up front thinking. Unfortunately the George Jr administration does not typically think beyond what is immediately in front of their nose. And so we have a classic example of no up front thinking - the 'axis of evil' speech - followed by a need to preemptive attack only out of fear - facts be damned.

You have opinions AND are comfortable with those opinons despite not one single fact to support those opinions. Cited are waves of facts, examples, and lessons of history that demonstrate surprise, prememtive attacks on another nation are wrong - unquestionably wrong. Also demonstrated is that MaggieL advocates exactly what both Tojo and Curtis LeMay advocated. To have opinions without first having facts is protected by the 1st Amendment - but that amendment right does not prove MaggieL's opinions as responsible. It is irresponsible to advocate surprise attacks by any nation against any other. Such actions are against American principles and a direct violation of international law - not to mention the long list of historical reasons that say it is wrong.

Four long posts chock full of reasons why you are wrong, chock full of lessons from history, and specifically examples other who also made the exact same mistake of advocating preemptive strikes.

MaggieL's response to all this. Ignore the facts and they will go away. That is called being 'comfortable' with an opinion - as Curtis LeMay was when he advocated what would have resulted in nuclear war and as Tojo was when advocating what resulted in atomic bombs on two Japanese cities.

MaggieL - citing Goodwin's Law or a relationship with McCarthy is an irrelevant attempt to avoid facts. They are lame attempts to beg for sympathy - claim that you were personally attacked. Your logic was exposed to be same as Tojo, Kim Il Sung, Curtis LeMay, etc. - based upon facts of history. Those facts are what you refuse to address probably because you cannot.

Those citations do not change the fact that you advocate principles that are violently against International law. Your reasoning is associated with those that Schlesinger describes as "mad". Now maybe if you could demonstrate by facts that your logic is reasonable. However you don't even try to defend your anti-humanity viewpoint - a concept proven by history to be wrong, dangerous, and problematic.

You are not a victim here. You advocate extremists policies that have massive negative consequences. You ignore those conseqences and instead use the "woe is me - I am attacked" victim defense. You advocate concepts anti-American and make no attempt to justify your reasonings. I must conclude you have limited knowledge of history - and therefore would advocate that we be doomed to repeat it. The Cuban Missile Crisis is what happened when extremists got too much control and almost drove the world to nuclear war. Learn from that history or be doomed to advocate those same mistakes.

This was not the intention of my response, and I apologize for my poor choice of words. The better question to have asked jag would have been, "You understand that not everyone has a desire to buy a gun in this country, right?"

I do not believe that most gun-owners are paranoid. Now, if they were, THEN I think we'd be in a hell of a lot of trouble. ;)

I suspect that your interpretation of my question to jag may have colored the rest of your response.

My point to jag was actually two-fold:

1) I can walk around my neighborhood, or in most places for that matter, without a gun, because I personally feel safe without one. Hence illustrating to jag that not everyone wants a gun...in this case, me.

2) I would suspect it likely that people in my area DO have CCW permits, yet I don't fear being shot if I "look at someone funny" strolling through my neighborhood. I try not to live in fear, and generally pull it off quite well. Random criminal behavior can occur, but as a whole, I don't think I have to worry much about a law-abiding citizen that may be armed. Especially since I'm law-abiding myself.

As to whether those armed help make the neighborhood safer, it's certainly possible, and I'd suspect likely. Although, there could be several factors involved in that, including SES of the residents, the police station being in our neighborhood, etc.

As I also mentioned to jag, I'd argue that most people don't think twice about the fact that some folks might have concealed weapons, b/c it's just not a big deal. We don't seem to have a problem with it in the Philadelphia area, or the Commonwealth for that matter. Hopefully this will clear up any lack of clarity or misunderstanding.

Now, is that 3% the statewide rate of those with CCW permits? The city? The 5-county metro area? Just asking.

3% is the typical overall response rate in a state that has a "shall-issue" law regarding carry permits.

The only PA numbers I can find are at the State Police website and deal with CCW issuances, not a count of how many were outstanding.

For 1999, for example, carry licences were issued to about 0.6% of the population of Montgomery Country. Given that the licences are good for five years, that shows pretty good agreement with the 3% rule of thumb number...if you issue to 0.6% of the people per year, over time about 3% will hold the licence.

You can get the data at http://www.psp2.state.pa.us/ri/Default.htm
and juggle on a county by county basis.

Of course, under PA law, a citizen who passes the background check may keep firearms at his home or place of business without a fireams carry licence.
.

I live between the PA border and Binghamton... Redneck country. And I have been chased out of PA by a guntoting psycho, the only reason that I could see for this was us bumpin the Beastie Boys. I was also talking about the legally armed citizens. The ones that aren't legal don't fuck with me cause I don't fuck with them so why get themselves in trouble over nothing? One of my friend's father "cleans the guns" whenever a new boy comes over. Personally I don't have a problem with guns, I have a problem with many of the people that own them. There isn't an intelligence test for a gun permit which imo is a mistake.

BTW lax gun laws in PA (specifically the legality of assult rifles such as the AR-15) killed a Broome County Sheriff's deputy three days ago.

Sorry, but this is a retarded notion at best. Lax gun laws didn't kill a single person. Some dumb mother fucker with a gun did.

Oh, but lax gun laws enabled him... I can just hear someone saying it. Hey, fuck that too. Guess what? There's no telling whether or not the killer would have had a gun anyway. No one can win the "what if" battle so let's no go there.

What does that mean, "bumpin the Beastie Boys"? Does that have anything to do with an overpowered car stereo?

If it does, maybe you'd better stay up there in New York state. There's enough of that crap down here already. :-) Listen to whatever music you like. Making <b>other</b> people listen to it too--especially just the bass line--is incredibly rude and obnoxious.
Maybe. There' s no intelligence test for making babies either...and the evidence is all around us.

Or buying a stereo, for that matter. :-)
Obviously a *law* didn't kill anybody. Now let's look up what really happened, since you didn't provide an URL:

<blockquote>
KIRKWOOD, N.Y. -- A sheriff's deputy was shot dead Thursday possibly after confronting burglars who had stolen weapons from a Pennsylvania shop, police said.

Deputy Kevin J. Tarsia, 36, was shot in a parking lot in Kirkwood, near the New York-Pennsylvania border.

Just before the shooting, Pennsylvania police said someone used a pickup truck to ram the front door of Mess's Fireworks in a Great Bend, Pa., five miles south of Kirkwood. The thieves fled with rifles and handguns. The pickup truck was later recovered.
</blockquote>

And here's the store's site:
http://www.messfireworks.com/

It was a *fireworks* store, ferchrissakes; obviously catering to New Yorkers who would smuggle the fireworks back into their state, where they are also contraband.

I guess the Beastie Boys aren't loud enough for some folks. ;-)

I hardly think the perps ran a pickup truck into a fireworks store to steal *guns*. (Or fireworks, for that matter.) The reason you break into a fireworks store on July 5 is you're looking for *money*. If you want *guns*, you break into a *gun* store.

Evidently they did find some guns (and probably no cash, since you don't need a permit to carry cash). The guns were probably kept there to protect the cash from "visitors" from New York during the day.

So a smash-and-grab burglar runs home to New York, shoots a cop, and you're going to blame *our* "lax gun laws"?

That's total bullshit.

Four *interminably* long posts full chock full of rants and name-calling, specious analogy and invalid parallels.

Every word you write is instantly a "fact" or a "lesson", and your personal reading of history is magically history itself. Look, it's *boring*. If you were posing *interesting * arguments I might be more inspired. But just because you churn this stuff out doesn't impose an obligation on me to respond to all of it. Life is too short.