First strike and your out!
 

Can you believe what the "W" said to those West Point grads? That because the cold war is over, it's time to start flinging missles at whomever we don't like at the moment. No proof needed.

And then there was this: PBS News hour An amazing interview where one of the people seems to not even think he needs facts in order to state jingoist propganda! Ugh!

Of course, it's not even really mentioned in national media. The UK has some good stuff on it (Guardian story) and they can't believe he said it! What happened to rule of law? Why do we need to go starting wars with people?

I'm sorry I'm so disheveled by this. It's this kind of thing that makes me really hate my government (above and beyond my normal fear and loathing). Is there anything we as citizens can do? Anything at all?[

After the last election, I would say no there isn't anything we can do... As long as war is profitable we (the average citizens) are up shit creek...

It sucks to be so frustrated and have no means to get out your words. Fear and loathing are a good way to put it. Beyond concpiracy type things that cause the eyes to roll on others. People feel they are so learned that the good ole' government wouldnt betray them or do such things behind our backs.
The government obviously has to have it this way. They cant allow the masses to be in control, it just wouldnt work, they would devour themselves.
But if you dont think for one second there are thoese out there manipulating the global system, {carlyise group} biding their time, slowly turning the worm to their means.....maybe their time is now.
Am I paraniod? ...sure?
Am I right? ...I dunno.
A I wasting your time?...maybe.
It just sucks these days to not be able to say anything against bush and american policy. You can tell me all you want that bush is protecting my freedoms and allowing me the right to live here freely, including the right to criticize him.
Maybe thats a gift horse that needs to be punched in the mouth.
I get afraid of telling peple links to sites like this one.

www.hereinreality.com/conspiracy/

Now ill get rebuffed by others saying....oh he is a conpiracy guy...he should have just gotten to the point.

If they wanna burn you, they can. Its so easy. Depend on how dirty you are, and how hard anyone wants to dig. Even easier to take you out, but not as fun. I love my country, but fear my government. Our founding fathers were terrorists in the eyes of monarchies.

Ever notice how they have given up on looking for Osama?
Now its back on Iraq and Hussien. I cant believe the populous isnt looking for more answers to that alone. Is it that its just easier to put your head in the sand and go along with what the major media tells us? Flavor of the day news is what I call it.

America, love it or leave it. Or just dont ask questions.

John Doe had it right. "We see a sin on every streetcorner, in every city, and we just tolorate it." I see it in the media, and I am not buying.

Kudos to those who look to outside the us news for information.

okay.. a little calmer now..
 

The real question is this: Why should the USA have a unilateral first strike... against ANYONE!?!?

I'm not convinced that "bad guy" SH really has anything up his sleeve, and hell, even if he did, didn't the USA put him in power, arm him, train him, and have him fight the people we wanted for fight... for awhile at least.

If the CIA put him in there, do they have a right to take him out? It kinda reminds me of "collateral damage"... If we can predict that X number of civilians will be killed in operation Y, shouldn't we take the responceablity? I mean, should we help the people we killed, or their area, or their family? Or not have the operation in the first place?

At what point does our widely reported terror attack become just a start of a wider, more devistating crime to people that had nothing to do with it? Why should they fall too?

I guess I'm asking too much, as the US government hasn't even owned up to the fact that we stole the land we are living on, killed hundreds of thousands with "biological weapons or mass destruction" like smallpox blankets, not to mention collective punishment for all Natives. Oh, and treaties that don't mean a thing, at least on one side.

Okay, now I'm going to sleep.

Share the day,
Seer

I don't think there's anything wrong with some healthy paranoia, especially with the government. I believe in the system we have, but find it works best if looked at with suspicion. :)

Although there are several reasons why we won't join the International Criminal Court, I think this first strike deal could be one of them.

The ICC while nice on paper in fundamentally flawed becase it forgets one basic facts - no nation state is ever willingly going to give power to another one over it, the UN is toothless for a reason.

Jag, are you alright man? That post had only one misused word (you used "in" instead of "is" for the seventh word). ;)

there must be an inverse relation between sleep and typing ability - 4 hours in 2 days =)

Re: okay.. a little calmer now..
 

How do you define "unilateral first strike"?

Threat asessment is a judgement call. Are you saying a nation or person must actually be overtly attacked before defending themselves?

The standard for the use of deadly force in self-defense by individuals here is only that they must reasonably believe that it is necessary to protect themselves from death or serious injury.

There are also rules of procedure and engagement between nations. When the threat is from a covert or guerilla force, things are less clear. But certainly a nation harboring a threatening force is a belligerent too.

Um, yes. How can you be "defending" yourself if you are offensively attacking someone? That just make no sense at all.

Okay, so let me put it this way? I was taunted quite a lot in middle school (because I was a "nerd", a trait that in college has gotten much more positive remarks). Should I have been able to legally take my father's finely crafted baseball bat (or rifle?) and "defend" myself into his head? Because, you know, some of those kids taunting me sure looked like they needed a "regime change" from my "intelligence reports".

Well, I got beaten up quite a few times by those kids. (Damn you Eric Deamon!) Is that enough to justiy, say, killing them, a few by standers, and a few million dollars worth of infrastructure? When the US goes to war, they KNOW that there will be non-combatants killed, people who just happen to be there at the wrong time, but they were still killed by the US. Why doesn't the US own up to that? Why doesn't that play into desiding to start a war. (I learned a little Tae Kwon Do for confidence and started winning fights other kids started instead)

Is that enough, to get punched a few times? Why didn't we attack some country when the USS Cole got bombed? Or Montana when the OK City bomb went off? Okay, so I'm going a little over the top, but so is Bush and all these sheep following Bush into an old testament war. THAT WE (ths US) ARE GOING TO START!!!

Doesn't that strike a cord in you? Fuck oil. I'll ride my bike and work on hyrdogen.

Share the day,
Seer

Re: Re: okay.. a little calmer now..
 

Dirty little secret made so obvious by history. Yes. Yes a nation must be attacked before it can attack OR else would indeed the enemy of mankind. Threat assessment alone is why nations make major mistakes and attack other nations. Decent and respected nations wait to be attacked before going to war.

George Jr advocates the principals of Japan in Peral Harbor, Hitler in Russia, Napolean throughout Europe, Johnson in the Gulf of Tonkin, and Kim Il Sung in Korea. Only bad guys attack first because they 'feel' threatened. No decent American advocates a surprise attack on another nation. None.

Sorry. But it is necessary for people to die before justification exists to attack another sovereign nation. Individuals are expendable when measuring the integrity of a nation. Right wing extremists advocate such anti-American and anti-humanity concepts of surprise attack. No wonder extermists love a mass murder who nearly brought the world to total nuclear war - Prime Minister dichead.

You have never seen me so strongly criticize any politican in how many years of posting even back in The Cellar Mark I. I don't think many really appreciate how dangerous this administration was even during a silly little Chinese spy plane incident. It was a nothing event that could have led to American attacks on China - because they perceived a threat to America. The consequences of that mistake would have been felt even a decade later. Reagans stupid use of A-6s from carriers and the USS NJ against Lebanon had the same adverse consequences a decade later. Understand that supporting this George Jr 'Pearl Harbor' mentality puts one in a category with Tojo and Nazis.

You are expected to understand Robert Kennedy's comments when he said, "I now know how Tojo felt when he was plannig Pearl Harbor". To side with George Jr's extremist right winger on this issue would be to support Tojo's position in Pearl Harbor.

The old expression is that those who fail to learn from the lesson of history are destine to repeat those mistakes. We know that George Jr has woefully insufficient understanding of the world. We are expected to hold his feet to the fire when he talks dumb. We are expected to deny him support if he unilaterally surprise attacks another soveriegn nation. That is exactly what a loyal opposition must do. A US surprise attack on another sovereign nation is reason sufficient for impeachment as a direct violation of the Constitution of the US.

I don't like Cellar backquoting; it won't work if you're replying to something with more than one quote in it.

<blockquote><i>Um, yes. How can you be "defending" yourself if you are offensively attacking someone? That just make no sense at all.
</blockquote></i>

If you reasonably belive you are in danger, you are defending yourself. You're not required to actually wait until the attack is manifest.

Not that hard to understand.

<blockquote><i>
Is that enough to justiy, say, killing them, a few by standers, and a few million dollars worth of infrastructure?
</blockquote></i>

No. The use in force in self-defence is only justified to the extent that you believe it is necessary. You learned that in the TKD dojo, didn't you?

<blockquote><i>
Okay, so I'm going a little over the top...
</blockquote></i>

Actually, it's a *lot* over the top. It just *looks* like a little next to tw.

You might want to try to curb your tendency to hyperbole.

Sorry, Maggie. I can't handle your system, which doesn't indicate who those quotes are coming from. I'm not into reading the thread over again to see where I can find those quotes you are referencing ... or are you just pulling them out of your ass? ;)

They're from seer, in the note just before that long, foaming rant from tw.

Hey now, let's not start going soft on the boy!

Don't forget that his post was one big run-on sentence. He misspelled the word "because". The phrase "While nice on paper" should have been surrounded by commas. Also, the word "facts" should have been singular.

aw man, i'm gonna have to start thinking...
its the holidays....

Well thats rather convenient. What a smoke-and-mirrors turn of phrase, how about something that is not so open ended like the 'maximum justifiable extent'.

Baby steps juju...baby steps. :)

Feel free to begin anytime now. :-)
The *world* is rather open-ended, don't you think?

Look, I happen to believe people have the right to defend themselves. Further, I don't believe they need to wait for assault to become battery to be justified in doing so. Why give the bad guys the advantage?

There's a sticker you can buy in pilot's shops; it's intended to be placed on mirrors. It reads "You are looking at the person responsible for your safety."

Cheap shots aside in the context of foreign relations what 'you believe is nessacary' could apply to bloody anything, its utterly silly and becomes contextually irrelavent. 'Afghanistan helped train some guys that flew a plane into a building so we nuked everything from Saudi Arabia to India'.
Of course nations have a right to defend themselves with pre-emptive strikes, they are often nessacary, 1967 would be a good example but to put no limitations on it is plain dangerous. Sure you can claim it it was nessacary but its stupid, the maximum justifiable action has that keyword justifiable - you have to be able to rationally justify your actions to the international community and your own people.

What interesting nonarguement. Your point? It doesn't even make sense. I don't think you even understand what i mean, that statement is the political equilivent of a blank cheque, it can be used to valide utterly anything.

I've got an odd feeling were talking at cross purposes, you're off on another libertarian 'right to gun people down in the street for looking at you funny' rant and i'm talking foreign relations.

You and Curtis LeMay advocate same when he said that we were already at war - just that the public did not yet know it. Good thing for us that smarter people prevailed over LeMay - repeatedly. You advocate same thoughts by Tojo when Japan planned Pearl Harbor. Where is your logic different from those extremists? They too felt threatened and therefore advocated surprise attack. You say same thing.

Reality: responsible nation must be attacked before it can attack or it must be part of an international body whose members have been attacked (ie Nato, UN). That is fundamental to international law AND to US principals.

Fundamental in US history is what we have learned from our mistakes. However those lessons from history are what you call foaming and ranting - which I regard as a personal insult because you could not distpute the facts.

You advocate the mentality of Tojo. Robert Kennedy's quote applies to same right wing extremist thinking - that we can attack anyone we want IF we only feel threatened. You advocate policies dangerous to US integrity and in direct violation of international law - by totally ignoring everything only because you feel threatened. Apparently a post full of history is too difficult for you to understand - so you insult?

Where is this so dangerous nation you fear? Iraq? Why is Saddam still there? George Sr 's advisor - same men in George Jr's administration - so screw up - so failed to perform their jobs - that Saddam is still there. Sounds more like revenge - which also is not a legitamete reason for war. If the US public is mislead into promoting a surprise attack, then maybe the public will not rise up against a right wing extermist administration. Only one in denial of international law, against US principals, and in love with an administration that fears would advocate the oh-so silly 'axis of evil' and surprise attacks.

Do you advocate an attack on Iraq only because George Jr advisors fear a man who survived their mismanagement? Let not forget their biases and why we cannot just accept what they say - (ie. mythical 'dirty nuc' bomber so that the Haliburton 'cooked books' story did not get top billing). Saddam exposed that Cheney, et al were not doing their job. Thank you Margaret Thatcher who put the backbone into George Sr after Cheney, et al removed it. Now MaggieL wants to attack Saddam only to revenge the mistakes of George Sr's right wing senior staff members - or is it just due to fear?

First learn lessons of history. Read Robert Kennedy's Thirteen Days and show us why the Kennedy's were so wrong. They must be wrong to give your position any credibilty. Currently your logic is identical to a war monger who foams at the mouth - all emotion and uneducated by history lessons. I thought you were better informed than to think like Tojo - and then insult others you cannot dispute.

You're pretty close to invoking Godwin's Law with "Tojo", there, sport.

A long, impassioned post is correctly described as a "rant". I'm confortable with my position as stated. Deal with it, don't deal with it, matters not. I won't bandy words with those who simply label their views "reality" as if that meant or proved something.

Not really. It's the standard by which any person or nation will judge the need to defend themselves. And after it's over, they'rll be second-guessed by everybody else, and face the judgement of history.
My point exactly. And afterwards the actor will stand judgement as to the "necessity" of his actions, as Iseael did.
Seems to me the same principles apply in macro as in micro. No matter how much fun it may be to deal in lofty abstractions and call it "foreign relations", it still comes down to rather gritty interactions between real people.

I'm sorry you find the idea of armed law-abiding citizens so repugnant, but it's how we live here and it seems to work pretty well. I'm much more comfortable here than across the river where only the cops and politicians are legally armed.

If you don't distinguish libertarianism in general (and the right for law-abiding citizens to be armed, in particular) from "the right to gun people down for looking at you funny", there's very little ground for discussion of anything close to that topic. You simply don't seem to be able to picture anyone arming themselves without an endless TV-like bloodbath ensuing immediately.

The winner gets to write the history. ;)

I don't want to get into gun laws again, its a long and pointless arguement.
Foreign relations are in some ways like relations like people, only far more baseless. People do silly things, people do things not in their best interest, for nations this is very rare, usually smaller tinpot dictatorships. Ideals, principles, ethics mean sweet fuck all. As a result a nation like the US has to answer to noone but itself for its actions, noone has the power to inflict punishment on it. Being a GIC doesn't matter when you're king of the hill.

I live in a safe community without guns, why risk the change? There is no need. Hell i'm generally libertarian, i'd rather see a society with crime and drugs than an overcontrolled civilized 'paradise' Brave New World style but when the average person has to carry a gun to feel safe, i beleive something is very wrong. Pontificate civil rights all you want, it doesn't change that fact in my eyes.

I live in a safe community with guns, why change that?

Jag, just to make sure, you do know that not everyone here feels that they need a gun to feel safe, right? I'm not trying to give you a hard time...I just want to make sure that you are aware of that.

I could go outside my apartment right now at 1am Eastern Time, walk around the entire neighborhood without a gun, and not sweat it. You might call it overcontrolled, but I'd argue that most people don't think twice about it, b/c it's just not a big deal. In the end, it all comes back to the difference in cultures between you Aussies and us Americans.

Yea i know you don't, that seem to have been maggies line a few times, i've forgotten the other massive war we had over this but something like that came out. After all, she carries it for safty right?

Because, as Maggie is trying to point out, defending oneself means taking measured responses to perceived threats. Sometimes that means attacking back, or attacking beforehand, and sometimes that means something else.

In the case of the USS Cole, it appears that, in hindsight, security in that instance may have been a little lax. So we took steps to correct that. Now that we have had a massive attack on U.S. soil, we see that we've miscalculated the threats that other groups pose.

Don't let tw's tangents fool you, he has plenty of facts to back up whatever he says but tends to be quite selective in the evidence he presents. Anyone who thinks our big beef with Iraq is due to revenge is sadly mistaken. There is no way that W would start a war against a middle eastern country because of pride. He simply doesn't have that kind of standing to be able to pull it off without good reason.

Of course they're not gonna come out and publicly disclose the evidence we have, but you can bet we'll share it with our allies. Many of those allies are rather cool to the idea right now, which makes the burden of proof for the Bush administration that much more.

If our country took as passive a position as you endorse, we would have fallen long ago. But don't worry, those of us who are in the military do our job regardless of people who second-guess at every turn. In fact, we do our job in order to protect the right of people to second guess at every turn. So you can feel safe to ride your hydrogen-powered bike and talk about how wrong it is to defend our interests.

That is one area where I agree with you.. fuck oil. I can't wait until we develop a viable alternative to fossil fuels, so all these countries who have accumulated so much wealth and power simply because they happen to be sitting on a big pile of dinosaur juice will fade away and actually be forced to work for their world standing.

You're in the military? Very cool. What do you do?

That could be a stretch, since you both make the unwarrented leap from "feel safer when armed" to "can't feel safe unless armed" without even blinking. Casting armed citizens as paranoid is a classic hoplophobe maneuver, of course.

Syc, do you suppose it's possible that one reason that your neighborhood is so safe is that a number of your neighbors *are* armed themselves? Including (but not limited to) the 3% that hold concealed carry permits? Of course, if that bothers you, you *could* move to Camden, Baltimore, DC or St. Louis, places more consonant with your philosophy.

As long as some people in a community are willing to defend themselves, there's a protective effect that extends to the other members of the community (or alliance; NATO comes to mind). Whether they support it (or even deserve it) or not.

Previously when we shared evidence, our allies were in total agreement. The current administration has no viable evidence for their positions on 'axis of evil', removing Arafat, attacking Iraq, or even for the latest nonsense called Star Wars. Therefore allies will be rather cool. We have loyal friends who hope to ride out 4 embarrssing years of George Jr or hope to get him educated.

There is no enemy to be surprise attacked. That need to surprise attack is simply the same introverted fears that Tojo and MaggieL would use to "be comfortable". Unfortunately surprise attack is the same concepts that historically caused disasterous consequences for previously billigerent nations. Nations that surprise attack in violation of international law often don't get to write history.

Iraq is not the threat some of us would foolishly and illogically perceive it. But this administration is driven by a need to remove Saddam - and anyone else they fear - by first making a conclusion and then seeking facts to support that conclusion. Our allies are cool to supporting evidence for George Jr's ravings about 'axis of evil' because the evidence does not exist - is not credible. They are uneasy with George Jr's need to attack his personal fears based upon invalid facts.

Our allies are cool to George Jr's 'axis of evil' because it makes no sense once they saw the evidence. They are cool to unilateral attacks because even countries at most risk, after seeing the evidence, don't agree with this extreme right wing president. Turkey, a country so angry at Saddam, was going to open their own separate military offensive during the Gulf War. Now even Turkey sees no justificaton in George Jr's evidence. Their generals say so outrightly in reviewing plans as to where to base the Iraq attack. The only Middle East nation - the only - that sees justification to attack Iraq - Sharon's Israel. That is scary.

60 Minutes, I believe it was, recently did a piece on Kuwait - a country so happy with the US that they changed the name of a street from 'Baghdad' to 'Bush'. However this president is so out of touch with the world that the name Bush no longer has good connotations in Kuwait. Their leaders have also seen the evidence and just don't agree with the warmonker George Jr administration. Their leaders instead, like their people, no longer have the great admiration for the US as existed 10 years ago. The attitude change is even being demonstrated in how people dress less in western clothes. George Jr and company are that much out of touch with the world as to undermine close relations even between America and Kuwait.

Those such as MaggieL, who would agree with George Jr, cannot provide logical facts for their feelings. MaggieL must outrightly ignore lessons of history when she advocates the same extremist attitudes we now know almost turned the Cuban Missile Crisis into nuclear war. MaggieL advocates war just like Curtis LeMay ("bomb them back to the stone age") because only a perceived threat is evidence enought to attack. That is what she adovates. If a threat is perceived, then a military attack is justified - consequences be damned.

There is no axis of evil. There is currently an American president so naive as to actually undermine moderate movements in Iran. George Jr has actually empowered the clerics in Iran at the expensive of moderates who would move to be friends to the US. But then extremists, like Tojo, Kim Il Sung, etc always see enemies hiding everywhere and must preemptively attack those mythical threats. Ironic how insecure this George Jr administration is to advocate same.

Saddam is there because George Jr's right wing advisors screwed up. His advisors so cannot forget it as to look for any reason to attack and blame Iraq. They looked so hard for any evidence connecting Saddam to the WTC collapse even though there was zero reasons to even look. Be very suspicious of anything that the George Jr administration says. Our allies, including laterly Tony Blair, found George Jr's claims at the G8 to not be credible. George Jr got no support from any other G8 nation for his 'axis of evil' concepts - just tacit silence. There are zero reasons to unilaterally attack anyone - which is why American allies are so cool to an administration they hope will demonstrate more intelligence than they did during the Chinese spy plane incident.

Why are American diplomats received now only by lower level diplomats at Egyptian airports? George Jr does not have credible evidence for his right wing positions which is why Mubarak intentionally and publically canceled a meeting with Colin Powel - an outright slap in the face to George Jr. - who sees enemies hiding everywhere.

Our allies across the world don't see credibility in George Jr's evidence. Why then is that missing evidence justification for surprise attacks - like Tojo and Gen Curtis LeMay would advocate? This administration is scary, in part, because some Cellar dwellers even support those anti-American principals.

"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.

MaggieL - you have provided not one single fact to support your anti-American contention that international preemptive surprise attacks are acceptable. That same anti-American, warmonging thinking about VietNam should have cured America. You do remember VietNam - and why the Pentagon Papers demonstrated how much government lied - because government feared a threat that never did exist.

VietNam alone demonstrates lies of based upon unjustified fears. Unjustified fears are why this administration calls for preemptive attacks.

There is no name calling. Those who previously used your same thinking are listed. This bothers you? Are you upset that your same logic was also used by Curtis LeMay and Tojo? So instead of providing logic in response, you outrightly insult me or try to claim you are a victim of specious analogy? Four long posts demonstrate that you and Curtis LeMay have the same dangerous thoughts. Both, in defense, responded that they were comfortable with their positions. You should be feeling very uncomfortable since you have not provided a single reason, logical response, or historical example to support your comfortable position.

All you need do, for a start, is demonstrate where in history your mindset is not dangerous. You don't even do that. So again, instead, you cry the victim's claim of name calling and use the word 'rant' for waves of reasons and historical examples. That mindset is dangerous and anti-American; as demonstated by facts and historical example. Unfortunately, this same mindset exists in the current administration, which is why these posts, reasons, and lessons of history are so important.

Those who love war would advocate a surprise attack on the axis of evil - Iraq, Iran, or North Korea. Neither you nor the administration can justify why any of those countries should be surprise attacked. You provide no support for your thoughts but then insult anothers who challenge your thinking? Insults are irrelevant. No supporting facts for advocating preemptive militarty attacks, when that contention is so danagerous, is simply unforgiveable. Stick to points of international discussion and stop with insults and personal victim claims. The latter are irrelevant to a dangerous proposal and mindset that surprise attacks are acceptable.

No, I don't *need* to do anything.

It's to the point where I have to look very carefully at the posting date to know if you've actually written anything different, or if II'm reading an old post over again.

I think Tobiasty said it best when sie referred to confusing opinions with facts. "Four long posts demonstrate" exactly nothing but a willingness to type into a tiny text field for a very long time.

Now, one final time:

Point the first:
A preemptive strike is not necessarily a surprise attack.

Point the second:
When there' s been long escalating warnings and statements that a given situation is unacceptable, and that the ultimate recourse will be to the use of miltary force, an attack can't can't possibly be a surprise.

Point the third:
I don't give a rat's fuzzy behind whether you think my views on this topic are "a dangerous extremist unamerican mindset", mainly because you've become famous for labelling *anybody* you disagree with as "dangerous extremists".

That's a practice I find kind of...well...extreme. :-)

Now that you've walked around in circles four times, I'm done with this thread., See you elsewhere.

I think i lost this thread somewhere. I see the validity in sycs point, an armed society can be a safe one, but why does it have to be armed?
Because the bad guys are armed.
Ok, fine, why are the bad guys armed?
Because its not hard to get arms, they're good for threatening people with.
Why is it easy to get arms?
Becase lots of people list to jump up and down and scream about outdated constitutional rights.

That flamebait aside, i still think an unarmed safe society is better than an armed safe society. I think the constitutional stuff is in many senses outdated, a milita? I don't think so anymore. Why own a gun if not for safety?
I'm not trying to argue now, just discussion.

Sigh.

No. It is easy to get arms because we don't live on a big fucking island. We have borders. And those borders are guarded by humans. Humans make mistakes or are paid off. Guns will get past.

That's part of the way of it when living in a free society. We just have to take the bad with the good.

This thread is tired. Let it die.

Look, it's not hard to get arms--be they guns, knives, bludgeons, whatever--regardless of what laws are passed. The laws are only good for adding a charge to somebody's indictment after he's been arrested. Someone who intends criminal violence will always be able to find tools to do the job. Disarmament laws only disarm the law-abiding.

That's the saddest expression I've ever heard:"outdated constitutional rights". My constitutional rights are not outdated, sorry to hear about yours.
"Unarmed safe society" completely begs the question of whether an unarmed society is safe.
Read the Hatch committee study I cited earlier on our Second Amendment for a proper understanding of the word "militia" in the time in which it was written. Further, "well-regulated" in those days referred to a rifle being sighted in and accurate, and its user practiiced in its use.

Gun laws != lower violent crime. Though I can't show you the statistics, take a look a couple of years back when Australia outlawed guns. Violent crime (especially home invasion) went through the roof). So there. :beer:

I was reading a book/article/talking to someone a while back and we came up with a great idea. Outlaw all guns. But, make everybody carry around some sort of large edged weapon. Lets face it, are you gonna mug someone with a broadsword?

Headsplice, you've been reading too much NRA propaganda. They came here after thsoe laws were passed and made a series of absolute bullshit ads about exactly that, and guess what. It was bullshit. People here were up in arms about it. The only people who have bitched about the gun laws ehre are farmers, which is vaguely understandable. If you're going ot try and comment on our gun laws, at least get it right, guns have not been outlawed, just tighter control over access and type.

I really don't see why.

Could you repost this hatch report link, i couldn't find it on this thread. The way i read a 'well regulated milita' - as it sounds did mean it sounded outdated, the US govt is not about to be overthrow by a citizens milita of any strength, such a purpose is hense invalidated.

We live on an island so fucking big we cannot control its borders, yet i'm yet to see or hear of many guns on the streets, despite the use of these open shores for drug running.

Here you vaguely have a point, we have more stabbings here for a reason but at the same time....If you have effective law enforcement you don't need to carry to be safe.

I don't know why i get into these debates about gun control so much. Partially because i live in a country without guns, that to my mind concequentially doensn't have many killing and partly becase of the way ordinary peopel react to situations, which often isn't very good, and if they have a gun, that can be very bad, you simply can't garantee that all people who have guns are stable or well trained, i just see it as an unnessacary risk i guess.

It's a by-product of the development of culture. For that matter, why the hell do we really need nuclear weapons? But once something new is developed, it would be foolish to "dumb" ourselves down. Arms are here to stay, so you utilize them as best as possible. The US has discovered, over the course of 226 years, that the right to bear arms has been a pretty good idea overall.

I think today we look at the term "arms" too narrowly...when one thinks of arms, generally one either thinks of guns or nuclear weapons. But in a sense, we're all armed...be it our fists, knives, keys, sticks, etc.

Because they are criminals, and they'll do anything they can to get over on you. Having a weapon just makes them that much worse. But the average citizen can have a weapon too, so there's an equalizing factor. Get rid of the weapons, and you're still going to have criminals. They'll beat you with their bare hands if need be.

To make it easier to live off the land. You like to kill and prepare your own meat. A crossbow is alright, but a rifle would probably make it easier. Convenience is a good thing.

To quote the Dead Kennedys' album title, "Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death!" ;)

Some stats.

From national data
AUS 2001 (Aus. Bureau of Statistics)
US 2000 (FBI data)

PER 100,000:

Homicide...
AUS 5.4 US: data not broken out

(of that, Murder+Manslaughter... AUS: 1.8 US: 5.5)

Assault...
AUS: 782.9 US: 323.6

Sexual Assault...
AUS: 86.4 US: 32.0

Kidnapping...
AUS: 3.9 US: data not broken out

Robbery...
AUS: 137.1 US: 144.9

Unlawful Entry w/Intent... (headsplice's category)
AUS: 2246.9 US: 728.4

Car theft...
AUS: 722.0 US: 414.2

Other theft...
AUS: 3607.5 US: 2475.3

From the highly-regarded International Crime Victims Survey 2000

Percentage of people victimized by crime in 2000, EXCEPT death-related...
AUS: 30.0 US: 21.1

Number of crimes per 100 in 2000, EXCEPT death-related...
AUS: 54.3 US: 39.5

% crimes reported to police in 2000...
AUS: 50 US: 52
(suggesting that the "from national data" is reasonable to compare)

ICVS PERCEPTIONS about crime 2000

Perception of chance of burglary next year...
AUS: 11% very likely, 32% likely, 50% not likely
US: 3% very likely, 13% likely, 78% not likely

Do you feel safe walking alone at night?...
AUS: 24% very safe, 40% fairly safe, 21% bit unsafe, 14% very unsafe
US: 46% very safe, 36% fairly safe, 10% bit unsafe, 4% very unsafe

And more! A table of what was used to murder in AUS:

http://cellar.org/2002/ausmurder.gif

Obvious conclusion: the 1996 law cut down on murder by guns by quite a bit, but unfortunately other methods picked up the slack.

gun CONTROL
 

"Gun control is hitting the bull six times in a row with a .357"
-someone in the NRA, I'm sure.
Not really the point I'm going to make, but, I like the quotation.
Jaguar: You're completely right, I did fall for it, but, in my defence, it was the only data I saw.

More generally, isn't the problem with gun use/abuse (a very important distinction) similar to that of drugs? There are people who use drugs (including caffeine) in a moderately responsible fashion (i.e., they do no harm except to themselves). Is the same not true of guns? I neither plan nor want to ever harm anyone with a firearm. Ever. That are vastly destructive, both physically and emotionally. But, who is anyone else to say that I am not responsible enough to make that decision on my own? I am an adult and I take responsibility for my actions. I don't give a rat's ass what anyone else has ever done. Why do you (in general) want to take away my choices? What have I ever done to you. The actions of others are not relevant. You can show me all the statistics in the world, but they don't have doodie to do with what I have done. The actions of those who have abused their privileges is an entirely different matter. How can you take away my rights (at least, as a USian) based on the (mis)behavior of people with whom I neither associate nor want to be associated?
Something else to think about:
It is impossible to eliminate weapons entirely. Government would never stand for its own disarmament. Therefore, do we have any ultimate recourse to prevent flagrant violent abuses (of us) by said governments? Further, how do you prevent (especially military, in the case of a disarmed populace) weapons from getting into the hands of criminals?

Nothing vague about the point, actually. And law enforcement can only clean up *after* the fact; they don't prevent crime and that's not their job. I say again: look in the mirror. You are looking at the person responsible for your safety.
Actually, I don't think you do "live in a country without guns" (and Tony's numbers bear that out).

In fact, you live in a country where the *citizens* are disarmed. But then, as you say below, you're afraid of the "ordinary people", so you say you feel better when they're disarmed. I think that's misguided.
That's really tragic. You can't guarantee everybody who has a gun (or a car....or an airplane...or just about anything) legally is stable. But you'll take the right of self-defense away from the law-abiding, leaving superior force in the hands of criminals.

Natually, all the criminals are stable and well-trained. :-) All things considered, I'd rather trust the approximately 3% of the people who respect and trust themselves enough to touch all the legal bases needed to legally arm themseleves, I think they're vastly more trustworthy than the criminals.

I know a number of people who carry. (Mostly they don't let on that they're armed citizens until they know they're among folks that are shooters themselves, because of fearful reactions from folks like yourself who really don't know much about guns.) And I continue to be impressed with them as a group; compared to the general population they are careful, thoughtful and responsible.

That report I spoke of (and it was in another topic where we had this debate) can be read at

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

There is also <i>Historical Bases of the Right To Keep and Bear Arms</i> by David T. Hardy, available at

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senhardy.html

Well, where to start. They went there for GUNS! The store also sells them, they also keep them in unlocked cases. They were guns that aren't legal in this state, the added power of which was enough to pierce most body armor. These guys wouldn't have had a chance were they not armed with assualt rifles, a kind of gun that has NO legitimate purpose for law abiding citizens.

As for the music I don't think the factory speakers in a Ford Tempo are really going to rattle too many windows, thanks for assuming I had the money for a system.

So posted was nothing except point one which is a question as to whether one can preemptively attack another nation, in direct violation of international law, and not do it by surprise attack. Point one is a debateable point.

However demonstrated is the reasoning behind this president's need to unilaterally attack other nations. No reasons need be provided. Just fears. When confronted, you don't give a rat's ass - which is probably George Jr's same thoughts. That pretty much defines why the US must attack Iraq. The administration doesn't give a rat's ass whether it is right or wrong or even in the interest of America. We have emotional feelings - in this case fear. That emotion is enough to justify an attack on Iraq, Iran, and N Korea. No facts historical or logical required to justify a unilateral attack on other soveriegn nations - principles of international law be damned. But then I only repeat the same points because they remain unchallenged and ignored.

Re: gun CONTROL
 

Yet the government does presume to take away my rights to alter my consciousness as it sees fit. Whats worse is that it is social fashionable amoung most employers to discriminate against those of us that feel that what we are doing is our business and not someone else's. In NY a possesion ticket is 50-100 dollars for small amounts and is only a violation, the same as traffic tickets. Yet we don't screen for speeders (and when you think about it which is more dangerous) in the hiring process.

Truthfully, I'm fairly ambivelent about guns, fun toys maybe, essential in the back woods sure, but cure of a social ill? That argument doesn't make sense to me. Ya'll can keep your guns, just let me smoke my pot in peace.