Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
You want to give the president the power to say "well gee I THINK these guys might some day have a remote chance of doing something to us so I'm gonna go in and destroy them now." With such a flimsy justification requirement, you're giving him carte blanche to invade anywhere and any time he wants to. And might I point out that this pre-emptive policy crap is what was used with Iraq, and not only did we fail to find any evidence that they had anything they could hurt us with, but we also turned the country into a haven for terrorists who CAN hurt us. The pre-emptive policy not only did not work, it backfired tremendously. Bush couldn't have put us in any more danger if he had been working for bin Laden himself.
|
Hasty generalization: you are drawing a universal conclusion from a single instance. In this case, you argue that the doctrine of preemption is a bad one because, according to some standards and not others, it failed in Iraq. At the very least, you would need to have more examples of preemptive wars failing before discounting the concept itself.
I'll add that I think preemption is not only wise, but necessary. In an age where catastrophic damage can be wrecked upon the United States by any number of countries or terrorist organizations, having an itchy trigger-finger is a small price to pay. If a few "innocent" despotic, sadistic, dispicable dictators get the axe as a result, I won't have any trouble sleeping at night.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Please try to read (and comprehend) posts so that you recognize refutations when you see them.
|
Rude, derogatory, and completely unnecessary. If you are able to marshall the facts to your side, there is no need for this kind of behavior, so knock it off.