Why a doctrine based on preemptive strikes will never work with '1st world' countries

[AgPete]

- The U.S., Europe, Japan and other industrialized countries are educated states. (I know that's hard to believe when Jerry Springer makes so much money but we are. ) We feel we are educated enough to decide on government policies and we will use our democratic rights to voice it.

but......

- For the most part, American citizens do not trust government. Right or wrong, a recent history of J. Edgar Hoover's police state and Vietnam has caused most Americans to be cynical of government. We have poor voting turnout because some of us believe that most of our politicians are controlled by soft money and we have centuries of precedents in which we decide local government is always better than a federal bureaucracy. We won't even allow common sense matters such as gun control because of our distrust for the federal government.

and.....

- Preemptive strikes are planned in a culture of secrecy. Because we don't trust our government, we feel we need to see evidence that points our leaders to the conclusion that preemptive strikes are necessary to prevent rogue states from supplying WMD to terrorists. Our nation's top secret organizations will never divulge this information any more than they have to and we ask our citizens to trust leaders that they did not vote for. It's even worse when we have leaders like Clinton and Bush that weren't elected by large majorities.

furthermore......

- Our legal system is based on 'innocent until proven guilty.' Preemptive strikes are against everything we stand for and even worse, it makes our nation looks like hypocrites in the eyes of the international community. Democracy is not built on a system that presupposes one's guilt.

along with.....

- Americans will not tolerate much blood shed, especially if it's in the name of preemptive strikes which are not standard military actions. While we can handle nations like Iraq, if we take on more powerful militaries that we know have the bomb (such as North Korea), Americans will not tolerate it and the current President, no matter how good his intentions are, will not win re-election. If we only take out weak countries that won't cause many American casualties during an invasion, once again we look two-faced in the eyes of the world as we demolish Iraq but let North Korea stand.

plus.....

- The more terrorist friendly states we take out, the more terrorists pop up in other rogue states because they look at us as the bad guys and an imperialist nation out to conquer the world. It's a hydra with heads that keep popping up and once we take off one neck another one reappears ready to strike at the U.S.

It's a lot more complicated than this, but I don't think we can win with this type of foreign policy, nor will any President receive enough support to stay in office.

Your thoughts?

[Craptacular]

Maybe you should narrow your topic a little. I don't have 10 hours to type right now.

What are you specifically referring to when you say "common sense matters such as gun control"??

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Craptacular

What are you specifically referring to when you say "common sense matters such as gun control"??

obviously that the fed should get out of the gun control business.

[AgPete]

Originally posted by Craptacular

What are you specifically referring to when you say "common sense matters such as gun control"??

Armor piercing bullet bans, trigger locks and other common sense measures. I won't even bring up that most '1st world' countries don't even allow weapons to be distibuted to its citizens as much as the United States but because of things such as our history of distrust for government we're a little bit different.

[Fritz]

dola,

every time I read the word "hypocrite" I feel like strangling someone.

[Tekneek]

Did you mean 'innocent until proven guilty'?

I know exactly what you mean. I do not trust the US government, but for good reasons that aren't really applicable to this thread. There is enough evidence that they don't always tell the truth, even in small cases like over marijuana plants, so it is reasonable to presume they would lie about bigger and more important things.

I was one of the ones demanding some proof about this before it could be considered legitimate. I was cautiously on the fence as it began, and now I am coming over to the legitimacy side after some of the events of the past couple of days. So, since I have now began to see some possible 'light' out there, I hope the US military can pull it off.

The bigger problem in this issue with Iraq, from my point of view, is not us being considered imperialist. It involves everything happening the way "they" say it will. Regime change and democracy in place. Years go by, and it is working out. However, how do we justify leaving the monarchies in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, while helping 'freedom' along in Iraq? We risk creating problems, once again, through our policies of double standards for our allies. That is the bigger threat here, if they keep up the same political speak they are using about "regime change", "freedom", and "democracy."

Our education and civilized way of living always places us at a disadvantage when dealing with nations full of ignorance or religious fanatics (not arguing whether those are mutually exclusive or not). Our opponents will always be willing to take the low road and the ends will always justify the means. That is just part of the challenge. It comes with the job. It's way too hard to close that box once it is opened.

As far as terrorist states popping up everytime we cut one off. Which new ones are popping up?

[AgPete]

Thanks Tekneek, it's been changed. Talk about subliminal thoughts because we probably are changing the message to guilty until proven innocent if we continue this foreign policy. Not saying it's bad or good, because fighting terrorism certainly needs tougher measures we've never used before, but in the long run, I don't think it will work.

[Tekneek]

It will work as long as the enemy ends up revealing their lies during the conflict.

[AgPete]

Originally posted by Tekneek

As far as terrorist states popping up everytime we cut one off. Which new ones are popping up?

Watch the news and pick a country with 24/7 Anti-American rallies during the Iraq War and your question is answered.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by AgPete
I won't even bring up that most '1st world' countries

are welfare state socialist.

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by AgPete
Armor piercing bullet bans, trigger locks and other common sense measures.

My problem is that there is no such thing as "common sense" for a vague topic like gun control. Yes, I agree that certain things like armor piercing bullets have no place in the gun of your average citizen. However, I don't believe trigger locks should be required (assuming you're talking about ones that require a key, not just a button that prevents the accidental firing of a gun). What's the point of having a gun to protect yourself if you have to go find the key to unlock it?

My point is not to get into a debate about gun control, rather it is to point out that many policies do not represent a "common sense" solution.

[AgPete]

Originally posted by Craptacular

My point is not to get into a debate about gun control, rather it is to point out that many policies do not represent a "common sense" solution.

I agree with you and I'm not trying to get involved in a gun control argument either but the truth is that we don't trust government near as much as our contemporaries. Most of the industrialized educated states have nation health care, we screamed socialism when it was proposed in Clinton's first term. Most of them have strict gun control whereas we don't trust government enough to allow them to pass similar laws. There are many examples and I wonder if a government based on preemptive strikes will ever work with Americans because it asks for us to have a lot of faith in our government. Unless 9/11 is occuring every year and troop casualties are low, I don't think Americans will trust the government enough to keep the President initiating it in power.

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by AgPete
Most of them have strict gun control whereas we don't trust government enough to allow them to pass similar laws.

I'm not against some gun control measures (and other policies) because I don't trust the government, it's because I don't think the measures are right.

[AgPete]

I agree with you that in some cases it may not seem right, especially because we live in a nation with such a high murder rate that forces us to hope a handgun can help our odds but the NRA always points to the Constitution and their interpretation that rifles were never meant to be seized by the government.

[Fritz]

AgPete,
Are you as loaded right now as your posts in this thread? (the official return of the McSmilie)


----
For instance:

Do you still date an 8 year old and beat puppies on the weekend?

[AgPete]

Originally posted by Fritz
AgPete,
Are you as loaded right now as your posts in this thread?

----
For instance:

Do you still date an 8 year old and beat puppies on the weekend?

I guess you don't agree with me then.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by AgPete
I guess you don't agree with me then.

That is true, but not the important part. You are loading your questions and then looking for an answer. Hard to get a decent answer if your question is full of shit.

"Most educated people like blue. What do you like?" Makes it pretty clear you have the choice of blue or uneducated.

[AgPete]

Sorry if the questions look loaded but I know you're aware of U.S. plans after Iraq. I just can't see how the rest of the world will go along with the U.S. as they initiate one preemptive strike after the next and as the casualties rise, I can't see the American public keeping the leader in office responsible for it. I actually think it's a good policy, but that doesn't mean I think it will work. It's now or never, there is too much technology and too many people that want to kill us but I don't think any President will find enough domestic or international support unless tragedies like 9/11 occur every year. It's sad because that's exactly what we're trying to prevent with this type of foreign policy.