Let's see.....
Armies.
Debts.
Taxes.
Yep.
Posted on 08/30/2002 4:48:05 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:40:50 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
"Polish regular officers fired on our territory. Since 5:45 a.m. we have been returning the fire."
IT WAS a particularly contemptible case of vice paying homage to virtue when Hitler spoke those words -- "returning fire," indeed -- in the first hours of the Second World War. But the virtue -- having a casus belli before going to war -- is so universally acknowledged that even Hitler paid homage to it. Immediately before Hitler attacked Poland, the SS staged a provocation -- a "Polish" attack on a German radio station near Poland's border, a sham that included corpses of German "victims" -- actually, concentration camp inmates shot by the SS.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Anyone interested in seeing some modern propoganda on the subject, I found this site http://www.jrbooksonline.com/polish_atrocities.htm .
Let's see.....
Armies.
Debts.
Taxes.
Yep.
In that case there was a direct deterrent to the enemy (nuclear retaliation targeted on USSR.)
This new preemptive strategery requires us to risk attacking sovereign nations (dictatorships or whatever,) before they get too strong or dangerous. This is similar to the thinking behind the Pearl Harbor attack. The Japanese had to attack early before the US had built up its Pacific Fleet.
Since the stateless terrorists don't respond to the classical deterrents, we need a more personal deterrent for each identified terrorist, don't we? We almost need a butler-bomb that follows these folks or their family or whatever's important to them everywhere they go, that can immediately be activated in the event they attack.
Right now, the stateless terrorists have defeated MADD because they can attack without fear of retaliation. Until that is changed, I fear we will be dragged down this dangerous preemptive strike tunnel which cannot lead us to new heights.
The nub of Will's argument is that the administration has a good argument -- they just haven't made it, yet.
But there is another, even more valid and ultimately compelling argument -- self-defense and retaliation for an unprovoked attack with a "weapon of mass destruction". That is, anthrax, as the weaponized spores were probably and provably provided by Saddam's labs. There may even be a legitimate case for Iraqi involvement in the first WTC attack, Oklahoma City and the current outbreak of West Nile Virus.
The real question before the administration is not whether we should attack Iraq and how. Instead, the much larger question is: how much to reveal?
Rather, the only deterent in the future is to have a well armed citizenry and reduce command and control centers (like WTC and the Pentagon) that provide targets for terrorists.
That's laughable. Are you saying the Japanese had to attack because we were going to attack first???. In the current case, we have a nation (Iraq) helmed by a man who has stated unequivocally that he wishes to see the extermination of Israel and (pie in the sky, yes) America. He has attempted to assassinate a former US president.
The question is not whether Saddam is dangerous, or whether he would attack US interests given the chance. The question is when will he do this. George Will makes good points here that we are flying without precedent, but that does not mean we do not have justification.
I think that the Japanese feared that the reinforced Pacific Fleet combined with our advanced bases (Wake, Guam & the Philippines) would allow us the means to interfere with their activities in China and Southeast Asia. Evidence for this is the fact that the Japanese never followed-up on the Pearl Harbor raid until after it became clear that the US would not capitulate. After Pearl, the Japanese 1st Carrier Group re-deployed to the Indian Ocean. Midway did not happen until after Dolittle's Raid and Coral Sea.
Interestingly, as the globe's 800 lb. gorilla, we have a history of being remarkably tame. If you are against the idea of ousting Saddam, you may wish to state your opposition in coherent terms. Or, since you share the views of many a suicide bomber, you could blow yourself up.
Two things: we didn't invade the former Yugo, and the US was not acting unilaterally. Scream from the hilltops about the audacity of the UN (not to mention McCain and Clinton), I'm with you brother. But the US is the greatest nation this earth has ever seen, and not only to its own citizens.
The terrorist were Egyptians and Saudi Arabians. The know how, ideology, recruit, funding came mainly from these two countries, and may be from Iran also.
At this point, it is simply too convenient to beet on a dead dog! Iraq, has been a sitting duck for us to bomb every time we feel like showing some testosterone. The real menace is Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. As you know, Saudi Arabia has Bob Strauss, and many other heavily connected lobbyist protecting them. Egypt, well they are our friends and they have peace with Israel, so let them alone. Iran, it is too big and too militant, and may give us a bloody nose, so leave it alone.
The US should not shy away from confronting the Islamic Jihadists regardless where they are, even in Jersey City!
But we bombed the crap out of it, and we were helping to speed up the Euro inspired Yugo disintegration. We should have acted unilaterally and left them alone.
I completely agree. What troubles me is that the very people who criticize the mythical American "hegemony" are the ones who are constantly encouraging US cooperation with UN meddling.
I propose that, left to its own devices and inclination, the United States would never partake in the kind of crap it has over the past 10-15 years. Somalia? Screw 'em. Bosnia? Remember, the troops will be home by Christmas...1994. Yugoslavia? That was the opportunity to give the EU its comeuppance: "In an effort to encourage the growth of the European Union as a viable political and economic entity, the United States will allow them to resolve this issue on their own."
Well, the Japanese Imperial Navy's plan to dominate the entire Pacific Sphere didn't seem so laughable at the time, my friend. The motivations of an irrational dictatorship need not make sense to you in hindsight.
In 1936, the "secret" thesis of a Lieutenant Commander in the Imperial Navy was published in New York called "Japan Must Fight Britain." Like Mein Kampf, it pretty clearly outlined the coming conflicts.
The Japanese saw the US and Britain as likely to interfere in their plans, (such as the July 1941 Oil Embargo to Japan) so they attacked the US fleet before we were able to escalate.
And let's bear in mind that the "weapon of mass destruction" used were box cutters.
That is true only insofar as they are truely stateless. IMO, some governments are actively supporting terrorist acts, and, if that is so, then they are not terrorist acts at all, but acts of war by a foreign power.
We should, IMO, be holding more foreign governments responsible for what goes on in their own countries. I realize that wont work with Afganistan, but I think it will work in places like Saudi Arabia.
What we really need is better intelligence as to how these 'terrorist' organizations are getting funded. Any government found to knowingly support a 'terrorist' organization should be dealt with, either diplomatically or militarily, in such a way as to insure that such funding stops and is not restarted.
Without good intelligence, we're like the Cyclops in The Odyssey, blindly throwing rocks at No One, powerful but helpless.
Tuor
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.