Weyrich: Neocon Foreign Policy Troubling

Newsmax ^ | 08-23-03

[Poohbah]

"Threats" are not sufficient for attacks.

OK, so if someone is waving an automatic weapon in your direction and shouting about how he wants to kill you, you'd just say, "It's only a threat" and do nothing.

[rdb3]

OK, so if someone is waving an automatic weapon in your direction and shouting about how he wants to kill you, you'd just say, "It's only a threat" and do nothing.

That's my point.

[hchutch]

Never really liked that way of thinking. It's a good way to end up in serious trouble, IMHO.

[Poohbah]

The Talmud has a wonderfully pithy quote on the subject:

"He who wishes to kill you, get up early in the morning and kill him first."

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Quoting the Talmud, eh? HAH - just confirming what every "true conservative" knows about neocons...

;)

[hchutch]

*rolls eyes*

Those "true conservatives" are just as far out of it as Howard Dean's supporters, IMO.

[ninenot]

Please note my post carefully: I said that PREPAREDNESS is necessary.

Reducing national preparedness to what you have described on a personal level, it's time to lock, load, aim, and take off the safety. But not YET time to pull the trigger.

Ayoob's book on the topic of armed self-defense )In the Gravest Extreme) is damn near word-for-word applicable to national armed self-defense.

[Poohbah]

Reducing national preparedness to what you have described on a personal level, it's time to lock, load, aim, and take off the safety. But not YET time to pull the trigger.

Ah, I'm supposed to let the guy put a bullet through my brain BEFORE shooting him. Got it.

[rdb3]

Ah, I'm supposed to let the guy put a bullet through my brain BEFORE shooting him. Got it.

Yeah, if that were to happen you sure would have "got it." But by then it's too late.

[hchutch]

Yep. Put to a national level, it means you take a hit first, and quite proabbly a lot of innocent lives get lost. In return, you feel better taking out a few million other innocent folks because "we didn't fire the first shot."

Ronald Reagan asked, when SDI was being developed, "Wouldn't it be better to save lives than to avenge them?"

I'd pose the same question to the paleo-cons and the so-called progressives.

[truth_seeker]

"Those who are deluded into thinking heaven on earth can be acheived by US bayonets forget that America was born out of revolution against colonialism."

Splain at me them other 37 states?

[ninenot]

I'm supposed to let the guy put a bullet through my brain BEFORE shooting him

As long as you are nagging ME on this thread, that's an acceptable outcome.

Seriously, let's get this straight. If you mean that the other party has locked/loaded/aimed and has the safety off, BUT HAS NOT FIRED, you have two immediate and valid options: 1) run away; and 2) aim to disable. The moral rules of self-defense allow you to fire first (given all the above) but only to disable the opponent.

The procs apply, mutatis mutandis, to national self-defense as well. You will notice that Israel, the posterboy for a nation under attack by terrorists, NEVER initiates the action. There's a reason for that.

[Poohbah]

Seriously, let's get this straight. If you mean that the other party has locked/loaded/aimed and has the safety off, BUT HAS NOT FIRED, you have two immediate and valid options: 1) run away; and 2) aim to disable. The moral rules of self-defense allow you to fire first (given all the above) but only to disable the opponent.

Death is extremely disabling.

It's called DEADLY FORCE for a reason.

[ninenot]

Your analysis does not hit the mark. Reagan was proposing an effective defense against missiles--NOT an OFFENSE.

Certainly one may feel safe if one simply seeks and shoots all the terrorists (imagining that this is possible.) But that's flat-out immoral, unless they have hit you first.

In the case at hand, yes indeed, the terrorists have fired first, and we are morally justified in pursuing them and disabling or killing them.

I merely argue that the BEST moral option is to assasinate their leaders, which will have most of the desired effect.
Once again, we turn to Israel for the example. They do not simply blow up the entire Gaza Strip--which might comport with YOUR seeming course of action. No--Israel prefers to take out leadership, correctly.

That does NOT preclude more drastic action, but it is a fair warning. In any case, neither Israel nor the USA is interested in killing a bunch of women and children.

[rdb3]

The moral rules of self-defense allow you to fire first (given all the above) but only to disable the opponent.

"[O]nly to disable" my foot. In such a situation, I shoot to kill, not disable. Let's see. It's my life versus my assailant's. Well, my assailant loses if I don't get killed first.

You will notice that Israel, the posterboy for a nation under attack by terrorists, NEVER initiates the action. There's a reason for that.

Maybe if Israel preemptively mopped the floor with her enemies she wouldn't be continuously under attack.

[ninenot]

Your analysis does not hit the mark. Reagan was proposing an effective defense against missiles--NOT an OFFENSE.

Certainly one may feel safe if one simply seeks and shoots all the terrorists (imagining that this is possible.) But that's flat-out immoral, unless they have hit you first.

In the case at hand, yes indeed, the terrorists have fired first, and we are morally justified in pursuing them and disabling or killing them.

I merely argue that the BEST moral option is to assasinate their leaders, which will have most of the desired effect.
Once again, we turn to Israel for the example. They do not simply blow up the entire Gaza Strip--which might comport with YOUR seeming course of action. No--Israel prefers to take out leadership, correctly.

That does NOT preclude more drastic action, but it is a fair warning. In any case, neither Israel nor the USA is interested in killing a bunch of women and children.

[ninenot]

Your analysis does not hit the mark. Reagan was proposing an effective defense against missiles--NOT an OFFENSE.

Certainly one may feel safe if one simply seeks and shoots all the terrorists (imagining that this is possible.) But that's flat-out immoral, unless they have hit you first.

In the case at hand, yes indeed, the terrorists have fired first, and we are morally justified in pursuing them and disabling or killing them.

I merely argue that the BEST moral option is to assasinate their leaders, which will have most of the desired effect.
Once again, we turn to Israel for the example. They do not simply blow up the entire Gaza Strip--which might comport with YOUR seeming course of action. No--Israel prefers to take out leadership, correctly.

That does NOT preclude more drastic action, but it is a fair warning. In any case, neither Israel nor the USA is interested in killing a bunch of women and children.

[ninenot]

In such a situation, I shoot to kill, not disable

You better have one hell of a lawyer. I don't have to remind you that in NYC only a few months ago, a clean, hardworking individual shot (and did NOT kill) an intruder in his apartment--and is serving time, albeit for possession of unregistered, not for assault.

[ninenot]

Sorry about the triple post.

[hchutch]

No, it is on target. Reagan had it right. At this point, we are merely avenging the lives lost on 9/11.

I'd rather have taken Osama and Saddam down long before they could have put 9/11 together.