[tw]

Originally posted by MaggieL
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.

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.