Preemptive War

From iGeek
FirstStrike.jpg
Iraq was the first preemptive war except for all the others.
Iraq was the first preemptive war except for all the others. All wars start with a series of escalations on both sides. All offer multiple opportunities to escalate or deescalate (back down). A fight doesn't happen because one guy throws the first punch, but because both sides chose to not walk away until eventually a fight is the only natural outcome.
ℹ️ Info          
~ Aristotle Sabouni
Created: 2005-08-04 

Who threw the first punch, when neither is going to back down, is almost irrelevant. Both sides will have plenty of vindication to claim, "he started it" after a series of escalations. So those arguing that we were wrong because we responded to dozens of illegal provocations, are missing the point and trying to find excuses for why America was wrong, by ignoring all the ways that Saddam and Iraq was first.

All the rest[edit | edit source]

Iraq was the first preemptive war, other than:

  • the Revolutionary war - no one knows who exactly fired the first shot in the Revolutionary war (both sides claim the other side shot first), but there's no doubt the Americans (Rebels) were doing things that were illegal acts of war first (like the Tea Party). Of course both sides see their actions as justified by the others actions first.
  • Shay's rebellion - a rebellion is by nature preemptory or retaliatory depending on whose side you're on.
  • War of 1812 - for using the quasi-legal concept of Shanghaiing (impressing Americans into Her Royal Navy's service), and trade duties we didn't like, so the Americans declared war on the British (again).
  • Barbary Wars - When the Danish King Eric charged everyone "Sound Dues" for shipping near his coastline, the world accepted that. When Tripoli demanded their tithe, we started wars over it. Explain the difference.
  • Civil War - since both sides were Americans, Americans must have been preemptive.
  • Spanish-American - was started over a mistake: Americans fired first because they thought the Spanish had sabotaged a ship (the sinking of the USS Maine).
  • Mexican-American - in the Thorton affair the Mexicans attacked and killed 12 Americans over disputed territory, did that justify everything the Americans did or not?
  • WWI - territorial disputes in Europe had nothing to do with us or our defense
  • WWII - Japan attacked Pearl Harbor... because we committed acts of War against them first: in China we supplied weapons and airplanes and men to fly them (the AVG and Flying Tigers), we cut off the Japanese oil supply, we supplied weapons/training to Japan's enemies, and a dozen other acts of war before the Japanese attacked is back/first. Does that make us more wrong or more right than the Japanese?
  • Korea - the U.S. took over parts of Korea controlled by Japan before that, and then got involved in the civil war to take their country back. We defended the South and democracy against an aggressor, but it still wasn't our fight to begin with.
  • Vietnam - we had the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which is disputed whose waters our patrol boats were in (thus justifying whether they fired first), or we were in the wrong place thus our retaliation was the first illegitimate attack
  • Panama and a few others in Latin American wars... we needled. Someone got shot. That's preemptive.
  • Bosnia/Kosovo - the civil war had nothing to do with us or our defense
  • The first gulf war - territorial disputes in the Middle East had nothing to do with us or our defense
  • Libya - territorial disputes in the Middle East had nothing to do with us or our defense
  • and so on....

Conclusion[edit | edit source]

Wars can not start if neither side attacks the other. Thus all wars are preemptive, and both sides rationalize their attacks as counter attacks, attacks for past transgressions, or necessary for defensive action. This war was no different from all the rest. But it doesn't matter. The issue of whether a War was preemptive or not, is moot. The real question is whether there was enough justification, or whether this war was “illegal” or immoral. So it is not an absolute wrong to start a war, because a war (like a fight) is a series of escalation's by both sides. At any time, either side can stop and walk away, but the war (fight) happens because neither will back down.

Those that say Iraq was the first preemptive war, or that preemption makes a War morally wrong, are both clueless of history and ethics.

Like it or not, the whole world would be a far worse place if the U.S. had not been preemptive in the past (like WWII or Korea), there are plenty of cases where we weren't preemptive and still wrong (we should have backed down and never gotten into the fight in the first place), and there are plenty of cases where the biggest failings as a world were when weren’t preemptive when we should have been. Think of Cambodia, Rwanda, Germany, Russia, China, Albania, and so on, where a lack of action by the world, led to thousands or millions of people massacred. I'm not a fan of world cop, but I'm not a fan of selling popcorn to watch a gang rape either. You make your choices, do the best you can, and live with the consequences. I'm fine with people choosing to do nothing, as long as they accept the tradeoffs and consequences. But I have a problem with folks that claim the other side is wrong for trying to do something, when the alternative was so gruesome.

GeekPirate.small.png


👁️ See also

  • Iraq War - Disagree with American policy or bumbling implementations of that policy. Be anti-war. Just be honest and consistent
  • Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 - The war on Islamic terror didn't start on 9/11 and wasn't about Osama Bin Laden, they were symptoms of something bigger.
  • Preemptive War - Iraq was the first preemptive war except for all the others.
  • Legality of Iraq war - No war is legal or illegal, there's only moral or immoral -- and all wars are immoral (some just more than others).
  • Give it more time... - Some have said we should have waited for France or the U.N. to change their minds, or for sanctions to work...
  • Violence never solved anything - Some say war/violence is wrong or that it never solves anything. It ended many wars and most mass murderers just fine.
  • Bush lied - Bush didn't lie: the world's intelligence disagreed on specifics, but all agreed that Saddam was trying to get WMD's.
  • Valerie Plame - Ex-CIA agent lies that she was outted by Bush Admin. Media perpetuates the lies for years.
  • Quotes/Iraq War - Leftists want to pretend they had nothing to do with the Iraq War. History (and these quotes) begs to differ.
  • Muslims can't do democracy - Muslims aren't capable of a successful democracy".
  • Iraq/Set a date for withdrawal - Some claimed we should set a hard date and pull out of Iraq. That's stupid. Never telegraph your moves to the opposition.
  • America made Saddam - During the mid 2000's it was popular among the dim of wit, and big of mouth, to claim that Saddam was created by America.
  • Iraq is because of Israel-Palestine - Israel/Palestine is a convenient scapegoat for all problems in the middle east. But only rubes buy it as the root problem.
  • Iraq is because of oil - All the time I hear people say that the U.S. invaded Iraq because of oil, money, or some other dumber reason. Oil is not a dumb reason.
  • The U.S. targeted innocents - I’m flabbergasted that such stupidity is ever said, let alone how often I’ve heard it repeated.
  • Iraq War Costs - Everything comes with costs, action or inaction. The price of war, the price of peace.
  • Patriot Act - The 2002 version doens't bug me, what it might devolve into does. (Is it a slippery slope).
  • Halliburton - NYT invented “evil conspiracy” to pay off a company for cheating us. The rubes believed it.
  • Guantanamo - The left made a big deal about Guantanamo, where we had the right to treat people far worse than we did.
  • Abu Ghraib - Abu Ghraib was one small group of U.S. Soldiers that something bad things, were caught and punished quickly.
  • Security in Iraq - Militarily Iraq was one of the greatest successes in the history of mankind. Sociologically? We'll see.
  • Americans are imperialists - People that say Americans are imperialists don’t understand America (or what imperialism means).
  • Iraq's impact on Terrorism - Poverty doesn't cause terrorism; totalitarianism and a lack of control does.
  • We should have done nothing - Of course we can’t know if doing nothing is ever the better choice or not. But we can look at some facts.


🔗 More

Iraq
Republic of Iraq, in Western Asia, borders Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and Syria.

Thought
Things that make you go, “hmmm…”, or at least made me write about it.

War
War, what is it good for? Democrats seem to like is as a tool for dividing us. (Imagined Imperialism).

Falsehoods
Iraq War Falsehoods (things that just aren't true).



Tags: Iraq  Thought  War  Iraq War/Falsehoods


Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.