So based on Bush's reasoning of preemptive action I can go and kill

[LZ1234]

someone that I think might kill me at some point in the future?

[Maddy McCall]

1. No, it goes like this.

If John slaps the shit out of you, you can attack Joe, because Joe might have encouraged John to slap the shit out of you.

[bushisanidiot]

2. As Long as there's a RUMOR that that person has a weapon

you don't actually need PROOF that the person has the weapon.

You know.. even cops who shoot a perp who they THOUGHT had a weapon and THOUGHT they were going to use it, at least those cops have to fill out paperwork and account for why they made the decision they made. And those cops have to make a split second decision.. not like AWOL who planned to attack Iraq before he was even installed into the white house.

[rkc3]

3. I hope so, I killed three people over the weekend.

[dogtag]

4. Yes. And when you find our that he really had no

weapon, nor any plan to kill you, you can claim that he had some dreams about killing you sometime in the future. As long as there was some hazy impotent intention, you are justified according to the Bush Doctrine.

[tabasco]

5. Negative ! You killing your neighbor ....

does not make money for Halliburton and the other war profiteering corporations. If it did I'm sure they would be ok with it.

[carpediem]

6. I was trying to explain this to my daughter (she's 8)

when the report came out saying "saddam had intentions to have wmd in the future". She asked about * and what this meant. I said it would be like if I said, "some day I intend to have a million dollars" (kids love the million number), would it make sense to try to rob me now, when I don't have the money? She looked at me like I just asked her the dumbest question ever and said NO. I said well that is basically what * did.

she got it. too bad alot of Americans don't.

[skygazer]

10. Maybe it's the 8 year olds who should be voting

They seem to have more sense than a lot of the adults.

[patcox2]

7. Lets say you have a restraining order against someone.

And he is complying with that restraining order, he has given up his weapons, he is leaving you alone.

But you go kill him anyway, because you are afraid he has secretly retained a weapon that he plans to use against you.

Now, that is arguably, in the most extreme case, just possibly, maybe, but not likely, justified. (and this would have been the case if Saddam had WMD, it still would not have been justified).

But now it turns out you were wrong, after going ot his house and killing him and then searching his house, you discover that your restraining order guy had no weapons and no plans to kill you.

Bush would argue that "he was only complying with the restraining order to trick you into thinking he was complying with the restraining order (thats "ginning the system) so that you'd lift the restraining order, and then he was gonna get a weapon that he might use to kill you, therefore you were justified in killing him first.

Absurd.

[justjones]

11. No, it's worse than that.

You were just hired to temporarily to guard the house, and everything and everyone in it, but you believe it's your own personal property and the opinion of the people in it doesn't matter one iota of a bit.

And it was more than just a restraining order, there were people in the other guy's house actively looking, checking, and making sure he didn't have weapons. But you insist that the people in his house aren't doing their job, and tell them to evacuate so you can bomb his house because you insist you have evidence that suggests he still has weapons.

So when you bomb his house, kill half the people in it, end up getting a lot of your own guys either maimed or killed, and go searching high and low for the weapons in which you supposedly have evidence exist and you find nothing, nada, zilch.

So then you admit that the evidence was a little bit faulty, perhaps forged by a few like minded people in your house, but insist it was the right thing to do because the man posed a "threat" and besides, he tried to kill your daddy. In the meantime, a few of your homeboys make a profit off of the resources in the guy's house.

Damned the people you represent even though they ultimately pay for it with money and blood because you know what's best.
:eyes:
Damned the rights of the people in the guy's house who have a right not get the shit bombed out of them and the house they ultimately will live in, who have the right to figure out how their household will now run, and who have a right to inherit the resources left in the house, because according to you anything is better than how the guy ran things.
:eyes:
Damned the whole world who told you not to do what you did because the guy was under control and would have eventually been taken care of, most likely through a revolt of his own people.

Why? It's simple. You have a mandate from God.
:puke:

[Polemonium]

8. Only if that someone has a nice ride, and a sweet house

you hope to sell some of, and only if the wife is mistakenly believed to be a bit unstable, and will let you move in with her in the future.

nice absurd metaphors, perhaps the religious right would like to hear a few of these?

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

9. Whenever I think of the doctrine of preemption....

I think of the movie Minority Report... (if you haven't seen it, it stars Tom Cruise, directed by Spielberg, about this agency in the future called Pre Crime where, through three "precogs" (humans with the ability to see future crimes that have not happened yet), they arrest people for crimes that may be committed in the future... the story turns around when Tom Cruise's character shows up in the precogs' visions as a murderer... basically, it shows that you can't get to someone for an action that may or may not be committed in the future...)....

[democratreformed]

12. Yeah, I said this a long time ago. I have know drug dealers in my

neighborhood. Can I go take over their homes and run them off to provide for my security? Can I? Can I?