Bush's War: It's a Preventative War - Not a Pre-emptive one. nt

[patrice]

[rwheeler31]

1. Yuck

[Harkpark]

2. To prevent what??

Dead 1 mil Iraqies
Dead 4k soldiers
Dead US reputation
Dead US world standing
Dead US economy
Dead US treasury

Ok to prevent what from happening???

[patrice]

9. It was supposed to prevent something that wasn't very likely anyway:

Iraqis attacking the U.S. That's what's wrong with Preventative War it's based on things that are not necessarily highly probable.

American military policies have been pre-emptively oriented until now based on likely events that were more probable.

The Bush War is a Preventative war, a war in which we killed people for something they MIGHT do and they might have done MANY things, not necessarily what we thought they might do.

It's a distinction lost on most people. I'm struggling with how to say it, but it has to do with how prevention is directed at behaviors that aren't necessarily that likely, while pre-emption is designed to obviate behaviors that are more certain, so pre-emption is the more conservative position.

[Harkpark]

14. Hocus Pocus versus Facts

Only one possible results.
BIG BIG FUBAR

[patrice]

17. Exactly.

If killing people for what they MIGHT do is a principle that we are following, then every last one of us is in danger from every one else, because anyone MIGHT do almost anything. According to this principle, you might rob me, so I should kill you now to PREVENT your robbing me.

The concept of pre-emption is more specifically and directly tied to a more statistically probable event. I could pre-empt your arguments/attacks against this post by countering the points you are most likely to make **before** you make them and by not insulting you.

People more expert than I have been writing on the difference between Preventive and Pre-emptive policies. You can probably wiki it and I think William Pitt at Truth Out has written on it too.

[patrice]

18. I'm making an issue out of it here, because I run across many people

who automatically assume that killing people for what they MIGHT do is a good principle, especially when those folks happen to be non-White and non-Christian. They're afraid of Islamic Jihad and eager to prevent it by killing anyone who might engage in it. Believe me, this is a very common attitude where I live.

[Harkpark]

23. Religion versus science

Wanton lending versus Prudent credit evaluation

All because you got a Hocus Pocus President.

[patrice]

25. People who are apparently incapable of imagining what their ethical "principles" would

be like if applied to themselves.

Or, they assume that THEY are the ones who decide what the principles are and whom they apply to.

[unkachuck]

3. what's the difference?....n/t

[ixion]

5. no difference

just all war all the time.

[patrice]

8. I think the difference is in the degree of probability of the behavior

that is either being prevented or pre-empted.

When you kill people for what they might do, that's prevention and being based on what people might do is broad, because people might or might not do all sorts of things, so killing them to prevent something that was a relatively low probability in the first place isn't very practical and ultimately leads to genocide. We just killed a bunch of Iraqis because they might attack the U.S.

Pre-emptive acts are more strategically focused on specific behaviors that have a higher probablility of occurring and on intervention that is more necessarily related to the specific act being prevented.


I can prevent those folks on the other side of town from taking my stuff by killing them. Or I can pre-empt their stealing behavior by doing what I can to see to it that they have what they need and a chance to get what they want for themselves.

[unkachuck]

13. are you making this up?

....it seems like a distinction without a difference to me....

....if 'probability' is the deciding factor for illegal war, who gets to roll the dice?

[patrice]

15. google it

Others have said it better than I.

I think one such is William Pitt of Truth Out (and the DU).

[CJCRANE]

21. That's just the spin.

It's all about war profiteering and geo-strategic games in reality.

[vixengrl]

4. Um, okay...we're having a war *now*...

so we won't, um, have one later. Because why have one later when you could...have one now? (Damn, I think I *almost* had it...)

I'm going to bang my head now so I won't get a headache later.


(Edit: spelling.)

[patrice]

10. The distinction is difficult to specify but very important policy wise.

I think William Pitt has written about it.

[Poiuyt]

6. Bush's War: It's a war of aggression

The supreme international crime

[tabasco]

7. Exactly!

It prevented oil prices from staying at $50/barrel.

[patrice]

11. Yep. Domestic oil was going bust, because it cost more to get it out

of the ground than they were making on it in the oil market. Then there was the whole thing with oil sales being re-denominated in Euros or whatever.

[Iwasthere]

12. Never in the history of the USA have we struck first

... for a war of choice against a non threat country with rusty old weapons. 1 million innocents now dead.

[patrice]

19. Choice in Mass Murder, but not in Women's Reproductive Issues. nt

[Thothmes]

22. Check the history of our war with Mexico and Spain

[Echo In Light]

16. The phony "war on terror" is a very real war OF terror

[lonestarnot]

20. and fucking global warming is caused by solar flares not CO2.

:eyes:

[bdamomma]

24. 935 lies and still counting

and a million people killed, a preventative war george, shut the f up.