Close Topic Options

Preemptive Action

Alternative to Preemptive Action?

Is affirmative action based on strong military action only or is there another way to stop an enemy from allegedly trying to attack you? If so, what is your proposed method?

Action Preemptive

Well, there is always diplomacy. Make your opponents realize that he has noticing to gain by attacking you. Also, having some strong allies won't hurt either. If your enemy is someone like the Chinese, make sure that they would lose face by attacking you. If you are desperate, you could always ally with the enemy.

Preemptive Action History & Civil Business Politics

Neo, I don't think that Affirmative Action is what you meant to say. Affirmative action is racism, wherein white people are discriminated against in the name of providing extra opportunities to minorities.

Perhaps you are talking about "preemptive" action.

There are several ways to stop an enemy from attacking. You can make alliances that become so strong that the enemy realizes that any attack will be bad for them. You can likewise become so powerful militarily that they realize they will lose in any conflict.

One of the most popular ways to stop an enemy from attacking these days is to appease him. Thus Spain immediately pulled its troops out of Iraq, in order to appease the Islamist terrorists who attacked on 3/11/2004. The Left in the US continuously urges that the US appease Islamist terrorists in all of their demands, claiming that to do so will cause the terrorists to leave US interests alone.

Another way to stop the enemy from attacking is to simply surrender to them. France basically did this in WWII, when German forces slipped past the Maginot line. Germany did not waste the country as it did others, since the country had surrendered unconditionally.

So, if all of these options fail, and the enemy attacks, how do you respond? Do you just pull your head in, turn to martial law, and let the enemy get away with it? Do you then turn to appeasement, in fear that failure to do everything the enemy demands will cause future, more horrible attacks? Or do you fight back by destroying their support, their hideouts, their infrastructure?

I'll choose preemptive action, when possible. Ultimately, it costs far less lives. It would have been much better to destroy the Nazis before they entered Poland, rather than the millions of lives that were lost pushing them back to Berlin and rooting them out there.

Action Preemptive

You are absolutely right on. Diplomacy never involves the people in question just stopping the dangerous or bad behavior. Case in point, Afghanistan. All they had to do was give up the terrorist. They wouldn't give up Bin Laden, so we had to strike. If we find out that another country is plotting to do something bad, we should strike them first. Countries and individuals who plan on doing evil are not going to stop trying because you negotiate. If they agree to a plan and tell you they wont do it, it is a lie to keep you off guard. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. We weren't pro active in world war 2, and we got hit at pearl harbor.

Action Preemptive

"Standing for the Founding Principles of the Republic"

This doctrine of preemptive strikes places the sole decision of war and peace in the hands of the President and undermines the Constitutional power of Congress to declare war.

by US Senator Robert C. Byrd

Not only does this pernicious doctrine of preemptive war contradict the Constitution, it barely acknowledges its existence. The National Security Strategy makes only one passing reference to the Constitution: it states that "America's constitution" -- that is "constitution" with a small C -- "has served us well." As if the Constitution does not still serve this country well! One might ask if that reference to the Constitution was intended to be a compliment or an obituary?
Ref. https://207.44.245.159/article7832.htm

Preemptive Action

It is kind of strange to see Senator Byrd taking a stand against preemptive action, since he supported the preemptive actions that Bill Clinton took during his administration.

Senator Byrd is an extremely partisan politician, for whom anything done by a Republican president is inherently BAD, and anything done by a Democratic president is inherently GOOD. Even if they are the same action.

On top of his partisanship, he ignores the fact that Congress did authorize the preemptive strikes against both Afghanistan and Iraq. They just left the timing and method up to the President.

Preemptive Action

I know I am probably playing with fire by saying this, but know that we are able to look back, was the strike against Iraq really preemptive? WMD were never found, so was Iraq really a danger to the US? Unless somebody was trying to stop the formation of a new Muslim caliphate, I personally don't think that we can say, by looking back, that the strike was preemptive.

Preemptive Action Politics Business Civil & History

First, any discussion regarding the attack on Iraq needs to be taken to the thread created for that purpose. We really need to keep this discussion on topic which is a general discussion of preemptive action.

However, I will say this, in general, a preemptive strike is simply a strike made because you believe there is a threat and you want to take action before it is taken against you. Regardless of whether the threat turns out to have been real, your strike is still preemptive in nature because you didn't wait for the other party to strike first.

I agree that the best defense is a strong offense. That doesn't need to mean attacking others preemptively. It could simply mean having a strong military and making others understand and believe that you are willing to use it. The old, carry a big stick and talk loudly theory. It works for me in my personal life too.