A day to day acount of the whacky and wonderful world of Muggaz - i tend to be having too much fun these days, and often cannot remember moments due to debauchery - its time the internet repayed my loyalty by recording my antics.
based on ugly precedents set by their enemies.
Published on August 18, 2004 By Muggaz In International
The Olympics are supposed to be a time of reflection and enjoyment, with ideals of peace being put on the table by the worlds athletes, it would seem that Iran is out to ruin everyone’s party though

A few days ago, and Iranian athlete refused to compete with an Israeli athlete, which is fair enough, each to their own, we can move on from that, but now, the Iranian government is not ruling out pre-emptive strikes on US and Israeli forces in the Middle East should they feel their Nuclear reactor at Bushehr under threat.

Iranian Defence Minister – Ali Shamkhani has warned “We will not sit (With arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventative operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly” This was during an interview with Al-Jazeera TV when asked if Iran would respond to an attack on its nuclear facilities.

"America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq,"

The commander of the Elite revolutionary guards, General Muhammad Baqir Zolqadr has also warned - "If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant, it should permanently forget about Dimona nuclear centre, where it produces and keeps its nuclear weapons, and Israel would be responsible for the terrifying consequence of this move,"

They look like fighting words.

Should the Iranians make the first strike against Israeli or US forces, It will be safe to say we will have a genuine bloody conflict on our hands. We think Iraq and Afghanistan are human rights tragedies, we haven’t seen anything yet.

Iran would obviously be comfortable with making a pre-emptive strike, because they feel genuinely threatened. They maintain that their nuclear facilities are for energy production – That is for them to say, and us to believe.

The threat that Iran will attack opposing forces in the region is a very real one if they feel threatened. It’s a shame that the targets of Iran's hostilities set the unfortunate precedent that pre-emptive strikes are acceptable.

BAM!!!

Comments (Page 5)
8 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7  Last
on Aug 20, 2004

And this is different from the late 20th century...how?

Kosovo was preemptive. Panama was preemptive. Grenada was preemptive.  Could you give us a list of NON-preemptive wars?

on Aug 20, 2004
Kosovo was preemptive. Panama was preemptive. Grenada was preemptive. Could you give us a list of NON-preemptive wars?


I dont know very much at all about Grenada and Panama, but Kosovo was preemptive on the basis of a human rights tragedy of ridiculous proportions taking place...

Iraq was preemptive based on the fact the USA felt it's national security was under threat... I would say that was not the case in the three conflicts you mentioned.

BAM!!!
on Aug 20, 2004

Kosovo was preemptive. Panama was preemptive. Grenada was preemptive.


i dont know how youre defining preemptive as far as kosovo goes.   pearl harbor was preemptive in that the japanese attacked without being directly provoked in hopes of preventing us intervention in the pacific  the serbs posed no threat to the us.   what did nato preempt?


panama declared war on the us on december 16, 1989 (and executed an american soldier)  the us invaded panama the next day.  once again, what did we preempt?


grenada was characterized as a rescue mission. there was no anticipation that grenada was going to invade the us.

on Aug 20, 2004

If our President (whoever that turns out to be next year) allows Iran to develop nuclear weapons he would be derelict in his duty to the US and the world at large


the president has no duty whatsoever to the 'world at large'.  whether one agrees with the so-called 'doctrine' of preemption or not, the choice to exercise it in iraq--especially based on what everyone now agrees to have been severely flawed intelligence--has diminished the likelyhood of it being used again in the near future.

on Aug 20, 2004

We cannot allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.


iran's theocracy is nowhere near as dangerous as north korea's justplaincrazy.  if we cant allow iran to have nuclear weapons (and it may already be too late) we sure as hell shoulda done something about north korea other than refuse to engage them over the number of parties at the table.  iraq was a sunday school picnic compared to korea.  which is another reason it iraq became the target  

on Aug 20, 2004
we should not allowed israel to develop nuclear weapons for pretty much the same reasons as iran.  if israel should come under complete control of fundamentalists who perceived some external force as possibly overrunning israel, could you confidentally deny the possibility of nuclear masada?   (for that matter, if the us were also in the hands of fundamentalists, could you deny the possibility of them deciding it was armageddon time?)
on Aug 20, 2004
Mugz, you say you are a reformed america hater, but when your "issues with our leaders" show contempt for their efforts to protect our interests and keep us safe, you hate us citizens by proxy.


What about when citizens of America have issues with your leaders? do they hate themselves?

I dont want Iran to attack - it not something I would be proud to say happened in my life time - but when 'moral leaders' of our world - representing the coutries, our countries, feel as though than can barge into another country based on speculation, the Iranians can speculate they are about to be attacked, and release fury upon their regions. Big brother USA needs to lead by example, or not lead at all.

You, as citizens, face a huge dilema, you cant win if you do go play goody goody, and you cant win if you dont - it comes with the responsibility of being American, the so called moral leader of the free world. When another country tries to compromise that position, it's only because they want to be like America... all powerful.

Is an all powerfull America the image you want to convey? "dont fuck with us or we will fuck you up?"

it's hostile.

BAM!!!
on Aug 20, 2004

you hate us citizens


if only muggaz was the person topping the list of people who intend to harm, think badly of, or wish evil upon me or any other ordinary us citizen (hell toss in the non-citizens and undocumented residents as well).


id relax to the point of blissing out.

on Aug 20, 2004
what is a new phenomenon is the leader of a 21st century first world civilized nation proclaiming he has the power to declare war at will with preemptive strikes in what seems to be a total contradiction to the constitution if not common sense.


He does have the power to declare war according to the constitution and was given consent by congress to take whatever steps were necessary to deal with Iraq.

I wouldn't call it a phenomenon. He has done what has been done numerous times by presidents in the history of the US.
on Aug 20, 2004
Iran isn't the problem. Yes they are a problem but they aren't the problem. The real problem is the fact that nuclear war heads were developed in the first place. We should set a precident by dismantlin many of our nuclear warheads (as long as we reach an agreement with china or another country w. such warheads stating they would eqaully destroy a number o ftheirs). Further, Iran does not have the capability to attack the USA, just to attack Israel with such a weapon. Though this would be a catastropy and it would be the US's role as a super power to stop this from happening, it would not be an attack on the USA and therefore a pre-emptive strike by the USA on Iran is not possible, because you can't preempt an attack on another nation.
on Aug 20, 2004

He does have the power to declare war according to the constitution...

...I wouldn't call it a phenomenon. He has done what has been done numerous times by presidents in the history of the US.

actually the adminstration's philosophy as expressed in the so-called 'bush doctrine' is rooted in wolfowitz's 1992 defense planning guidelines draft that calls for preemption against any nation that is perceived to pose a challenge to american superiority


(as to the whitehouse's take on presidential power, consider the infamous bybee/yoo 'working group' memo prepared in 2002 and used as the basis for the creation of the guantanamo detention facility--as well as other practices that very likely contributed to the climate of torture in iraq--asserts the commander in chief now occupies a "constitutionally superior position" to congress and has "inherent authority" to prosecute the war with or without the approval of congress.


"congress lacks authority … to set the terms and conditions under which the president may exercise his authority as commander in chief to control the conduct of operations during a war," the memo's authors insists. "congress may no more regulate the president's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield")


preemption is not in itself a new phenomenon.  preemption on the basis of military massing on the other side of a nationall border makes sense.  what is new is the concept of making a preemptive strike on the basis of determining another nation is capable of becoming a threat at some point in the future.   admittedly, altho the history books found in most schools paint the us as being willing to go to war only for purposes of self defense, the reality is not that clear cut.  on the other hand, the bush doctrine blurs the line between preemptive and preventive. 

on Aug 20, 2004
on the other hand, the bush doctrine blurs the line between preemptive and preventive.


I think the bush doctrine blurs the lines between preemptive and just plain greed. There was no reason for Iraq. Bush wanted to go so he dragged the whole country with him. He lied to us. He told us fallacies. He wanted to go to Iraq so he could give billions to his friends at halliburton. He wanted to go so he could say he was tough on terror. He wanted to go so he could feel that he had done some humanatarian cause. The fact is he lied to himself and he lied to the world and its not acceptable. 10,000+ people have died because of that lie, 1000 of them american soldiers. It's wrong. And guess what. Now that we are there, we have not choice. I think this shows to be weary of the government's statements and its inteligence in general.
on Aug 20, 2004
He lied to us. He told us fallacies.


Was Bill Clinton lying to us when we launched airstrikes against Iraq in 1998? Did you know that John Kerry was in favor of a ground invasion of Iraq in the late 90s?

Link
on Aug 20, 2004
preemption is not in itself a new phenomenon. preemption on the basis of military massing on the other side of a nationall border makes sense. what is new is the concept of making a preemptive strike on the basis of determining another nation is capable of becoming a threat at some point in the future.


Although I don't agree with your use of the word 'capable' (I added the italics in quoting your statement); I would say 'likely' would be more suited, with the weapons capabilities available to nations today, such as nuclear weapons, biological, etc., a 'military massing on the other side of a national border' is only but one of a number of threats that warrant a preemptive strike.

You may not agree that Iraq fits this description, but that doesn't disprove the merits of using a preemptive strike towards nations that are seen by the rest of the world as seeking and planning to use modern weapons or terror to advance their agenda or their borders.

You seem to be arguing against using a preemptive strike for anything except a massing of troops. With technology available today, masses of troops aren't needed. 911 is but one example.
on Aug 20, 2004
He lied to us. He told us fallacies


Sandy, that is ridiculous.

At worst, Bush was parroting what many people, including congress, presidents, intelligence agencies, and even other countries had been saying for years.

At best, he was finally doing what others had been urging for ten years.
8 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7  Last