Stinger

Should we enter into a pre-emptive war with a sovereign country that has no WMD and is not a threat to us?

Is it OK for the US to do such things?

__________________
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." Marcus Aurelius
Proud member of the Gang of Five, the gang that is always right!
No Personal Attacks, if you can't debate the issue go elsewhere.

Lachean

How interesting, either I don't understand the definition of Pre-emptive War:

Or you've found a contradiction in my foreign policy, because I am opposed to a pre-emptive military policy. How would Darfur be pre-empting a percieved imminent offensive or invasion? How would our involvement be "pre-emptive?"

__________________
"The original, and still the best!" - Grifter

Red_Dave

Well yes i think U.S should make a push for unilateral action against Sudan and go it alone if it comes to it. Before the enivitable comparisions to Iraq crop up il point out the the Iraq war and any potential action in Sudan are too different things.

For one thing any potential action in Sudan would be preventing a genocide thats happening now. The iraq war was [aparently] a responce to saddams genocide against the kurds which we helped with two decades ago. Big difference.

Stinger

Oh how about the same way it is used to oppose the war in Iraq?



Is Darfur posing an imminent threat? I already asked that and should we invade sovereign countries which do no have WMD nor pose a threat to us?

That is precisely the question.

Stinger

So you don't oppose the US invading sovereign nations that do not have WMD nor posed a threat to us.

How about the UK? OK for you to do it too?

Red_Dave

Depends on the circumstances. As ive pointed out.

Lachean

The War in Iraq was an unneccesary pre-emptive war. Darfur is a genocidal civil war as best I understand it. Apples and oranges.

Then you were wrong to call Darfur a pre-emptive war, because they are no threat. It would not be wrong to engage in such a war on those grounds (it being pre-emptive.)

Your attempt to equate the two very different wars in order to debunk a previously used anti-Iraq war claim is baseless.

Should we invade a sovereign country which is of no threat to us? It depends on the circumstances. Given Darfur's, I would say yes. I would also say yes if a this non-nuclear Iran attacked Israel (our ally) and not us, we would be justified in interfering as well. Taiwan too.

Stinger

Based on the circumstances I outlined how can you support invading and occupying soverign Dafur which is not threat to anyone and has no WMD and is not harboring or supporting terrorist. I thought pre-emptive wars were illegal according to you.

Lachean

If they are of no threat, its not a pre-emptive war. We wouldn't be pre-empting any attack. You're speaking in contradiction.

Stinger

Why was it an unneccesary pre-emtive war?

Saddam was killing 10's of thousands, how many are allowed?

Then it's a civil war?

No it's based in the positions state about Iraq, it was not a threat, it had no WMD, it was contained, there were no terrorist.

Not according to those who opposed Iraq.

Excuse me when did we enter into an alliance with Dafur? One of mutal defense?

So how many American lives is Dafur worth? 3000?