[quote=Awesome!;1057754502]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iriemon 
I think you are missing the point. Yes Germany or any country could use the "proactive making assumptions now doctrine" to present a legitimate case, but would it hold up? What were the consequences of Germany doing that. Assumptions and pro-active steps need to have credibility and some in the international body do not accept the U.S. invading Iraq, but our government was and is making the assumption that Saddam will always be trying to go nuclear, and so is Iran which the world community understands, but some do not want to do anything about it now militarily because they feel that other means to deal with the threat can be used. I disagree.
SO NOW THE RULE IS: You state this as though the rules are changing. Of course the Bush doctrine has changed the rules. How else are we to combat moron leaders that are trying to go nuclear? I guess you could wait until they invade or attack another nation, but I don't agree and know that we need to use other means to combat the threat before it gets out of hand. We can sit on our arse like the Roosevelt Admin, and the world community did in the 1930's which led to millions of deaths worldwide, or we can change the rules.
Was Israel justified in sending Jets to destroy Saddams nuclear facility? Or was Israel to let Saddam build this reactor? Under your rule, your reasoning, Saddam should of been allowed to build this reactor because he didn't invade anyone, so are assumptions needed in situations like this or do we stick to your black and white model of waiting until we are invaded or attacked?
|
I think you are missing the point. Yes Germany or any country could use the "proactive making assumptions now doctrine" to present a legitimate case, but would it hold up? What were the consequences of Germany doing that. Assumptions and pro-active steps need to have credibility and some in the international body do not accept the U.S. invading Iraq, but our government was and is making the assumption that Saddam will always be trying to go nuclear, and so is Iran which the world community understands, but some do not want to do anything about it now militarily because they feel that other means to deal with the threat can be used. I disagree.
SO NOW THE RULE IS: You state this as though the rules are changing. Of course the Bush doctrine has changed the rules. How else are we to combat moron leaders that are trying to go nuclear? I guess you could wait until they invade or attack another nation, but I don't agree and know that we need to use other means to combat the threat before it gets out of hand. We can sit on our arse like the Roosevelt Admin, and the world community did in the 1930's which led to millions of deaths worldwide, or we can change the rules.
Was Israel justified in sending Jets to destroy Saddams nuclear facility? Or was Israel to let Saddam build this reactor? Under your rule, your reasoning, Saddam should of been allowed to build this reactor because he didn't invade anyone, so are assumptions needed in situations like this or do we stick to your black and white model of waiting until we are invaded or attacked?
Re: Could this generation stomach the carnage of world war 2? 
Linear Mode
Main
Extras
