Jump to content

Pre-Emptive Warfare Vs National Defense Plan

Recommended Posts

Seems that some Americans have misconstrued the concept of pre-emptive warfare with the concept of national defense, so I, as a Soldier of the U.S. Army, will break it down for anyone who happens to read this.


Simply put, pre-emptive warfare is a paranoia-fueled plan that says "if we blow the crap out of those guys first, they'll never be able to touch us". What we have seen in history, however, is that, oftentimes, these nations that were the victims of pre-emptive warfare were often so pitifully harmless that they could never had hit their own neighbors with any real force, nevermind a superpower thousands of miles away!!! Furthermore, this will often weaken a nation's domestic apparatus, and in the case of the United States, I'm pretty surprised we've made it this far...oh wait, that couldn't have anything to do with the fact that we jail more of our citizens than any other nation in the world? Why bother worrying about dissent when you can slap a drug charge on somebody and destroy their credibility in a single stroke (Source of last statement: Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States of America)


National defense, on the other hand, is carefully watching to see if threats are incoming. With the 9/11 scenario, we know now that the President was infact aware of looming threats on our country, and despite some very clear warning signs (Bin Laden Determined To Strike Inside the U.S.!!!!!!), he continued to vacation (he's already set a record of 55 vacations during his first four years as President!!!!). National defense actually enhances the domestic apparatus of a nation and truly makes it greater, simply because of the fact that the focus is on the HOME, instead of a distant land. Look at Cuba, for example. This is a nation that can go through the same hurricanes America does and come out of it looking alot cleaner than New Orleans. I guess being deprived of resources and trading rights make you appreciate what little you've got and actually jump-starts you into creating a working plan that saves resources, infrastructure, and, above all, LIVES.


I agree that there is no sane argument that could convince me of total disarmament. However, there's no need to start blowing up our supposed enemies left and right just because we're afraid. That's what we have suburbanfamilies living in gated communities for. It would seem to the untrained social observer (Sociology class for three years in high school, mmm mmm mmm! Good food, too...) that the higher gun sales actually were the direct cause for the drop in violent crime. It certainly does seem plausible, except for the fact that, here and there, local communities were actually investing in their own little progressive campaigns, and actually worked to get their own people back on track.


Socialism Prevails!

Link to comment

'Tis a good point, Tag.


On the other hand, I am strongly against the outlawing of firearms. Conversely, I am also a strong proponent of tight firearm restrictions, a widespread education policy regarding firearms, to provide a counter-balance to the particularly virulent and somewhat disturbing slant that the NRA tends to broadcast (KKK descendants, tried and true), and a little prayer now and then (if you choose to believe in such things) that Americans can get away from the whole 'shoot first and ask questions later' mindset...as I said before, propagated by these subtely racist suburban gated communities...exceptions to this rule aside (I know my own country enough to know that there are no absolutes).


(Random Side Note: Emo rock is a stain on all that is glorious of true punk!!! Sid Vicious must be rolling over in his grave with this %#?! going on nowadays.)

Link to comment

Guns in peoples hands + Humman emotion = High gun crime.


But way to do it is to legalies weapons, under lisance. Howeverm how a deliberately large amount of buoracy around getting a lisance to the point where no one can be bothered to go through it to get a gun. Simple as.

Link to comment

(Random Side Note: Emo rock is a stain on all that is glorious of true punk!!! Sid Vicious must be rolling over in his grave with this %#?! going on nowadays.)

Too many emos about, if you ask me, especially in the city I am now, called Reading. But then I would rather take Joe Strummer as a proper punk than Sid Vicious, especially as Strummer's, and the Clash's, ideals fit mine more than the that of any of the Sex Pistols (their money-grabbing ways mean that I'm put off them - I buy music made by bands that are left wing and are punk, rather than anything else). By the by, MS, if you're interested, I saw the Unseen, along with Rancid a couple of weekends ago. A very good gig.


Back on topic (sort of).


After the hideous crimes of the Hungerford and Dunblane Massacres (which got rid of automatic rifles and handguns under British law respectively, Dunblane being the worst as it was a class of infants who were killed) I am more or less entirely against the ownership of guns without license, although, interestingly enough, my dad used to be part of a gun club and owned many fire-arms, bullets of which are still knocking around my house in Bristol.


The idea that private ownership of firearms negates dictatorial actions of the state or corporations is ludicrous. Owning guns gives you the freedom to die with a bullet in you rather than anything else. Tyrannical governments have been overthrown without the use of violence. Ask Ghandi.

Edited by Tagmatium Rules (see edit history)
Link to comment

And I also recall Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr's struggle for nonviolent and civil disobedience, Tag. But, being a pragmatic 'fringe member' of the Socialist Party USA, which advocates total disarmament (something I wouldn't mind if it was feasible worldwide), I understand that the People need to be able to stand tall and strike fear into any would-be fascist's heart if they ever get any glorious dreams of domination.


Conversely, we need to keep weapons of any sort out of the hands of loonies, like convicted felons, though I'm sure the Regime has plans to eventually twist gun laws into only allowing hate groups like the NRA or the Minuteman Project into being allowed to have firearms, wherein discrimination on the creed basis (which is supposedly outlawed under our Anti-Discrimination laws, though we've seen otherwise in the past five years!!!) would become a national policy.


I don't trust these Democrats; they don't have the boldness to break away from the center-right where people seem to feel comfortable and actually accomplish something in office. >.<


In regards to the music, Tag! I admired Sid Vicious for his attitude on things in general, and plus I got a chance to meet Johnny Rotten when he went on the Jimmy Kimmel show a while ago; he didn't give in to petty titles like being in the rock and roll hall of fame after the institute which pretty much governs it ignored them for 30 years. And I mentioned Sid because he's, well, dead nowadays. It was pretty tragic how he went along, and I feel that it's pretty bad he had to die like that, AND I feel that these Emo kids are practically dancing on his grave with their utter mockery of the hardcore underground scene.


Punk is a very personal thing to me. It's been a way of life for me. That and reggae, strangely enough. It's all about the struggle for me, especially when I kept hearing talk of a 'New World Order' in the first Bush's presidency...*shudder*.


HOWEVER, as you already know, I am also a big fan of The Clash. dance9bh.gif Funny how those people who keep trying to ban things actually end up making them more popular, i.e. that story I told you about the guy who got arrested for singing London Calling.


The Unseen and Rancid?!? Very swig. 2-thumbup.gif I got to see The Cockney Rejects in France when I was stationed in Germany last year. They really rocked the place down.


After appearing in court over Spungen's death, a television journalist briefly interviewed Vicious (the footage appears in The Filth and the Fury). He was shaking slightly and appeared sober, morose, and withdrawn:


Interviewer: Are you having fun at the moment?

Vicious: Are you kidding? No, I am not having fun at all.

(long pause)


Interviewer: Where would you like to be?

Vicious: Under the ground.

Interviewer: Are you serious?

Vicious: (quietly, and sad) Yeah.


Excerpt from interview of Sid after he appeared in court regarding the death of his unofficial better half Nancy Spungen! Heroin brings down the mightiest.


And one more thing: SCREW GREEN DAY, AVRIL, BLINK 182...none of them embody the spirit that is punk. They're hardly better than those Emo gits.

Link to comment

Guns are nothing more than tools. All tools can be used for good or bad. To ban the tool is not the answer, that is pandering to fear and restricts liberty. Ban the misuse of that tool and regulate the tool so it does not fall into the wrong hands. Besides, banning guns will not eliminate them. There may be some tragedy, but such is the price of freedom. Why not ban everything that might cause harm? Soon nothing will be left. Like I have said in the past, you are safest when locked in a cage and under guard. I'd rather not be caged.


Anyway, the whole pre-emptive warfare thing can tie right into my gun argument. Country X might cause harm to Country Y, but there is no predicting the future. Iraq, for instance, could not have hoped to touch the United States. The military there crumbled rapidly. That was the great threat? There are far more subtle ways to deal with enemies. Blasting away at other nations out of fear of "what ifs" will only lead to the downfall of the United States as a superpower. The nation may already have lost the influence needed to be called that anyway. From my perspective, the US is nothing more than a big bully at the moment and unfit to serve as a leader on the world stage. I don't want to think that way; I'd love to say my country is an outstanding beacon to the world of how things should be. But, as things are right now, I cannot do that.

Link to comment

If Country Y decides to take out Country X on grounds of "it might have hurt us", it could, feasibly, lead to other nations thinking to themselves "If it happened to X, will it happen to us?". Countries A, B and C, based on their own "What ifs", may decide to launch a pre-emptive strike against Country Y. I doubt this will happen to the USA, as it would probably have to be Continent A or something, unless China and Russia or India decided that the US was becoming too aggressive for its own good. The US is widely resented for its actions across the world at the moment, as I'm sure everyone knows. People don't take kindly being forced to do things against their own will, especially by hypocritical bullies. It's better to lead by example than using threats.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...