The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Has any president since James Garfield promised not to use nukes to change the mind of people who wanted to keep the nation on the silver standard ever publicly ruled out the possibility of using nuclear weapons in a conflict?

Not to the best of my ability to recall. And yet everybody gets all excited every few years with the "president won't rule out nukes; reveals self as monstrous maniac!" headlines. You can find the same headlines about Clinton, Bush, and Reagan. I don't know how far back it could go because I don't know when peole developed the silly idea that the president might actually publicly reject a specific military tactic ahead of time.

I would be strongly opposed to the use of any nuclear weapon to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I also would be opposed to the president saying ahead of time that he wouldn't use them.

Gotta love a voice of reason-

[innerSpaceman]

Actually, I would adore a president who said flat out that the U.S. would only use nuclear weapons in retaliation for a nuclear strike.

As means of aggression or unmatched use of force, weapons that have the potential to destroy all higher forms of life on earth should be taken off the table by the president of the United States.

[BarTopDancer]

I wonder what the reaction here would be if another country took a "premeptive strike" against us.

Oh wait...

[Alex]

Probably about the same as the last time it happened.

[BarTopDancer]

Why don't people see that what we're doing to other countries in the name of a "premeptive strike" is pretty much what was done to us.

Can you really blame them for wanting to cause us harm? What was our reaction? Let's bomb em! We should be thankful that so far the countries involved don't have the ability to get a bomb to us on their own. If they did we'd be playing a different ball game and maybe we'd stop acting like such a bully.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Why don't people see that what we're doing to other countries in the name of a "premeptive strike" is pretty much what was done to us.

While I'm still against the concept of preemptive strikes, there's a big difference between directly targeting a civilian building and military action against another military (which is what the war in Iraq started as).

[scaeagles]

Other countries? Which other countries?

Afghanistan wasn't a preemptive strike. They were assisting the terrorists who planned and funded 9/11.

I can see the argument that Iraq was a preemptive strike, but I do not subscribe to it myself, as the reality is that Iraq repeatedly violated cease fire agreements from the first gulf war.

Where else have we preemptively struck? We haven't done anything to Iran. We haven't done anything to Syria.

I do blame them for wanting to cause us harm. I do not think we are a bully. We deposed a terrorist sympathetic government in Afghanistan, and deposed the leader of a country who wouldn't abide by agreements he made after he was removed from Kuwait.

What were we doing prior to 9/11 that should in any way been seen as excusing 9/11? Supporting Isreal?

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

What were we doing prior to 9/11 that should in any way been seen as excusing 9/11? Supporting Isreal?

Surely you jest?

How far back do you wanna go in the history of U.S. blowback?

[scaeagles]

I don't jest. You are saying that we deserved the attacks of 9/11 and that they were justified? Sorry, but I do not subscribe to that school of thought.

[Not Afraid]

I don't think any attacks are justified, but I can certainly see why our world actions and bully presence got us into a situation where it did happen.