Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I wish. I meant 2 personalities in my writing style on these boards, for some reason disagreeing about something here (if we even do) is different since it's based more on critical thinkng and open-mindedness and not so much on emotionally driven hatred for a particular current President or war. (or Bible)
So how do you guys know that the song doesn't refer to Hendrix?
Some possibilities:American Pie was penned in 1971Another line from American Pie:"Now for ten years we've been on our own"Holly and Valens in 1959Hendrix died in 1970
Agree with stumpfoot that it is referring to Buddy Holly and the others. One of the lyrics in American Pie “this'll be the day that I die” may be a direct reference to Buddy Holly's song “That'll Be The Day”Plus they died in February. From the lyrics again"But february made me shiverWith every paper I?d deliver.Bad news on the doorstep;I couldn?t take one more step."
You know what's cool? The professor suggested (not required) that whatever topic we choose, to take the opposing view. He said doing that will teach us how to be critical thinkers.
That's sort of what my whole argument is based on. As the #1 wordl power, the United states has an obligation to do what the UN has failed to do, be the enforcer of international law.(note to Phid: No I do not have 2 personalities. It's just my writing style varies depending on the audience. ;D)
I've only read certain parts myself so far. But what you said about #6 appears to be the point the author is mostly addressing.
Very often, arguments for more time for diplomacy,sanctions, political subversion, and so forth, are really efforts intended to stall a move to military action, rather than serious claims for prospective success. (page viii)
And then he presents each argument with his own arguments
Preemption and prevention are only feasible if intelligence is immaculate.Robert R. Tomes insists that ?[P]reemption, to be an effective component of nationalsecurity strategy, requires exquisite intelligence. It requires deep insights into adversary capabilities and interests, accurate indicators and warning, prescient decision making capabilities, and superior battlefield intelligence.?This is plausible, but overstated. It is agreeable to have exquisite intelligence, but Tomes is in danger of setting the standard so high that it cannot be met. This monograph suggests, contra Tomes, that for preemption and prevention one has to settle for intelligence that is good enough. Good enough, that is, to enable military force to do the job it is assigned.(page 36)
To wage preventive war, even to endorse it as policy, sets a highly undesirable precedent that encourages the resort to force in international relations.The justification is international security. As the principal guardian or sheriff of world order, albeit admittedly self-appointed, the United States must allow itself the policy and strategy to fulfil its unique responsibilities. (page 43)
"The justification is international security" IMO is a very powerful statement.
…but then again, maybe not.Interesting findThe Implications of Preemptive and Preventive War Doctrines: A Reconsiderationhttp://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB789.pdfAbstract:
Preemption and prevention are different concepts. To preempt is to attempt to strike first against an enemy who is in the process of preparing, or is actually launching, an attack against you. Preemption is not controversial. The decision for war has been taken out of your hands. Prevention, however, is a decision to wage war, or conduct a strike, so as to prevent a far more dangerous context maturing in the future. To decide on preventive war is to elect to prevent a particular, very threatening strategic future from coming to pass. Despite much legal argument, there is no legal difficulty with either concept. The UN Charter, with its recognition of the inherent right of sovereign states to self-defense, as generally interpreted around the world does not require a victim or target state to suffer the first blow. To strike preventively in self-defense is legal, though it will usually be controversial. Preventive war is simply war, distinguishable only by its timing, and possibly its motivation.
I'm going to have to watch it again, because it was hard to follow the names and I don't remember a real lot (saw it about a year ago). Eric Bana(sp?) is a very good (and highly underrated) actor and from what I remember he did a good job with the ethical issues his character faced.
Are these robots setoff by, attracted to, or looking for keywords? That's what I meant by pattern. Sometimes there's only 2 or 3 of them here, sometimes 14 or 15. Why is that? There was a lot of robot chatter this evening it appeared.
Thanks, Phid. I wasn't planning on doing a paper about international law, just specifically this topic. (which of course I'll have to research international law)
You'll want to look for precedent - or past similar situations
According to many, what we did was never done before - using military force pre-emptively - The Bush Doctrine. That's what seemed to cause all the "problems" with everyone.I'll check out that jus cogens more.
