Do you support "wars of prevention"?

Do you support "wars of prevention"?

  • undecided

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • no

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
Duty Honor Country

Duty Honor Country

Active member
Until recently, I had no idea that the Allies had fought the Communists in limited campaign after WWI. The Allies were reluctant to support a full militay action, which doomed the campaign. Here is a web site for all those who do not know much on the subject

http://www.regiments.org/wars/ww1/russia.htm

The debate on "wars of prevention" rages on today. I believe this is a perfect example of what happens when the world doesn't act on a small problem before it gets big. If the Allies had succeeded, there would have been no USSR.
 
Unless the leader of this war of prevention is really smart and intelligent and has analysed almost everything before committing to go to war.

Wasn't Vietnam War, a war of prevention..? the results achieved wasn't impressive though.
 
bingle! recollect sep 11, except for military action , CIA NSA and FBI along with other forms of bureau must be pull together, and shoulder to shoulder to fight this kind of war, as Bush said we do not give their enough time to break even to sleep. But the war must be justice without any humbug.
 
Doody said:
Chocobo_Blitzer said:
Yes. But as long as the cost are relatively moderate.
Click to expand...

what costs would you consider in fighting that kind of war?
Click to expand...

I hate to put a price tag on it, but I don't know.... exceeding 5,000 or so fatalities wouldn't be in my favor. I guess it depends on exactly what you're preventing. If you're helping some banana republic get it's crap together, then no, leave them. If it's bringing democracy to babylon....

And as for the financial burden, I really don't know. I haven't a clue on what's high or low for the US/allies.
 
Seeing as how the "new" war is the war on terror the only way to fight this war is through preemptive attack. Waiting for a terrorist to attack us then go after him is pointless. The terrorist has already won. I won't even bring up Iraqi Freedom because that topic is open for debate. I wasn't privy to the intelligence information needed to decide whether a preemptive strike on Iraq was neccesary. And few other people are, so arguing over the subject without evidence to backup your case is pointless.
 
ah yes, one can argue if the war in Iraq was really needed.

My point is back in 1918, many could have argued the same thing. After 2 years, the Allies saw any military action in Russia to be useless and not needed. The Allies pulled out and let the communists rules Russia. A few decades later, the US and Europe would pay a heavy price for not acting in Russia.

Think for a minute. How would the world be different if the Cold War never existed? That would have been the benefit of a War of Prevention. The problem with a war of prevention, is that you do not know exactly what you are preventing. In 1920, people would have laughed at you if you told them that Russia would be a dominant figure in the world.
 
Doody said:
Think for a minute. How would the world be different if the Cold War never existed? That would have been the benefit of a War of Prevention. The problem with a war of prevention, is that you do not know exactly what you are preventing. In 1920, people would have laughed at you if you told them that Russia would be a dominant figure in the world.
Click to expand...

Without the Cold War we'd never be where we are today when it comes to technology and many other things. We wouldn't have landed on the moon, we wouldn't have nuclear power, we wouldn't have microwave ovens, we wouldn't have the internet. I realize it's a little off the subject, but my point was that without war we don't progress as a society. It's a bit ironic how the destruction of man can lead to its progression as a species.
 
YES

To quote Rush Limbaugh, "War is about killing people and breaking things." I have done it, war is not a lot of fun, and intellectually there is little to defend the practice. Notice I did not say nothing, I said "little," and it is a damn BIG little.

It is this simple, if they are willing to kill people and break things and you are not, they win. One ugly fact about human nature is: If someone will not fight for what is theirs, they lose it.
_________________
The three most important words, ATTITUDE, ATTITUDE, ATTITUDE. Jack Lynch, Member Class-29 http://sealstrike.com/jcroat
 
Who is to decide what need preventing? There's nobody wise enough to qualify. Not even the President of the United States IMHO.

Somebody already mentioned Vietnam as an example. The murder of Salvador Allende and the resulting Pinochet-rule in Chile could be used as another example of preventive action. The US didn't want another socialist country in their hemisphere so they backed the junta, in deposing an elected leader of another state. This led thousands of people to their early grave.

So my point being, we certainly don't have a good track record with this preventive action.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top