Welcome to our official American Government blogging site. Our goal is to have thought provoking discussions about the influence our government has on issues that will affect our lives. I hope to develop your critical thinking and problem solving skills and encourage you to become aware of the world you live in.
yes it is in our best interest as a country to prevent future attacks and to do so by searching and finding potential threats and eliminating them before they take innocent American lives.
Yes, we must try to find those who threaten the american lives. If we do not there will be no one to stop them until the have already killed thousands of americans. The best thing that could happen is for the U.S. to stop the terrist with the least injuring and killing the people.
I think that we should provide for the common defense. However I think that this often stains the"innocence" of America. I do not believe that it should be up to people of America or other nations to decide what governments are good and what ones are bad. I think that countries should govern themselves how the people of that country see fit and other countries should stay out of it. I believe that there would be less wars if countries would stop trying to convert other countries governments to their own when the opposing country doesn't want to change. I do believe that if we are attacked we can't stand by and take it, but this goes back to the attacking country needing to leave us alone as well.
i see it both ways because i think we should attack them if they are a threat too us because i dont want another 9/11 and i dont think anyone else does either...but i dont think we should because that could piss their allies off making them attack us and that could be even worse then if we didnt attack the first country
i do think that we should have a good defense for terrorist attacks...but there is a different between defense and preemptive strikes..if we attack a country we should have a reason, we can't just go around bombing any and every country we feel threatened by..
I thank that we should try to prevent future attacks on America. If they already attack us the damage is already done so we just have to get back at them and try to change what already happened.
I think Americans should try to prevent terrorist attacks. We don't want a 9/11 repeat. But we need to be careful to in the respect that the whole world is watching our every move. We need to responsibly do this.
If thats what we have to do to keep from something happening like 9/11, striking against suspected terrorists is a something that we should do. but on the other hand also false accusations on innocent people is wrong and if we were in there position we wouldn't be to happy about it either.
In a way it isn't because we, as a country, could be totally off on who to actually strike against. Okay, lets see.. What if a "colored" man bombed the White House? Would we strike against all the "colored" men of the nation so we could prevent another attack? But then again, it could be the best thing for us to do due to an entire country itself being in a total uproar and walking around practically saying "Death To Americans" because we decided to protect ourselves from them.
Preemptive strike i feel like is the key term to the question as i read it. Should we attack a country that hasn't physically attacked us to provide for the common defense? I believe that if the information is there and is clearly reliable a preemptive strike is an understandable action for the American and World Defense. This does not mean we should barge into a country because they cross a line (Russia) or just because their leader is not compatible with our outlook on world affairs (Cuba, Colombia, Iran, former Iraq).
As for the video. Iran is entitled to nuclear energy. They have a vast population and if done right nuclear energy is a very reliable source of power. (France uses nuclear power for the majority of its energy needs.) I do think that if Iran denies routine and full inspections by world organizations such as the UN and NATO, they do not want uranium enrichment programs for their energy use, but for their military use. Iran is one of the biggest threats to World Peace, but we are just as responsible for conflict in the world. "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."- Jimi Hendrix
we need to keep a close watch on everyone cuz you never know whats going to happen since 9/11. You could be sitting by the person that wants to kill people next. When Americans see a problem then we should go in and do what we need to do to stop it.
We should prevent potential future threats only by the way we build up our security. By having a strong security, we will stop terrorists in their tracks preventing them from killing innocent people.
If we attack other people out of assumption, we will only be the terrorist in the situation. We mustn't be hasty in our decisions.
umm really we need a good defense strategy..of course, i mean really thats common sense...and if it's not necessary then why we need an army..and thats to protect our country's people, so it is necessary to have a defense an i think we actually need missles, nuclear warheads, and so on..just to use as a(ex.) say iran threatens us, we have a bigger and better bomb that will total exterminate the country and probably half the continent, but the only way we need to use the weapons is in a last resort, which will never be good. And i think we need to come up with a device that will eliminate the weapon in it's destination before it wipes out either of us(u.s.a vs whoever) and if it sends off bad gases it better to hurt 100's of people rather than millions, still a horrible thing to lose people, sorry jus how life is. So if ya lost what i was saying it is a necessity to have a well thought out defense.
i think we should provide for the common defense. but we are only providing defense to a certain point. i know we wouldnt be able to defend ourselves if we went under attack. Because we are so involved with what other countries are doing. i dont think we should go around and bomb when we dont know if the accusations are true.
I agree with Ben. "Preemptive" means to take a measure against something possible, anticipated, or feared. I don't agree with preemptive strikes just for the simple fact that we are acting on an assumption, with or without facts to back it up. On the defense side of things, I think it is important to have a stong military and an effective defense plan on the chance that something unethical on another countries behalf happens to us. But, we also must look at ourselves and see the problems that WE cause in the world and not JUST what everyone else does.
alright, i dont think we should we launch the preemptive strikes on "suspected" terrorists strong holds. now if we know that it is then sure, go ahead, do it, i would, but if we didnt then like brad said above, it could be like another 9/11 fiasco. but on the other hand i suppose if it really is a stronghold and we do nothing about it we could lose alot of lives on both sides, but if it isnt well, you know, bad things will happen. hmm quite a dilema, i say do it, protect america and her people. i think i just switched views in my own post! how awesome is that! yea!
I agree with what Jace has to say. (Jace I'm glad we agree on politics :) )... anyhow, the first example that comes to my mind is when a person gets sick. If I wake up with a sore throat in the morning, or something of the kind, usually a person would take a medication to help prevent it. That is kind of what the word Preemptive means to me. I don't think of strikes as an attack but I think of strikes as being a measure of caution to assure that the Americans will be safe. I don't think of strikes as being very drastic so that is why I would say that it is necessary to to take preemptive actions to prevent a possible attack.
Yes, I think it is in the best interest of America to launch preemptive strikes against suspected terrorist to keep America safe and prevent another 9/11 from happening. I also think we should be sure of the situation before it happens, and save as many innocent people as possible.
Yes it is in our best interest. We must protect ourselves. Like the old saying goes the best defense is a good offense. I believe that American lives are the most important and we must protect ourselves first and foremost.
yes i believe that we need to protect ourselves first and foremost. we can't just stand back and let terriest groups organize with us knowing about it. then if they attaced us the public would be complaining about how they should have took action and didn't. i believe that its a loose loose situation for the government. they will never be able to make everyone happy. people will always critisise each move the government makes good or bad. all and all the government will be held responsable for anything that happenes to the people we can't let there actions go unpunished.
yes i believe it is in our best interest to try and keep the country as safe as possible. But, i believe that we should only launch an attack on people that we know are for sure terrorists. Because whats the point of launching an attack and killing innocent people that were just suspected terrorists.
I do think that we need to prevent people from attacking us, but i also think we dont need to be starting anything with any other countries, because that could just start more problems.
yes i think it is in the best interest to blow up terrorist strongholds and eliminate possible future threats to not only our country but ohter unsuspecting countries, the fewer terrorist bases and bunkers there are the less we have to worry about
yes if it is to keep Americans safe. now if it is just hey i think that they are terrorist then dont. we need to investigate into these things more before we all go off half cocked.
Yes and the reason why is because of September 11th. If we don't try to find them and wait for them to emerge by then it is too late to do anything about it.
I think it would be in the best interest to strike who ever they thought might attack America. The president just wants to assure that his country and his people are safe in his country. He gave the people a promise to protect them and he just wants to make sure they are safe. It is his duty as a president. Like the Saying goes "with great power, come great responsibility".
I agree with Rory, Yes we do need to protect ourselves and attack anyone who is attacking us. But that doesn't mean we need to go out start stuff with other countries and cause problems.
With preemptive being stated in the question, I do believe that we need to take caution against the possibilty of more terrorist attacks. Although with saying that, we as a nation need to draw a line when searching out the possible terrorists. We don't need to be starting something that may lead to more than we intended.
preemptive strikes should only be done if we know for sure, but If they are "suspected" terrorist stronghold then no. We should not work on "Hunches", We should only act upon SOLID facts. if we KNOW something will happen then stop it. if we have a "hunch" then just keep a watchful eye but do not strike.
Unless that the attacking goverment has actual proof that they are a possible terrorist stronghold no i don't think there should be any type of attack.
This is hard to answer. I can see the situation both ways: if you do not launch strikes you are putting the American people in danger but if you do then you are taking the same action of other countries that you are battling and putting their citizens in danger. In my opinion it is best not to launch strikes. For example, if someone threatens to beat you up but never follows up on their plan and you go after them first, then you will have the blame. My answer also comes from the basis of the common good of people. I like to believe that people will do good, even though "good" in America may not be the same as in other countries. I guess my real problem is that if America already has weapons of mass destruction and if we say that preemptive strikes are correct then we should be ready to be attacked at any hour of any day.
I agree with Brennen, If we do strike another country we put not only our own soldier at risk (for we would not be dumb enough to use our own WMDs on a country that has terrorist *strongholds* they would not be afraid to retaliate.) We also put innocent citizens of said country at risk of death and injury. This is a risk and a very difficult question, Them or us? We shall protect ourselves, but we can not forgot our place in the world. We should lead by example.
It depends... yes in the sense that we can gather enough proof to say that they are for sure going to attack.. But no if we are just going off of little to no information! Its pretty much like a lose-lose situation.
Maybe instead of wasting time and money trying to find and eliminate potential threats through wars and violence we could try a different approach. We should make the effort to reach out to other countries that have difficulty in seeing that everyone is different and always will be different. We have our ways to do and believe things and they have theirs. It's all really as simple as that but the problem that seems to present itself over and over is that no one is willing to understand that with peace comes happiness.
This is a tough question, if we wait to see if we are being attacked then it is to late and if we attack a country that is not planning on attacking us then we just created a problem we are trying to prevent.
yes it would be in our best interest because it would put terrist to an all time low. it would save alot of americans lives. but i could start something much bigger in the future. but you must know for sure before you ataack them.
I believe that if we have enough information then we should, BUT how are we going to get this information? How are we going to know that the information that we are receiving is correct? This is a very difficult question to answer. I'm not about to say lets just sit back and see if they are going to attack, but i think that we should, go through all of our options and if preemptive strikes are the only reasonable way to protect our country, and its not going to coalesce a bigger problem, then expedite the preemptive strikes.
I believe that it is in the best interest for America to prevent attacks by stopping them before they start. By standing up for the lives of thousands of Americans, we are providing for the common defense. Although, I can also see it on the other side. It would not be good for America to go looking for a fight that might not even happen in the first place. We do not want another 9/11. That was a tragic day and this country has been changed forever. By watching the video with the Iranian president, we see that those that are capable of causing harm are out there and those type of people need to be stopped.
I think it is better to be safe than sorry so yeah, get them before they get us. but i believe there HAS to be about 99.9% true evidence before we attack back, because that could get really bad if we were wrong.
I think it all kind of depends. If we start invading other countries does that make us terrorist? But on the other hand we haven't had any attacks since 9 11 and we have invaded. Its all a matter of opinion I think.
i think that we should because of the fact that if we know that they are planning a attack we should beable to take out he threat that could kill people.
If our country wants to have the security it has now we need to search out these terrorist groups and elimate the potential problem before it gets any worse. How many times do we hear in history,"well we knew it was going to happen, but we failed to act"? the more I think about it and read others replies, what if the US gets a reputation that upsets them even more?
I think we have to do what is necessary to keep our country safe. However, I don't think we should just go invade a country if we don't have evidence of them planning an attack.
I agree with devin. If we start doing preemptive attacks, what are others going to think about us? will they consider us to be a threat? I think that if we are like that then maybe other countries who feel threatened by us may start launching attacks on us even if we don't threaten them. Honestly, i have a mixed opinion on this whole things
This is hard to answer. I think we need to have good knowledge and research before we just go attack a country because we don't want to start something we shouldn't have. I'm not opposed to preemptive strikes though, because we need to be looking out for our own country.
Brennen has a very good point! I don't know if I agree completely, but it is a good point, way to go bren.
I think that with enough, good, hard evidence preemptive striking is just. Although, I do not believe that by striking them first we are preventing future attacks, I think it will just start the attacking earlier than it would have been.
I agree with Keegan, you will have to choose your poison. If they strike first then we could suffer several casualties. If we strike first we could invoke more violence.
yes, its okay as long as we have evidence. it is in our best interest to protect ourselves first but we shouldn't get paranoid and go bomb every country either. we shouldn't be terrorists if we are fighting to keep away future terrorists.
I agree with Greg "Obama 08" Farris because they were not hundred perpercent sure that the terrorist would attrack america, if they were preemptive strikes, it seem that america provoked the fighting.by the way,i believe every country should have a good defense for themselves but not attack any countries that they suspected.
I think that we do need to prevent future attacks because if we don't then there will be more terriosts (sp?) attacks and that's something we don't need/want.. If we don't protect America then there will continue to be innocent lives taken. I also don't think we should just bomb some country because we don't "like them" we should have a better reason. . .
It should be in our best interest to find and destroy the threats to american people especially in large numbers. With terrorism on the rise we need to "beef up" our national security and search for the threats in Iraq.
80 comments:
yes it is in our best interest as a country to prevent future attacks and to do so by searching and finding potential threats and eliminating them before they take innocent American lives.
Yes, we must try to find those who threaten the american lives. If we do not there will be no one to stop them until the have already killed thousands of americans. The best thing that could happen is for the U.S. to stop the terrist with the least injuring and killing the people.
I think that we should provide for the common defense. However I think that this often stains the"innocence" of America. I do not believe that it should be up to people of America or other nations to decide what governments are good and what ones are bad. I think that countries should govern themselves how the people of that country see fit and other countries should stay out of it. I believe that there would be less wars if countries would stop trying to convert other countries governments to their own when the opposing country doesn't want to change. I do believe that if we are attacked we can't stand by and take it, but this goes back to the attacking country needing to leave us alone as well.
i see it both ways because i think we should attack them if they are a threat too us because i dont want another 9/11 and i dont think anyone else does either...but i dont think we should because that could piss their allies off making them attack us and that could be even worse then if we didnt attack the first country
i do think that we should have a good defense for terrorist attacks...but there is a different between defense and preemptive strikes..if we attack a country we should have a reason, we can't just go around bombing any and every country we feel threatened by..
I agree with greg"obama08"farris because we need a perfectly good reason to attack a country. waaaazuuup greg!
I thank that we should try to prevent future attacks on America. If they already attack us the damage is already done so we just have to get back at them and try to change what already happened.
I think Americans should try to prevent terrorist attacks. We don't want a 9/11 repeat. But we need to be careful to in the respect that the whole world is watching our every move. We need to responsibly do this.
If thats what we have to do to keep from something happening like 9/11, striking against suspected terrorists is a something that we should do. but on the other hand also false accusations on innocent people is wrong and if we were in there position we wouldn't be to happy about it either.
In a way it isn't because we, as a country, could be totally off on who to actually strike against. Okay, lets see.. What if a "colored" man bombed the White House? Would we strike against all the "colored" men of the nation so we could prevent another attack? But then again, it could be the best thing for us to do due to an entire country itself being in a total uproar and walking around practically saying "Death To Americans" because we decided to protect ourselves from them.
Preemptive strike i feel like is the key term to the question as i read it. Should we attack a country that hasn't physically attacked us to provide for the common defense? I believe that if the information is there and is clearly reliable a preemptive strike is an understandable action for the American and World Defense. This does not mean we should barge into a country because they cross a line (Russia) or just because their leader is not compatible with our outlook on world affairs (Cuba, Colombia, Iran, former Iraq).
As for the video. Iran is entitled to nuclear energy. They have a vast population and if done right nuclear energy is a very reliable source of power. (France uses nuclear power for the majority of its energy needs.) I do think that if Iran denies routine and full inspections by world organizations such as the UN and NATO, they do not want uranium enrichment programs for their energy use, but for their military use.
Iran is one of the biggest threats to World Peace, but we are just as responsible for conflict in the world. "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."- Jimi Hendrix
we need to keep a close watch on everyone cuz you never know whats going to happen since 9/11. You could be sitting by the person that wants to kill people next. When Americans see a problem then we should go in and do what we need to do to stop it.
We should prevent potential future threats only by the way we build up our security. By having a strong security, we will stop terrorists in their tracks preventing them from killing innocent people.
If we attack other people out of assumption, we will only be the terrorist in the situation. We mustn't be hasty in our decisions.
umm really we need a good defense strategy..of course, i mean really thats common sense...and if it's not necessary then why we need an army..and thats to protect our country's people, so it is necessary to have a defense an i think we actually need missles, nuclear warheads, and so on..just to use as a(ex.) say iran threatens us, we have a bigger and better bomb that will total exterminate the country and probably half the continent, but the only way we need to use the weapons is in a last resort, which will never be good. And i think we need to come up with a device that will eliminate the weapon in it's destination before it wipes out either of us(u.s.a vs whoever) and if it sends off bad gases it better to hurt 100's of people rather than millions, still a horrible thing to lose people, sorry jus how life is. So if ya lost what i was saying it is a necessity to have a well thought out defense.
i think we should provide for the common defense. but we are only providing defense to a certain point. i know we wouldnt be able to defend ourselves if we went under attack. Because we are so involved with what other countries are doing. i dont think we should go around and bomb when we dont know if the accusations are true.
I agree with Ben. "Preemptive" means to take a measure against something possible, anticipated, or feared. I don't agree with preemptive strikes just for the simple fact that we are acting on an assumption, with or without facts to back it up. On the defense side of things, I think it is important to have a stong military and an effective defense plan on the chance that something unethical on another countries behalf happens to us. But, we also must look at ourselves and see the problems that WE cause in the world and not JUST what everyone else does.
alright, i dont think we should we launch the preemptive strikes on "suspected" terrorists strong holds. now if we know that it is then sure, go ahead, do it, i would, but if we didnt then like brad said above, it could be like another 9/11 fiasco. but on the other hand i suppose if it really is a stronghold and we do nothing about it we could lose alot of lives on both sides, but if it isnt well, you know, bad things will happen. hmm quite a dilema, i say do it, protect america and her people. i think i just switched views in my own post! how awesome is that! yea!
I agree with what Jace has to say. (Jace I'm glad we agree on politics :) )... anyhow, the first example that comes to my mind is when a person gets sick. If I wake up with a sore throat in the morning, or something of the kind, usually a person would take a medication to help prevent it. That is kind of what the word Preemptive means to me. I don't think of strikes as an attack but I think of strikes as being a measure of caution to assure that the Americans will be safe. I don't think of strikes as being very drastic so that is why I would say that it is necessary to to take preemptive actions to prevent a possible attack.
Yes, I think it is in the best interest of America to launch preemptive strikes against suspected terrorist to keep America safe and prevent another 9/11 from happening. I also think we should be sure of the situation before it happens, and save as many innocent people as possible.
Yes it is in our best interest. We must protect ourselves. Like the old saying goes the best defense is a good offense. I believe that American lives are the most important and we must protect ourselves first and foremost.
yes i believe that we need to protect ourselves first and foremost. we can't just stand back and let terriest groups organize with us knowing about it. then if they attaced us the public would be complaining about how they should have took action and didn't. i believe that its a loose loose situation for the government. they will never be able to make everyone happy. people will always critisise each move the government makes good or bad. all and all the government will be held responsable for anything that happenes to the people we can't let there actions go unpunished.
yes i believe it is in our best interest to try and keep the country as safe as possible. But, i believe that we should only launch an attack on people that we know are for sure terrorists. Because whats the point of launching an attack and killing innocent people that were just suspected terrorists.
I do think that we need to prevent people from attacking us, but i also think we dont need to be starting anything with any other countries, because that could just start more problems.
yes i think it is in the best interest to blow up terrorist strongholds and eliminate possible future threats to not only our country but ohter unsuspecting countries, the fewer terrorist bases and bunkers there are the less we have to worry about
yes if it is to keep Americans safe. now if it is just hey i think that they are terrorist then dont. we need to investigate into these things more before we all go off half cocked.
Idk what half those words mean! If there shootin at us shoot back. Plain and simple.
Yes and the reason why is because of September 11th. If we don't try to find them and wait for them to emerge by then it is too late to do anything about it.
lets keep our country safe from terrorists. with a really good defense strategy. thats the best thing to do now.
I think it would be in the best interest to strike who ever they thought might attack America. The president just wants to assure that his country and his people are safe in his country. He gave the people a promise to protect them and he just wants to make sure they are safe. It is his duty as a president. Like the Saying goes "with great power, come great responsibility".
Everyone needs to remember with great power comes great responsibilty. Everybody can do the right thing. It is their choice to do that right thing.
I agree with Rory,
Yes we do need to protect ourselves and attack anyone who is attacking us. But that doesn't mean we need to go out start stuff with other countries and cause problems.
With preemptive being stated in the question, I do believe that we need to take caution against the possibilty of more terrorist attacks. Although with saying that, we as a nation need to draw a line when searching out the possible terrorists. We don't need to be starting something that may lead to more than we intended.
preemptive strikes should only be done if we know for sure, but If they are "suspected" terrorist stronghold then no. We should not work on "Hunches", We should only act upon SOLID facts. if we KNOW something will happen then stop it. if we have a "hunch" then just keep a watchful eye but do not strike.
I think we should watch everyone because you never know when something like 9/11 will happen again.
Unless that the attacking goverment has actual proof that they are a possible terrorist stronghold no i don't think there should be any type of attack.
This is hard to answer. I can see the situation both ways: if you do not launch strikes you are putting the American people in danger but if you do then you are taking the same action of other countries that you are battling and putting their citizens in danger. In my opinion it is best not to launch strikes. For example, if someone threatens to beat you up but never follows up on their plan and you go after them first, then you will have the blame. My answer also comes from the basis of the common good of people. I like to believe that people will do good, even though "good" in America may not be the same as in other countries. I guess my real problem is that if America already has weapons of mass destruction and if we say that preemptive strikes are correct then we should be ready to be attacked at any hour of any day.
If the other country hasn't directly attacked us then we shouldn't attack them. We should give them the benefit of the doubt.
I agree with Brennen, If we do strike another country we put not only our own soldier at risk (for we would not be dumb enough to use our own WMDs on a country that has terrorist *strongholds* they would not be afraid to retaliate.) We also put innocent citizens of said country at risk of death and injury. This is a risk and a very difficult question, Them or us? We shall protect ourselves, but we can not forgot our place in the world. We should lead by example.
It depends... yes in the sense that we can gather enough proof to say that they are for sure going to attack.. But no if we are just going off of little to no information! Its pretty much like a lose-lose situation.
Maybe instead of wasting time and money trying to find and eliminate potential threats through wars and violence we could try a different approach. We should make the effort to reach out to other countries that have difficulty in seeing that everyone is different and always will be different. We have our ways to do and believe things and they have theirs. It's all really as simple as that but the problem that seems to present itself over and over is that no one is willing to understand that with peace comes happiness.
I think we should because you have to let the enemy know if they mess with us something bad is going to happen.
This is a tough question, if we wait to see if we are being attacked then it is to late and if we attack a country that is not planning on attacking us then we just created a problem we are trying to prevent.
yes it would be in our best interest because it would put terrist to an all time low. it would save alot of americans lives. but i could start something much bigger in the future. but you must know for sure before you ataack them.
I believe that if we have enough information then we should, BUT how are we going to get this information? How are we going to know that the information that we are receiving is correct? This is a very difficult question to answer. I'm not about to say lets just sit back and see if they are going to attack, but i think that we should, go through all of our options and if preemptive strikes are the only reasonable way to protect our country, and its not going to coalesce a bigger problem, then expedite the preemptive strikes.
I meant to say CAUSE a bigger problem. My BIzzzAD
I believe that it is in the best interest for America to prevent attacks by stopping them before they start. By standing up for the lives of thousands of Americans, we are providing for the common defense. Although, I can also see it on the other side. It would not be good for America to go looking for a fight that might not even happen in the first place. We do not want another 9/11. That was a tragic day and this country has been changed forever. By watching the video with the Iranian president, we see that those that are capable of causing harm are out there and those type of people need to be stopped.
I think it is better to be safe than sorry so yeah, get them before they get us. but i believe there HAS to be about 99.9% true evidence before we attack back, because that could get really bad if we were wrong.
I think it all kind of depends. If we start invading other countries does that make us terrorist? But on the other hand we haven't had any attacks since 9 11 and we have invaded. Its all a matter of opinion I think.
i think that we should because of the fact that if we know that they are planning a attack we should beable to take out he threat that could kill people.
If our country wants to have the security it has now we need to search out these terrorist groups and elimate the potential problem before it gets any worse. How many times do we hear in history,"well we knew it was going to happen, but we failed to act"? the more I think about it and read others replies, what if the US gets a reputation that upsets them even more?
I think we have to do what is necessary to keep our country safe. However, I don't think we should just go invade a country if we don't have evidence of them planning an attack.
I agree with devin. If we start doing preemptive attacks, what are others going to think about us? will they consider us to be a threat? I think that if we are like that then maybe other countries who feel threatened by us may start launching attacks on us even if we don't threaten them. Honestly, i have a mixed opinion on this whole things
Yes, if we have STRONG intel. we should strike against them. I would much rather attack them then have them attack us.
This is hard to answer. I think we need to have good knowledge and research before we just go attack a country because we don't want to start something we shouldn't have. I'm not opposed to preemptive strikes though, because we need to be looking out for our own country.
Brennen has a very good point! I don't know if I agree completely, but it is a good point, way to go bren.
I think that with enough, good, hard evidence preemptive striking is just. Although, I do not believe that by striking them first we are preventing future attacks, I think it will just start the attacking earlier than it would have been.
I agree with Keegan, you will have to choose your poison. If they strike first then we could suffer several casualties. If we strike first we could invoke more violence.
yes, its okay as long as we have evidence. it is in our best interest to protect ourselves first but we shouldn't get paranoid and go bomb every country either. we shouldn't be terrorists if we are fighting to keep away future terrorists.
I agree with Greg "Obama 08" Farris because they were not hundred perpercent sure that the terrorist would attrack america, if they were preemptive strikes, it seem that america provoked the fighting.by the way,i believe every country should have a good defense for themselves but not attack any countries that they suspected.
I think that we do need to prevent future attacks because if we don't then there will be more terriosts (sp?) attacks and that's something we don't need/want.. If we don't protect America then there will continue to be innocent lives taken. I also don't think we should just bomb some country because we don't "like them" we should have a better reason. . .
dfjl;adksjfkladsjfkljsdalkfjkasdjfkljasd;lkfjsadf djsafkladjslkfjsadljflkdjfkljdslkfjdslkfjklsadjflkjsadlkfjdsklajfkljdsklfjadsklfjkldsfj dsfjdslkfjdklsjfk
]ds=jfkljds}lkfjdskl{Jflkds;jfjds0fkdsjfkl sdfjkldsjfklsadjlfjasdjflkadsjflksadjlkfjsdalkjfkladsjfkl adsfjkldsjf ldsjfklsdjflksdajflkdsjflksdjfkljsdlkfjdslkfjlksdajfkldsajfkl
adsjklfjdsalkfjklsdjfklsdajfkldsjklfjdsalkjflkdsajflks
djflkjsdlkf
jsdlfjlkds
jfklsadjfklsdjafkljfjewiofjasdoihovubasdavuijhfdsjvhudffjoisdnfuewcioneriogherjgiofdjjnvasff sdfjklsdjfklasdjf jgheriagierojf gjieroggdjerg8her09fjoiherjfoijgerhg0er gerjferjiohg7rehug7hyfo6iyf7u6io7aoihyv6 aryjf7ayfjaeoiju8faiu87 -rfo-haprio0ghl;ieprug9iuaryg7oga6foiuf7haioy7bhaerbvj8erhghygjeruhj7gfhyfu8hf9ioej-rfjio
-[-
opinions from jace,ryan, and keegan
I think that if we feel threatened we should do what we need to do in order to be safest. Get them before they get us.
It should be in our best interest to find and destroy the threats to american people especially in large numbers. With terrorism on the rise we need to "beef up" our national security and search for the threats in Iraq.
it may be of our best interest to search without accually knowing but i doubt that it is the right thing to do
Post a Comment