No, it's not. You are just repeating what new sources and editorial blogs have written in an effort to divide the Republican party. Going back to the Reagan administration, Ron Paul was not and has not been a leader in the Republican party for a reason. Even then he did not exemplify the standard Conservative. I say this because I know that you are using him as a basis for what "Republicans were/are". You want to hear a real Republican speak, check out the following video.
Ronald Reagan on Appeasement (video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec63B...eature=related
Conservatism: Preemptive War
http://conservativeinc.com/conservatism-preemptive-war/
Everyday is frightening for leftists because everyday they see evil neocons lurking around the corner plotting a preemptive attack on some country 95% of Americans could not pinpoint on a map. To the liberals preemptive war is seen as this new tactic developed by (Jew [read it with a hiss]) conservatives so that they can control more of the world’s oil supply. I guess no one on the left got the memo that the Kennedy’s are staying drowned in vodka thanks to oil dividends. Oh well, someone should tell them though. Back to the article.
Preemptive war is a perfectly legitimate military option. Wouldn’t the world be a better place if someone had attacked Germany in the mid 1930s? How about if someone had gone into Russia in the early 20th century and deposed the communists? The Israelis have done it taking out nuclear facilities the most recent of which was in Syria. And it just makes tactical sense.
Let’s say you know that a nation is going to attack you. You could always send diplomats but they rarely succeed at more then sewing their seed in different countries. Or you could strike before the other guy does. That’s what I would do.
This doesn’t mean go all in with a conventional war. But it does mean you can wage a war against your enemy in other ways. Sabotage, support of dissident groups, or other methods of undermining their regime. Perhaps the greatest preemptive war fought in recent times was Reagan’s preemptive flourish against the Soviets. If he had not used the threat of war against the Evil Empire it would not have fallen. So, in essence, we won that preemptive war without ever firing a single bullet (don’t bring up the proxy wars right now).
In fact I think that the best thing to do is to be proactive about conflicts. Without being proactive about countries like Iran we risk being thrown into a much worse war with them later on. Our only option is to face the problem right now before things can get worse.
Fight Iran with other weapons then bombs and bullets though. Don’t fight them with sanctions because they only serve to piss off the country and increase their standing among their neighbors and other sympathetic (emphasis on pathetic) parties. Fight them in a more nuanced way.
Support trade unions in the country. Do what Reagan did and create a strike fund for the workers. Have them do nationwide strikes and cripple the government.
Increase our own military spending. Go through with the missile shield in Eastern Europe. Hell, extend that shield to Israel while we’re at it. Make it so that they can’t just lob bombs and win a war. This will also force them to spend a hell of a lot more money developing their own weapons. Bleed them dry.
Make sure that the people in Iran can get access to real news. Get them access to radio, television, satellite, and internet sources of information. Make it so that everyone in the country knows the truth about what their country is doing and the truth about what is going outside the country as well.
Freeze the accounts of those in the leadership, free up our businesses to make deals with Iranian businesses, and seriously fund opposition groups. Freezing the assets of the ruling class may not be plausible but slowly draining their bank accounts over a couple of decades is doable. Give the money to the opposition groups. And letting our business guys do business with their business guys will foster goodwill, improve our economy and the economy of the Iranians who oppose Ahmadinejad’s crew, and will give us some badly needed human intelligence in the country.
And there needs to be our own special ops guys in that country. When the bad guys try to strong arm people who support change we can send them a message. Blow up one of the thugs’ houses, kill one of them, basically make it known that if you try to hurt one of our friends we’re going to hurt you back ten times harder.
Proactively and preemptively attacking Iran and other hostile nations in this manner would help end conventional wars. Doing it this way would help put the impetus on the Iranian citizens who are the ones who should want change the most. Help them start and complete the revolution they can’t do on their own. I think if we gave the citizens of countries like Iran, North Korea, and Syria a lot of support and a push in the right direction they will eventually take over.
It is working in Iraq now. I think Iraq is probably the most extreme case of preemptive war available because we precluded ourselves from waging an asymmetrical war against that thugocracy. But we have come a lot further then I thought we would have by this point. At minimum I thought it was going to take a generation before Sunni and Shiite could work together on such a large scale in Iraq. Now they are working together against their shared enemy in al Qaeda.
But many have died when they didn’t have to. If we had been actively undermining Saddam’s regime all along we might not have had to go into Iraq when we did. There’s no doubt in my mind that he would have responded to our attempts in his historically brutal fashion. All that means is that we would have to have been more brutal to his regime killing and threatening them in more brutal ways.
I truly think that these tactics would work to bring about change in the most repressive regimes. It would require our bravest and finest men and women (women are some of the best spies, you figure it out) to do some brutal things to other “human” beings. If you don’t have the stomach for this then just don’t look. Preemptively attacking a hostile nation in this asymmetric fashion could prevent a much larger war in the future and that is what is so important and so necessary about preemptive war.
Originally Posted by spywizard
Reply With Quote
( i dont wanna give no dem this election tho, **** that haha)
