Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

patrice

(47,992 posts)
13. I was just wondering about a distinction that was being made back in 2001-2 about
Thu May 3, 2012, 02:16 PM
May 2012

the differences in the intensity of the potential for First Strike: the "pre-emptive" status quo vs. new levels of escalation that Bush was bringing, which at that time were labeled "preventative" strike.

The point being that the historic acceptability of going to war to stop a specific high-probability instance of violence, a pre-emptive strike, was changing, under Cheney, into a new acceptability of going to war to prevent a wider range of undefined, more-OR-LESS probable, so-called possibilities of violence, with a preventative strike, which we established the acceptability of that in Shock and Awe.

Though any kind of First Strike policy poses intrinsic aggravations to any situation, I was just wondering where we are at in this situation.

They'll be condemned internationally, as there's no precedent for a ... oh, wait. Never mind. Scuba May 2012 #1
Great. WilliamPitt May 2012 #2
Russia knows that the missile defense shield is not about Iranian missiles. nt Poll_Blind May 2012 #3
That ought to wake somebody up. bemildred May 2012 #4
Rmoney the Visonary...? happerbolic May 2012 #5
So now we know lsewpershad May 2012 #6
That would be bad. mysuzuki2 May 2012 #7
The MIC would love nothing more than good old fashioned conventional war with Russia Hugabear May 2012 #8
Is that "Pre-emptive" - or "Preventative" as in the most recent e.g. of same, Shock and Awe ... patrice May 2012 #9
Preventatif in Russion = condom, I don't think their gonna send Trojans HereSince1628 May 2012 #12
I was just wondering about a distinction that was being made back in 2001-2 about patrice May 2012 #13
Here is an excerpt from Ria Novosti that mentions 'preemptive strikes'. Purveyor May 2012 #14
Wondering what all of that American money in FOREIGN banks might have to do with this decision, patrice May 2012 #10
Pre-empting pre-emption with pre-empt pre-emption through pre-emptive pre-emption pre-empts other Solly Mack May 2012 #11
MIC are having an orgasm YOHABLO May 2012 #15
NATO: Russia talk of pre-emptive strike unjustified bemildred May 2012 #16
They should team up with the Chinese have have them build their own shield may3rd May 2012 #17
NATO won't get far treating the Russians like a bunch of chumps. bemildred May 2012 #18
Russia threatens to take aim at NATO's missile defense shield bemildred May 2012 #19
I thought perhaps Russia would walk-back this rhetoric a bit but I guess not. eom Purveyor May 2012 #20
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Russia's Military Threate...»Reply #13