Does any country have the RIGHT to attack another to PREVENT a possible attack?

[Pat/Rick]

Iran doesn't need venezuala. A couple of coverted freighters would do nicely, some of their missiles were reportedly launched from barges already. EMP? Hello 1880.
 
 If preemptive strikes were to be the norm then we should afford ALL nations the same courtesy. Why do we seemingly have more activety in iran than in n.korea? Why did we bomb libya and not egypt? Its all politically driven, not driven by national security. The same with involvment in yugoslavia. Political reasons.

[lgm270]

Let me see if I've got this straight; FDR and Churchill were evil monsters and Hitler was a benevolent pacifist.  And here I've been so misinformed for all these decades.

You have been misinformed for decades.  Hitler was fighting for Western Civilization against the Bolshevicks.  FDR and Chruchill were allied with the Bolshevicks, against whom we had to contend in 50 years of "cold war" that wasn't always so cold.

Read, Churchill's War and Hitler's War both by David Irving.  There are also other books which confirm that WW2 was a fraud, such as The Unnecessary War by Patrick Buchanan,  The Hoax of the TWentieth Century by Arthur Butz, and many more.

You might also read Mein Kampf.  One of the great cliches of WW2 is that Hitler announced his plan for world conquest in that book.  I actually read it in college  and was astonished to see that not only did he  not desire world conquest, but that he was a great admirer of the British Empire and his goal was an alliance with the British against the Bolsheviks.   He said that overseas colonies were not worth the effort because they would simply create friction with the British.  After Hitler subdued France in 1940, he allowed France to keep its colonies and to keep its Navy.   On July 3, 1940,  the French fleet resting  peacefully at its base in Algeria in the Mediterrean Sea,  was destroyed with great loss of life in a Pearl Harbor style surprise naval attack....by the British.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Mers-el-K%C3%A9bir

Hitler's Waffen SS grew from a German elite force to a multi-national, anti-Communist fighting force with divisions from Norway, Lativa, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium  and even a French unit,  The Charlemagne Division.   What an irony that by the end of the war, the French Charlemagne Division of the Waffen SS played a key roll in defending Berlin from the last great Soviet offensive.

Leon Degrelle was a Belgian national who volunteered for the Waffen SS to fight against the Bolshevicks and rose to be a General.  He survived the war and wrote prolifically about his experiences.  http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v03/v03p441_Degrelle.html


Sadly, most of the conventional wisdom of WW2 is lies and war time propaganda and the bogus slogans and lies that were used to justify that tragic  stampede to war are still being used today to try to stir up war against Iran and other countries.

[Pat/Rick]

TM, Chavez should have noted what happened to Qadaffi, going out on your own, defying the financial institution that way.............................

[Dixie Dude]

I agree, the Nazis hated communists, but WHY did they round up and kill Jews?  If they were Banksters as you call them, just the government taking over the banking system would solve that problem, no need to kill millions of people.  Hitler never persued peace or at least a cease fire with England.  He tried to bomb them into submission, and when he couldn't do that, call off the operation to invade.  If he had persued a cease fire, and got Italy out of Egypt with a cease fire with England, he could have concentrated all his efforts to conquering Russia and eliminating communism.  He became filled with arrogant pride and thought he could conquer more and got involved in a multifront war.  He was tied down in Egypt and Libya while bombing England and sinking her ships, and then invaded Russia.  He declared war on the US after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.  He could have left us alone.  What you guys have said doesn't jive with history. 

[lgm270]

I agree, the Nazis hated communists, but WHY did they round up and kill Jews?  If they were Banksters as you call them, just the government taking over the banking system would solve that problem, no need to kill millions of people.  Hitler never persued peace or at least a cease fire with England.  He tried to bomb them into submission, and when he couldn't do that, call off the operation to invade.  If he had persued a cease fire, and got Italy out of Egypt with a cease fire with England, he could have concentrated all his efforts to conquering Russia and eliminating communism.  He became filled with arrogant pride and thought he could conquer more and got involved in a multifront war.  He was tied down in Egypt and Libya while bombing England and sinking her ships, and then invaded Russia.  He declared war on the US after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.  He could have left us alone.  What you guys have said doesn't jive with history.

Hitler repeatedly submitted peace offers to Britain. Churchill ignored them all.  He wanted war.   The reasons are various and complicated, but that's the way it was.  Read Churchill's War by David Irving for starters.       http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p498_Okeefe.html  As far as declaring war against the US,  FDR already had ordered US ships to attack German ships on sight and the US Navy was assisting the British against the German sea forces.   In 1938, FDR called the British ambassador, Sir Ronald Lindsay,   into the White House and revealed his plan to go to war with Germany.  Lindsay reported this meeting in a written  report back to the Foreign Office which was only recently de-classified after decades.  FDR had long planned to go to war against Germany.  He was a war criminal by any definition of the term.  http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html

As for killing millions of Jews,  the Holocaust is a fraud.   Churchill wrote a 6 vol history of WW2 that does not contain a single reference to it.  Likewise, the memoirs of Esienhower and DeGaulle make no reference to it.   Apart from that,  the bolshevicks killed millions more Christians in ruling Russia. 

 

[mcwoodduck]

TM7,
WOW.
Where to start.
The British and American bombing raids started out on industry producing the German arms (rifles, cannon, planes, tanks, ammo, oil, and the componets of them)  During the City bombing campaigns leafletts were dropped in hopes of moving the people out of the cities before they destroyed them.  Once the German industry went undergound and became a cottage industry and the only way to shut down the factories was to starve it of labor.
Hitler was the one that started the bombing of the cities.  He started it with the battle of Briton and the luftwaffa vs the RAF and hte nightly raids on London.  Notot mention the V1 semi guided rockets and V2 ballistic missles that were bombing London long before the 8th airforce was bombing Europe with B17's and B24's.
The germans had the Junkers 88 bomber - it was similar to the American B25 or A 26.  A twin engine bomber that later was used as a bomber hunter with twin 37mm guns mounted to it.  The Germans did make the 4 engine Condor into a bomber and long range recon air craft to spot convoys for the U boats.  But they never made very many of them. 
Hitler only petitioned for peace after he was winning, he bullied chamberlin into giving him parts of Cz.  He worked out a plan with Stalin to annex 1/2 of Poland giving the other half to the USSR.  Working with Stalin does not seem like the Rabid anti Communist you make him out to be.  The invasion of Poland was the trigger to get the British and French to declare war on him and hopefully stop him.  On the beaches of Dunkirk, Hitler stopped to regroup, he thought he had the French and British armies cornered and was waiting for a formal surender, giving him time ot move troops for an assault.
This is the same man who ordered the subway tunnels be flooded killing many civilians hiding from the artillery.  He said since they failed him they did not deserve to live.
Nagasaki and Heroshima were war towns, big shipping ports, industrial cities, and miliatry marshalling points as well as a communication terminal for the Navy.  The reason they did not bomb Toyko is if they killed the leadership there was not going to be anyone to formally surender and stop the fighting.  In 1972 the last Japanese soldier surrendered in the Philipenes.  A Lt. that still fought until he was the last one.  They then had to find his old commander to order him to surender.  He later moved to the US.
As far as my history goes The US is the only country to use a nuke on an enemy.  Who is the other?
 
 

[powderman]

DIXIE DUDE, MCWOODDUCK. Good posts. POWDERMAN. 

[yellowtail3]

Hitler was the one that started the bombing of the cities.

True; see Guernica.

He started it with the battle of Briton and the luftwaffa vs the RAF and hte nightly raids on London.  Notot mention the V1 semi guided rockets and V2 ballistic missles that were bombing London long before the 8th airforce was bombing Europe with B17's and B24's.

Absolutely not true. The V1 was not used until June of 1944, shortly after D-Day; at that point, the USAAF and RAF had been regularly bombing German cities for a about a year. The V2 wasn't used until September 1944.

Nagasaki and Heroshima were war towns, big shipping ports, industrial cities, and miliatry marshalling points as well as a communication terminal for the Navy.  The reason they did not bomb Toyko is if they killed the leadership there was not going to be anyone to formally surender and stop the fighting.

Not true; the USAAF did bomb Tokyo, killing about 100,000 civilians in March of 1945 in that city. 

[gypsyman]

lgm270, in your post number 59, you state we should start shooting Mexican's that are invading us from the south. WOW, just for wanting to work for contractors at Home Depot's,cutting lawns, and selling alittle pot. Now, that's hard core. I think we could get along. I guess we could let the Muslims go ahead and kill their wives and daughters if they don't obey their sharia law. Their just property to them, just like a dog or cat. But, if Iran does cut loose with a nuke, we might just need a couple of those Mexicans to work our gardens, and pull our trucks and cars down the road, as oil might be in short supply, and very expensive. Don't want to work so hard, when we have all that free and cheap labor. And, we sure don't want to step on any Muslim toes, we all know how congenial they are to other people's beliefs and religions. gypsyman

[woodchukhntr]

Let me see if I've got this straight; FDR and Churchill were evil monsters and Hitler was a benevolent pacifist.  And here I've been so misinformed for all these decades.

Me too!  And I guess that the Jaapanese navy accidently bombed Pearl Harbor twice while on peaceful manouvers.  What about the peace-loving Muslims who were just practicing their flying skills on 9/11?

[magooch]

Let me see if I've got this straight; FDR and Churchill were evil monsters and Hitler was a benevolent pacifist.

I've not seen that position laid out anywhere in this thread... where did you find it?
 ]
 
If you've actually read any of the above posts, you might understand my post.  If you don't get that from Igm's posts, then I can't help you.

[mdwest]

Very thought provoking question.
Let's see,,,, neighbor stands in front of my house in the street with a gun  and says he is going to kill me.
I watch him load his gun.....
WHAT TO DO??
 1.I wait for him to take aim?
2. I wait for him to fire the first round?
3.I drop him as soon as I know his intentions before he can even load his weapon.
I choose option -- 3 -- !

Iffen ya do then the jury is gonna find ya guilty. There is no other verdict they can have. If everyone who blustered and threatened was shot based on that threat our prisons wouldn't have room for all the pot heads and other drug users.

not necessarily true Bill..
 
it really depends on the circumstances.. and the state that you are residing in..
 
Alabama (your home state) in particular has very strong laws that support ones right to self defense..
 
You have castle doctrine there which allows you to use deadly force even to defend property (as opposed to most states where you clearly have to be defending life or bodily harm.. Alabama even has a immunity from civil lawsuit clause in its castle doctrine.. the duty to retreat was also removed from Alabama castle doctrine in recent years..
 
Alabama deadly force law outside of the home is also very favorable by comparrison with most states.. In a nutshell, if you can articulate that you believed that someone was about to attack you and cause you death or severe bodily injury, and you can show that they had both the means and the intent to do so.. in Alabama you can use deadly force against them..
 
If someone calls you can says "im gonna kill you".. you cant shoot..
 
If you see someone walking down the street wearing a gun.. you cant shoot..
 
If someone is standing outside your house with a gun in plain view shouting "Im going to kill you".. and you can articulate that you really believe that was their intention.. Alabama law allows you to shoot...
 
 Section 13A-3-23 Use of force in defense of a person. (a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:
(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.
(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.
(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.
(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring.

[SHOOTALL]

Pman/ mcwoodduck....do you have any references to those Iranian threats to isreal or the USA??...I would like to review...thanx...
.
.
Meanwhile:
.
.
[embed=425,349]http://youtu.be/1nBYZJ6hEag[/embed]
 
.
.....TM7
.

Check the speech their leader gave at the UN last time he was here/there he said what you seen to think he hasn't. look it up.

[SHOOTALL]

mdwest...
Well generally a 'common' citizen is allowed to use enough force to stop or deter a physical threat...once stopped that citizen is not allowed to continue further violence. EG...you disarm an attacker and 5 minutes later you shoot him in the head with his gun or beat his brains out...that would be a criminal homicide.
So, by your defintion(s) or understanding, given Full Spectrum Dominance, Seven Wars Plan, dollar hegemony, various covert activities, various isreali policies, etc....do you think the arabs thought they were justified in a pre-emptive strike on 911..?  that is providing you accept the official 911 story did the arabs think a pre-emptive strike was justified....what did they think?  Apparently, they did.
 
..TM7

Had the Arab's as you call them have a country to protect then maybe but it seems those attacking did not fight under a flag but a religious cause . A religion that exist in America.

[Dixie Dude]

When and where did Israel use a nuclear weapon?  We think they tested two in the South Indian ocean far away from all shipping lanes because our spy satelites detected two different nuke explosions there.   

[mdwest]

mdwest...
Well generally a 'common' citizen is allowed to use enough force to stop or deter a physical threat...once stopped that citizen is not allowed to continue further violence. EG...you disarm an attacker and 5 minutes later you shoot him in the head with his gun or beat his brains out...that would be a criminal homicide.

no.. that is not the case at all..
 
every state sets its own laws and establishes its own definition of deadly force.. your definition is FAR off base for the vast majority of them..
 
most states establish the right to use deadly force whenever you or someone else is threatened with the loss of life or severe bodily injury..
 
there is no use of force continuim for private citizens as you describe where you use "enough" force to deter a deadly force threat.. it is pretty black and white in all 50 states.. you are either threatened with death or severe injury.. or you are not.. and you are either authorized to take life in self defense or you are not..
 
you are correct in your final statement that once the threat is gone, you do not have the right to continue an attack however..
 
End sum.. read state law and find these things out for yourself.. what was presented wasnt mdwest opinion, or mdwest law.. it is the law of the State of Alabama..
 
MANY states have passed castle doctrine laws in the recent past.. and many more have them being pushed through their state legislatures right now..
 
MANY states provide its citizens the right to self defense at the mere threat of violence, as long as the person defending themselves can articulate why they believed the person threatening their lives had the intent and means to do so immediately (again, calling someone on the phone and saying "I have a gun and I am coming over to kill you" doesnt allow you to hunt this person down and take out the threat.. but.. it that person shows up at your door step 10 minutes later brandishing a weapon.. guess what... in several states in the US, it is perfectly legal to shoot them on the spot.. as long as you honestly believed they were there to make good on the threat that was delivered..)
 

So, by your defintion(s) or understanding, given Full Spectrum Dominance, Seven Wars Plan, dollar hegemony, various covert activities, various isreali policies, etc....do you think the arabs thought they were justified in a pre-emptive strike on 911..?  that is providing you accept the official 911 story did the arabs think a pre-emptive strike was justified....what did they think?  Apparently, they did.
 
..TM7

again, not my definition.. what was posted is STATE LAW..
 
If we want to make this a 9/11 argument.. I thought you believed that 9/11 was a hoax and the arabs werent behind it?
 
I would agree with your final statement however.. apparently the arabs behind 9/11 believed that they were justified in attacking us pre-emtively.. just like they attacked the USS Cole, the US Embassy in Tanzania, the US Embassy in Kenya, the WTC in 1993, etc..etc..etc..
 
It should be clear that the people behind all of the attacks listed above do not represent 1 nation however.. they represent several, and are obviously bonded by something other than loyalties to a specific country...
 
 

[SHOOTALL]

Trying to say a private citizen defending himself is like a country defending its citizens is silly really. A citizen has the local , state and federal govt's to seek help from . IE jail time for the attacker. Resitution in some cases . In reality a country like America has only its ablity to defend and protect its citizens and intrest. There is little help in the short term aval.
So do I think we have a right to attack a country that is in the process of attacking us . Yes we do and it is an obligation more than a right. We are fools to allow an attack if it can be stopped. We also have an obligation to be sure of the comming attack on us is real and not fabricated.
Will mistakes be made , sure but then other countries should not rattle their sabers .

[mdwest]

Trying to say a private citizen defending himself is like a country defending its citizens is silly really. A citizen has the local , state and federal govt's to seek help from . IE jail time for the attacker. Resitution in some cases . In reality a country like America has only its ablity to defend and protect its citizens and intrest. There is little help in the short term aval.
So do I think we have a right to attack a country that is in the process of attacking us . Yes we do and it is an obligation more than a right. We are fools to allow an attack if it can be stopped. We also have an obligation to be sure of the comming attack on us is real and not fabricated.
Will mistakes be made , sure but then other countries should not rattle their sabers .

completely agree with this statement..
 
 

[mdwest]

MANY states provide its citizens the right to self defense at the mere threat of violence, as long as the person defending themselves can articulate why they believed the person threatening their lives had the intent and means to do so immediately (again, calling someone on the phone and saying "I have a gun and I am coming over to kill you" doesnt allow you to hunt this person down and take out the threat.. but.. it that person shows up at your door step 10 minutes later brandishing a weapon.. guess what... in several states in the US, it is perfectly legal to shoot them on the spot.. as long as you honestly believed they were there to make good on the threat that was delivered..)..If the guy has threatened you, and shows up at your home brandishing a weapon that threat seems imminent. If the guy purchases or buys some weapons that is something else.

this is exactly the scenario that was painted.. thereby rendering all the rest of the discussion without point.. it we agree that in Alabama (and other states with similar laws) that a guy showing up at your house brandishing a weapon and making threats of bodily harm is indeed imminent.. then Alabama law (as well as many other places) allow you to take the first shot.. there is no duty to retreat, and there is no requirement that the agressor take the first deadly action.. his presence alone combined with his verbal threats and the presence of a weapon allow you to defend yourself with deadly force..
 
Alabama law also provides protection from civil liability in the case of deadly force self defense situations.. as do many other states.. In short, if your self defense shooting was found to be criminally rightious.. you cannot be found liable civally..


 
 

[NWBear]

I personally do NOT feel that Iran is an "imminent threat".  Nor was Iraq or Afghanistan.  What about Pakistan, N. Korea and any number of former USSR countries? I think we should concentrate on defending our own country - as an example we are being INVADED from the south by enough illegal immigrants to actually change the demographic of the states closest to the invasion.  This is not racism, just fact.

[powderman]

I think we should concentrate on defending our own country - as an example we are being INVADED from the south by enough illegal immigrants to actually change the demographic of the states closest to the invasion.  This is not racism, just fact.

 
AMEN to that. POWDERMAN. 

[mdwest]

The point you wish not to admit in the greater connection,,,is saying that a country is prosuing WMD program, (turnsout without creditable proof in the case of Iracq) does not indicate an imminent threat. Willy nilly Pre-emptive defense is questionable based on fear mongering. The law tries to be rather specific on imminence and a creditable threat. We see the West/isreal trying to build a case against Iran using the same old tired formula employed for attacking Iracq.
 
..TM7

actually, I dont mind speaking to the larger example at all.. I simply spoke up initially to provide information to Bill related to what is actually legal, not only in his home state, but in many other states as well (similar laws are especially common in the South East and parts of the South West)..
 
My thoughts on a WMD program and imminent threat are pretty simple..
 
the mere pursuit of Chem/Bio/Nuke in and of itself presents no threat.. no different than a man walking down the street with a CCW and a 1911 strapped to his hip.. whether we agree with it or not, there are many reasons (to include defensive) that countries might pursue these types of weapons.. We certainly did/do..
 
that said.. when countries/groups intentionally sabre rattle, make threats, and then pursue WMD.. new considerations have to be made..
 
do they actually have the ability to do anything with them that could be a threat to the US? (If Mali for example were to pursue chemical weapons.. do they have the ability to strike the US with them?.. are they a threat to us? or a threat to any of our allies?)...
 
do they have the intent to use them against the US or its allies? (Have they made public statements or is there intelligence to support that they are gearing up for, or intend on striking the US or providing these weapons to groups that intend on striking the US or its allies?
 
etc...
 
I could care less if Bolivia decides it wants to own a couple of artillery pieces that have the capability to throw chemical weapons.. and could care less if they want to procure a couple of hundred rounds of ammo for them that are chem tipped.. their business.. no possible effect on the US at all..
 
I imagine Paraguay and Peru might have some concerns though..
 
If Bolivia decides it wants to own a couple of medium or long range ballistic missiles.. and a couple of nukes to go along with them.. based on some of the commentary that has come out of their federal government over the past few years.. I am probably going to take a little bit harder look at them.. and start to figure out just how much of a threat they really are (or are not)..
 
If during that look I find out that the reason Boliva wants those nukes is so that they can sell them to Al Q.. or they want them because they have decided that the "Great Satan" to the north is someone they want to play games with.. would I have a problem with a pre-emptive strike to remove that threat?
 
Nope.. not at all... wouldnt loose a minutes sleep over it...
 
If I find that Boliva wants them because they percieve Brazil as a regional threat and their intent (and capability) is defensive..
 
I could care less.. what they are doing has no effect on the USA and presents no threat to our people.. let them build... and then continue to monitor the situation to ensure that things dont change (they dont become a threat.. if at some time they do.. then remove the ability for them to be one..)...
 

[SHOOTALL]

Shootall..the reason the analogy of a person defending himself compared to a countries 'pre-emptive' warfare is pretty valid is because of the quality of 'imminent' danger or threat. "Imminent threat' is key here...various states address this concept. If you are in 'imminent' threat of loss of life, or a 3rd party is., you may act accordingly (including deadly force) to dispell the threat..You can not perform criminal acts in your actions..Mdwest tried to dispell my simple analogy, but after the imminent threat is dispelled you can not commit murder 5 minutes later. Your use of force will be weighed in comparison to the actual threat...use your use of force is more justified in your home or property or place of business, but say in a bar you may be expected to retreat. EG...you shoot somebody trying to break into your home...5 minutes later you shoot him in the head--the courts would have a big problem with this if they found out. The key to using deadly force to dispell a threat is imminence....each of ushas to decide if Iran building nuclear weapons is a 'imminent threat' to us...TM7
 

mdwest...
Well generally a 'common' citizen is allowed to use enough force to stop or deter a physical threat...once stopped that citizen is not allowed to continue further violence. EG...you disarm an attacker and 5 minutes later you shoot him in the head with his gun or beat his brains out...that would be a criminal homicide.

no.. that is not the case at all.. Actually, it is the case and a consideration...you can not perform criminal acts in defense of yourself, property, or 3rd parties, the threat must be immiment..civil courts will have definiton of self defense meeting the level of the threat often.
 
every state sets its own laws and establishes its own definition of deadly force.. your definition is FAR off base for the vast majority of them..Hardly. States do vary but  overall the defense of self-defense is available to a defendant faced with the intentional torts of civil assault and battery, as long as there is sufficient evidence in support of that defense. This defense is also available in lawsuits where the plaintiff claims it was the defendant's negligence that caused his or her injuries because the defendant used more force than was reasonably necessary under the circumstances.  This defense will prevail only if the jury (or judge in a non-jury trial) concludes that the defendant acted reasonably under the circumstances with respect to (1) the need to use force and (2) the degree of force actually used.

most states establish the right to use deadly force whenever you or someone else is threatened with the loss of life or severe bodily injury.. yes, we know that...self-defense is a god given right, but be prepared to defend yourself if a) the threat did not appear imminent, b) you committed criminal acts in your defense, c) you used excessive force relative to the threat and about 20 other considerations. Yes, different states look at the specifics of this stuff  soemwhat differently.
 
there is no use of force continuim for private citizens as you describe where you use "enough" force to deter a deadly force threat.. it is pretty black and white in all 50 states.. you are either threatened with death or severe injury.. or you are not.. and you are either authorized to take life in self defense or you are not.. Disagree, threat must be imminent,  you must prove the threat is life threatening, often depending on state your force might have to be in relation to the threat, and alot depends on location--you may be expected to retreat.
 
you are correct in your final statement that once the threat is gone, you do not have the right to continue an attack however..Yes, no criminal acts at any time dispelling a threat..
 
End sum.. read state law and find these things out for yourself.. what was presented wasnt mdwest opinion, or mdwest law.. it is the law of the State of Alabama..
 
MANY states have passed castle doctrine laws in the recent past.. and many more have them being pushed through their state legislatures right now..As I said dispelling of threat at home has become a special condition...those threats better be imminent if you act.
 
MANY states provide its citizens the right to self defense at the mere threat of violence, as long as the person defending themselves can articulate why they believed the person threatening their lives had the intent and means to do so immediately (again, calling someone on the phone and saying "I have a gun and I am coming over to kill you" doesnt allow you to hunt this person down and take out the threat.. but.. it that person shows up at your door step 10 minutes later brandishing a weapon.. guess what... in several states in the US, it is perfectly legal to shoot them on the spot.. as long as you honestly believed they were there to make good on the threat that was delivered..)..If the guy has threatened you, and shows up at your home brandishing a weapon that threat seems imminent. If the guy purchases or buys some weapons that is something else.

So, by your defintion(s) or understanding, given Full Spectrum Dominance, Seven Wars Plan, dollar hegemony, various covert activities, various isreali policies, etc....do you think the arabs thought they were justified in a pre-emptive strike on 911..?  that is providing you accept the official 911 story did the arabs think a pre-emptive strike was justified....what did they think?  Apparently, they did.
 
..TM7

 
again, not my definition.. what was posted is STATE LAW..
 
If we want to make this a 9/11 argument.. I thought you believed that 9/11 was a hoax and the arabs werent behind it? Yes, I KNOW it was a hoax...we have a forum to discuss this topic....I was speaking hypothetically.
 
I would agree with your final statement however.. apparently the arabs behind 9/11 believed that they were justified in attacking us pre-emtively.. just like they attacked the USS Cole, the US Embassy in Tanzania, the US Embassy in Kenya, the WTC in 1993, etc..etc..etc..
Apparently, if they did these attacks, but Cui bono? How they benefitted I don't know. Usually, psychopaths are far more cunning then just run of the mil nutters.
 
It should be clear that the people behind all of the attacks listed above do not represent 1 nation however.. they represent several, and are obviously bonded by something other than loyalties to a specific country...?? reckon so.
 
..TM7

Really its not , If we shoot another country and are strong enough it will have little effect on us as a country where most of what you say about an individual shooting someone is true , at least in some countries but not all.

[scootrd]

Well said Heather. Thomas Jefferson would have been proud of you. Now prepare to be attacked by the kool-aide sipping government propaganda believers. Know that the great majority of educated young people are with you and some of us old folks.

It seems to have been planned since at least 2001 and most likely before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBYv3HGyd7c&feature=player_embedded

With Regards to Jefferson on these subjects ...

"If ever I was gratified with the possession of power, and of the confidence of those who had entrusted me with it, it was on that occasion when I was enabled to use both for the prevention of war, towards which the torrent of passion here was directed almost irresistibly, and when not another person in the United States, less supported by authority and favor, could have resisted it." --Thomas Jefferson to James Maury, 1812

"I do not believe war the most certain means of enforcing principles. Those peaceable coercions which are in the power of every nation, if undertaken in concert and in time of peace, are more likely to produce the desired effect." --Thomas Jefferson to Robert Livingston, 1801

"Peace... has been our principle, peace is our interest, and peace has saved to the world this only plant of free and rational government now existing in it... However, therefore, we may have been reproached for pursuing our Quaker system, time will affix the stamp of wisdom on it, and the happiness and prosperity of our citizens will attest its merit. And this, I believe, is the only legitimate object of government and the first duty of governors, and not the slaughter of men and devastation of the countries placed under their care in pursuit of a fantastic honor unallied to virtue or happiness; or in gratification of the angry passions or the pride of administrators excited by personal incidents in which their citizens have no concern." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko.

"Peace with all nations, and the right which that gives us with respect to all nations, are our object." --Thomas Jefferson to C. W. F. Dumas, 1793

"Nothing but the failure of every peaceable mode of redress, nothing but dire necessity, should force us from the path of peace which would be our wisest pursuit, to embark in the broils and contentions of Europe and become a satellite to any power there." --Thomas Jefferson to William Dunbar, 1803

Peace is our most important interest, and a recovery from debt." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1801.

"To cherish and maintain the rights and liberties of our citizens and to ward from them the burthens, the miseries and the crimes of war, by a just and friendly conduct towards all nations [are] among the most obvious and important duties of those to whom the management of their public interests have been confided." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to John Thomas, 1807

"My affections were first for my own country, and then, generally, for all mankind; and nothing but minds placing themselves above the passions, in the functionaries of this country, could have preserved us from the war to which... provocations have been constantly urging us." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Law, 1811

with regards to Israel specifically,

Thomas Jefferson never ever wanted us to be entangled in other countries issues. There are many many Jefferson quotes that supports his position regarding.

"We ask for peace and justice from all nations; and we will remain uprightly neutral in fact." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1806

With regards to Iran specifically:

"By nature's law, man is at peace with man till some aggression is committed, which, by the same law, authorizes one to destroy another as his enemy." --Thomas Jefferson to Edmond C. Genet, 1793. 

Aside from Ahmadinejad's nut Job rantings he has not made any formal aggressive moves. What most seem to forget Ahmadinejad is just a figurehead . In a theocratic society. Ali Khamenei is the Leader of Iran.

"I could go on .. but one gets the point . Jefferson believed in securing our own borders, remain neutral in other countries conflicts. Promote the use of embargo's if necessary and apply diplomacy. Only as a last resort would we ever enter into war and never as the aggressor , only as a defender who was transgressed against.

There is an additional lost letter that has been found written from Jefferson to Elijah Boardman in July 1801 I believe that further explains his positions  and separates rhetoric from true acts. I will look in my library for a copy and see if I can find and post.

Ron Paul has it right !!!

Semper Fi

[Gary G]

Great post Scootrd.
Jefferson, as well as most of our founding fathers except maybe Hamilton, were well acquainted with the many European wars. They understood that war meant national debt and a lower living standard for a free people. Jefferson was well educated in the enlightenment authors of the day and that the rights of men are not from kings or leaders of nations, but from a higher being endowed upon all men equally. He realized that war is poverty for the people as well as the loss of liberty and freedom, and in most cases could be avoided. The Constitution provides that only congress can declare war, and congress, at that time, before the constitution was abrogated, consisted of the representatives of the people (and that they, the people, had to pay for wars before the advent of the Federal Reserve, who prints the money and thereby destroys the middle class).


And now we have the neocon war hawks who would kill everyone who talks different than they, considering nothing of the well being of their neighbors and fellow citizens. They are not conservatives. This is a benchmark of Fascism.

[Dixie Dude]

Several years ago, Brazil and Argentina were persuing nuclear weapons.  The US diplomats talked to both countries and asked, who is your enemy?  You are not enemines with each other.  Both are larger than their neighbors.  They both gave up the idea, they didn't need them.  Now Iran, and North Korea are another story.  Both have threatened their neighbors and the US.  The Saudi's might be interested in nukes if Iran gets them to counter the Iranian threat, maybe even Turkey. 
 
No one answered when and where Israel used Nukes.  Only two that I know of was against Japan and it was us that used them. 

[BBF]

................
...................................
Will mistakes be made , sure but then other countries should not rattle their sabers .

There are a number of countries that have "been Saber rattled at" by the USA. Using your logic they are entitled to strike first.   Geeez...................that's not really what you had in mind. That logic doesn't apply to them, Right?

[SHOOTALL]

Like I said in reality a "country" is only able to protect itself if it has the strength. If not it often must cower in the face of saber rattling. And yes that is exactly how I see it working.

[BBF]

Well then don't be surprised, outraged or shocked if they don't play by your rules.After all: All is fair in War and...............

[SHOOTALL]

Well then don't be surprised, outraged or shocked if they don't play by your rules.After all: All is fair in War and...............

With all respect , open your eyes , 9/11 and such are not by the rules. They have paid dearly for that attack. We have been strong enough to repel most attacks and punish those who made the succesful attacks so far.