Well this has gotten way the hell off the topic what with talking about humanitarian appeals and other nonsense from sxecrow and a standard Republican party-line speech courtesy of DVPGSR.
Bone up on the reading comprehension skills, because you're twisting around my statements into words that were not used. I was very specific in my word choice. "It is not U.S. policy to strike first," is very different from "The Constitution does not permit the U.S. to strike first."

Think about the various conflicts we have been involved in during the 20th century. WWI started in Europe and we did not enter until our allies asked for help. We didn't enter WWII until after Pearl Harbor. The Korean War started when the North tried to invade the South. Vietnam started after the Gulf of Tonkin incident (the existence of which I would rather not debate). The first time we went to Iraq it was because they invaded Kuwait. The trend is there, and it's a well-known precedent. I'm not going to find some document to prove what is common knowledge.

 

And what's the commonality, Mike? The commonality between all those events is that American soldiers and civilians died for no reason because we were too busy trying to convince our citizens that war was necessary. What is wrong with striking first if we know that they other country will strike us eventually?

 

the only reason that that precedent was set is the mere fact that none of those wars/conflicts (with the exception of WW2) were a direct threat to american soil. as a matter of fact, if you take circumstances into account, in this situation that "precedent" you talk so highly of holds no weight. this is the first time in the nation's history that it has been faced with this type of issue. the fact of the matter is that ever since 9/11 this country has been treading on uncharted political territory. we are setting the precedent on this type of situation as we speak. there was no previous precedent.

 

Oh, so you do admit that law is different from policy..... however, in all of these conversations you speak as if it were law. See, policies change over time. They change to adapt to the climate and situations. I think you will agree at least our policies today must be different from our policies in 1875. So, having said that, your "policies" aren't worth a hill of beans. This is 2003, and times have changed. So have the policies.

 

Ditto. Same old banter from the same old people.

 

Mike...the name's Tom!!

 

Too busy trying to convince the citizens that war was necessary? What are you talking about? The only conflict where that has any applicability is Vietnam, and the point is that we went in after a supposed attack on American assets already happened.
9/11 is not Saddam Hussein, and don't spout some bullshit line about how you with your low level security clearance have some kind of inside information about how there really is some link between the two.
Quit trying to play semantic games, it's really not very challenging and doesn't really prove your point. 1875 seems to be a rather arbitrary number since the whole time this conversation has been about the 20th century. You're running around in circles trying to score some points on me or something and you haven't brought up any actual INFORMATION. Yeah, you need to do that sometimes when you're trying to prove something.
How about you quit stroking your ego for a moment and try to actually counter facts with facts?

 

now you're putting words in my mouth and flinging insults. you really have no clue what you're talking about here.

after 9/11 we are at war with terrorists. period. my point is, after 9/11 the rulebooks changed, but you must've missed that since you're sooo smart. the opposing force brought a new type of fighting to the table and we have to adapt and overcome. the same thing happened at the start of the civil war. the union armies were still fighting in columns while the confederate troops were using guerilla type tactics. it's simple common sense, but i guess that's something that waved bye bye to you long ago.

we went into iraq for two reasons. first the regime in power is known widely for it's use and support of terrorism and terrorist cells(that doesn not equate to al queda. al queda is just a name of a singular network that has been sensationalized by CNN). Secondly, we went in because that same regime that deals with terrorists has been developing chemical and biological weapons for years and up until only a few years ago had a thriving nuclear weapons program.

aparently our leaders who have acess to all of that classified data that you're hell bent on believing doesn't exist thought that we have enough to justify a first strike on iraq. which passed in the house and senate by a large margin i might add.

when the playbook is old and the plays don't work anymore you have to rewrite the playbook. it's that simple.

 

how about you do the same thing. your first strike precedent idea is pretty weak and besides that there's no real original thought that comes out in your arguments. you're like the han equivalent to Rosie O'Donnel.

 

No, the government was trying to get the country to go to war in WWII. Then Pearl Harbor happened. You didn't know that? The North's initial invasion on the South caused many US casualties. That's what I'm talking about. I wasn't really talking about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, as I believe that we provoked them first. I'm asking you this: why shouldn't we have made an exception in Iraq to your bullshit precedent if we knew that eventually they would strike us or Israel through terrorism or otherwise?