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.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Common Defense
Is it in the best interest of America to launch preemptive strikes against suspected terrorist strongholds?
ONLY IF THERE IS SUFFICIENT AMOUNTS OF EVIDENCE AND IF THERE IS AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE WELLBEING OF THE TROOPS, AMERICAN CITIZENS OR TO ANY INNOCENT CIVILIANS
i think it would be ok if the strike target was a terrorists strong hold like you said, they all should be removed from this earth they are no good to anyone.
It's tough to say what is "sufficient evidence". Regardless of what evidence we have, we can't just go out on a whim and attack people, that's retarded. Like toby said, just because a country CAN attack, doesn't mean they will. We need to chill out and let countries be countries.
For terrorists within our own country law enforcement can act but only if they have sufficient information to rise to the level of probable cause; then law enforcement can arrest these terrorists. For a terrorist in other countries only the country they're in has the right do deal with them, then we ( U.S.) don't have a right to impose our beliefs or our wishes on these other countries. The U.S. always has a right to defend ourselves if attacked.
I think if the terrorist are in the United States then yes we should. But if it is in another country I don't think it is our place to just got launch strikes on them unless they are or have attacked us, If they are not putting us( Americans) in danger then I don't think its our right to attack them.
If there is enough significant evidence I believe it better for the country to attack terrorists on their soil. It is much easier, more efficient, and less costly to American lives to attack the terrorists before they come to our soil and attack us.
I think if we have enough proof or evidence its alright. If they are in America then we need to pay more attention but if they are in another country, leave it alone for now. We have to remember we are only one country and can't do everything. We need to be careful who we mess with and how we handle things.
I mostly believe that it is not moral to launch preemptive strikes in other countries without that country's permission, but there is an exception to every rule. I wouldn't say that the United States should NEVER do so. The evidence would have to be overwhelming.
Yes I believe that if there is evidence that these terrorists have the ability to attack the american people then it is in our best interests and is right to attack them before they attack us.
I think that if the terrorist is in our country we should attack. But we need to find out where the terrorist is at if it's in a different country. We need to get rid of the terrorists before they endanger our country.
I believe that it is in the best interest of the American people to strike terrorist strongholds before they can cause any harm to innocent people. I'm not talking about invading entire countries that can't defend themselves, I'm just talking about attacking strongholds, terrorist camps, and hideouts.
I think we should attack at the hint of a threat or evidence found against terrosim. It may not be in the best interests of some people but protection of the public is always the highest priority.
This question really depends. I don't think we should be able to do this unless there is enough evidence to prove that we are going to be attacked. Otherwise, no, because it may just make things worse than they were going to be.
No. I don't think we have the right to attack a group of people or country without them having done something wrong. We cannot start acting like terrorist ourselves. Not doing preemptive attacks has already proven to be the best solution in the Cuba war.
sometimes you need to protect yourself from potentially dangerous others, and that means that sometimes the best defense is a good offense. not to be creating more problems but removing them before they get in our way.
36 comments:
if we have enough strong proof that that were plotting to attack us then yes we should
ONLY IF THERE IS SUFFICIENT AMOUNTS OF EVIDENCE AND IF THERE IS AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE WELLBEING OF THE TROOPS, AMERICAN CITIZENS OR TO ANY INNOCENT CIVILIANS
i think it would be ok if the strike target was a terrorists strong hold like you said, they all should be removed from this earth they are no good to anyone.
we should not strike before a country can even defend itself. it is just immoral. just the fact that a country can attack you doesn't mean they will.
It's tough to say what is "sufficient evidence". Regardless of what evidence we have, we can't just go out on a whim and attack people, that's retarded. Like toby said, just because a country CAN attack, doesn't mean they will. We need to chill out and let countries be countries.
For terrorists within our own country law enforcement can act but only if they have sufficient information to rise to the level of probable cause; then law enforcement can arrest these terrorists. For a terrorist in other countries only the country they're in has the right do deal with them, then we ( U.S.) don't have a right to impose our beliefs or our wishes on these other countries. The U.S. always has a right to defend ourselves if attacked.
I think if the terrorist are in the United States then yes we should. But if it is in another country I don't think it is our place to just got launch strikes on them unless they are or have attacked us, If they are not putting us( Americans) in danger then I don't think its our right to attack them.
Yes it is in the best interest of America to fight terrorist before the damage is done. Terrorist not COUNTRIES
yes, but like everyone else has said we need a good amount of evidence before we attack because we need good reasons to.
If there is enough significant evidence I believe it better for the country to attack terrorists on their soil. It is much easier, more efficient, and less costly to American lives to attack the terrorists before they come to our soil and attack us.
We should protect our country but we cant just go in search someone because we think they are terrorists we need to be positive
No, we shouldn't attack anyone without probable cause. If someone says or dose something that put us in danger then we should act on it.
If there is evidence of the suspected group or person I believe that the United States should take action and respond to the suspected terrorists.
I think it is okay if they have made threats and there is enough proof and are harming the usa or the troops
go for it. but we need to remember that we can't help every country in the world by eliminating terrorism, world hunger, and all that jazz.
Only if we're 100% sure the group can back up what they say. Otherwise your just making more enemies which in turn will double our threats
yes its in the best interest to protect the U.S from terrorism before they attack us.
only if there is evidence
I think if we have enough proof or evidence its alright. If they are in America then we need to pay more attention but if they are in another country, leave it alone for now. We have to remember we are only one country and can't do everything. We need to be careful who we mess with and how we handle things.
I mostly believe that it is not moral to launch preemptive strikes in other countries without that country's permission, but there is an exception to every rule. I wouldn't say that the United States should NEVER do so. The evidence would have to be overwhelming.
i think that we should if there is enough proof that it is going to happen
Yes I believe that if there is evidence that these terrorists have the ability to attack the american people then it is in our best interests and is right to attack them before they attack us.
If there is enough proof that they think they need to find more information. I think they should be able to do what is needed.
If there is a suspect of a terrorist i think that it should be watched carefully and then we should step in if it gets bad
I'm with everyone else there needs to be strong evidence against them.
I think that if the terrorist is in our country we should attack. But we need to find out where the terrorist is at if it's in a different country. We need to get rid of the terrorists before they endanger our country.
not unless we know that they are planning an attack on us and that we are ready for an unexpected attack
if we have evidence we can go in and attack but if we don't have full proof then wait till we do.
I believe that it is in the best interest of the American people to strike terrorist strongholds before they can cause any harm to innocent people. I'm not talking about invading entire countries that can't defend themselves, I'm just talking about attacking strongholds, terrorist camps, and hideouts.
I think we should attack at the hint of a threat or evidence found against terrosim. It may not be in the best interests of some people but protection of the public is always the highest priority.
No! there are many sexist and racist people still in the U.S. today.
This question really depends. I don't think we should be able to do this unless there is enough evidence to prove that we are going to be attacked. Otherwise, no, because it may just make things worse than they were going to be.
No. I don't think we have the right to attack a group of people or country without them having done something wrong. We cannot start acting like terrorist ourselves. Not doing preemptive attacks has already proven to be the best solution in the Cuba war.
I don't think that we as a nation should at any point in time have a strike for fear of getting attacked once more
sometimes you need to protect yourself from potentially dangerous others, and that means that sometimes the best defense is a good offense. not to be creating more problems but removing them before they get in our way.
Post a Comment