|
There are two sides to every story, or so they say. Each month, in PointCounterPoint, we will present the pros and cons of an issue without comment so that you, the reader, can make up your own mind. In this issue, we look at Pre-emption - the new US foreign policy on which the war in Iraq was based, the doctrine that claims the right for the US to wage war on any government it deems to be a threat to its security:
|
|
Pre-emption VS. Response
|
| Pro Pre-emption |
Pro-Response |
The world changed after 9/11. Because of the events of that terrible day, the US can no longer sit and wait for its enemies to strike at it. The only way to keep Americans safe is to attack them before they attack us. This is the surest way to guarantee our nation’s security.
|
War and conflict should only be used as a last resort. The doctrine of pre-emption leaves little room for any form of diplomacy or international co-operation, which puts this nation in the lonely position of being the world’s policeman – the very role George Bush campaigned against at the last election – a role that is difficult to shed, once it has been assumed.
|
Terrorism has become a worldwide problem. When dealing with an enemy who can be anywhere and strike at any time, the only way to combat such foes is to destroy their supply networks, cut off their income and take those who support them out of power.
|
This enemy is an enemy that was created by the aggressive foreign policies that serve US corporate and military interests, rather than the humanitarian needs of the parties involved. Terrorism will only be defeated permanently when different policies are adopted and adhered to by the US government. |
| The lack of will in America to take down terrorist organizations known to be a threat in the past is one of the reasons why 9/11 happened. |
9/11 was a terrible day - such actions are inexcusable. There are many things that can be done to deal with terrorists, but eliminating a future possible threat only makes more groups spring out of the woodwork. |
| The fact that the U.S. has changed their foreign policy, in and of itself, is a deterrent for future terrorists and the governments that support them. |
Once the U.S. starts down the warpath, there will always be an enemy, so where does it end? |
