Who thinks we should attack our enemies pre emptively intead of waiting for another september 11?

Question

Who thinks we should attack our enemies pre emptively intead of waiting for another september 11?

Answer 1

What enemies, the only enemies we have is the ones we make up, if we kept our noses out of everybody  business we would not have any problems.

Answer 2

proactive is always better than reactive

Answer 3

September 11, 2001 was another Pearl Harbor, but that time it was not against our military.  The same things are at issue though.  What caused it?  And like Pearl Harbor, it was the same causes, the worldwide spread of a certain regime.  And we have stopped that.  So, the chances of another 9/11 happening are slim to none, in my opinion.

Answer 4

I think I understand "what" your trying to ask, but pre-emptively is a little ambiguous.  Al Quada we've been after for a long time and they have no single "point" at which to attack.   Iran SHOULD be out of the question for the immediate future, unless we decide to call Russia and Chinas bluff, on their warning. Not sure in this world today I would want to risk it, especially since Russia has already threatened military intervention against any NATO plan for a missile defense system.  I don't think they are kidding.

That really leaves no known "enemies" to surgically eliminate.   Given a little more time though and the "wrong" man as POTUS (Obama), that could change.

Answer 5

no one wants to wait for another 9-11, but we should pick smart leaders to help us prevent them. Obviously Bush was the wrong choice. I think either Obama or mcCain will do a million times better. You may not want to have a BBQ with them, but they are way smarter than Bush.. not saying much I know, after all a shoe is smarter than Bush

Answer 6

Alright. By asking that question you could also ask

"Should Iran attack Israel pre emptively instead of waiting for Israel to bomb them?"

When the US attack pre-emptively another country it has a lot of repercussions. It gives the justification for any other country - even Iran - to just say "ok this country are threatening to attack us so we will attack them first before they attack us".

People do not think about this but they should. You cannot say its ok for the US and Israel to attack pre-emptively another country and then say that no one else can. The US attacking pre-emptively is like opening the pandora box. Nothing good will come out of it. Only h**l.

Answer 7

To the moron penny one a pentagram is considered a sign of  protection. Second have you idiots found one once of proof to support a accusation like that, or atleast one that has not been proven false many times, or are you one of the ones that believes the photoshopped pictures of the planes having bombs on them. Which country are you saying we should attack. If its Iran its much more likely that isreal will take the first hit and dish out the last one once we take off the choke collar.

Answer 8

The people responsible for 9/11 work in the White House and the Pentagram...err, um excuse me - the Pentagon. None of our claimed enemies are a threat to America.

The people who are really hurting America are the ones putting chemtrails in our skies, sodium fluoride, barium and psychoactive drugs in out water, and allowing genetically modified foods and artificial sugars into our stores, mercury and aspartame in our vaccines.

Do some research on Elites, Bilderberg Group, NAU, CFR & Codex Alimentarius, and you will find out who the American peoples REAL enemies are!!!

Answer 9

pass, what give we will loose if we are at war with the world

Answer 10

i agree with charlie, penny is a moron!

our enemies are very real, same enemies we've had thru bush 2, clinton, bush1, reagan, carter, ford, and beyond.  reps and dems in that mix, boys and girls.

so, we could follow the clinton method and waiting, which didnt work out so well the first time (and dont blame bush for an attack 8 months into his term, he hadnt even unpacked his luggage yet).  or we could follow the bush plan of kicking their asses before they attack ours.

hmmm. i'll go with the bush plan.

Answer 11

Look! Another idiot who doesn't understand how attacking another country lacks in political simplicity.

Thank god you aren't the Secretary of Defense.

Answer 12

me,its the way you survive !!!!

Answer 13

we are, join the infowar

http://www.infowars.com

Answer 14

It is unconstitutional to attack a country that didn't strike first.