"Protecting our freedom overseas"

And be hated by everyone for that? People don't like Switzerland precisely because they don't choose sides.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

@Tom: More accurately, warmongers hate them for not choosing sides. The rest of us dont give a damn.

^ Tell that to anyone doing police work over Swiss bank accounts and assets. Historically, the Swiss have been hated because they deny everyone access to shut down assets and allow everyone to hide money there.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

And yet nobody has ever attacked them regardless.

edited 13th May '11 12:36:52 PM by Yej

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.

@Tom: The Swiss are hardly beyond reproach. Merely, their actions (hiding the assets of distasteful characters) are reproachful for different reasons.

You don't want criticism, avoid doing dickish things. Its really not that hard, yet apparently our glorious leaders can't work out basic human relations. Key word is don't be a moron and don't be a dick.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Again, we've been hit by a premptive strike once before. We didn't find it very pleasant, and some people still hold a grudge over it (read some of the bile-laced comments that happened right after Japan was hit by the recent earthquake). Think we're exempt for that kind of grudge-holding?

We're not.

And again, that isn't to say that conducting such a strike is without merit in all cases. It can have merit under certain circumstances.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

Are we all on the same page with regards to the definition of first-strike? There's a difference betting launching an attack if your enemy i massing its forces....and going to war just because some fucker looks at you wrong.

That wasn't supposed to be a pre-emptive strike. The declaration of war got delayed, IIRC.

edited 13th May '11 12:58:21 PM by Yej

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.

^^To be honest I was more thinking of the "looking at you wrong" thing. But thats because I've yet to see a case of people "massing their forces" against the US bar 9/11.

And about the Pearl Harbour thing... no, America is not immune to holding grudges. Are grudges any kind of good thing?

EDIT: Pearl Harbour not withstanding, but the Americans won that one. Rather completely.

edited 13th May '11 1:04:49 PM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

^^^ Actually not really. Same method, usually same result. Problem is, the "enemy massing forces" scenario results in more deaths and suffering since both parties are ready for conflict. (And waiting for the massing party to attack only leads to even more deaths)

edited 13th May '11 1:00:45 PM by MajorTom

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

I'm confused Tom, was that directed at me or someone else?

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Directed at Kino.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

Finland has one of the highest rate of men in military reserve per capita, is building more nuclear power and an officiaal of the previous cabinet said that Russia is our main threat, thus Russia has the right to pre-emptively bomb Finland, QED.

the statement above is false

^ It wouldn't be the first time...

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

The point was, using your rather wide interpretation of justifications for pre-emptive war, Russia could justify bombing a country whose military mostly exists out of tradition and is based on tactics that would work if the Russians ran across the border on foot, screaming and wearing brightly coloured uniforms with targets painted on, and not using unsportsmanlike tactics like missiles.

[ed.] And as for Winter War, officially the Soviet Union attacked in retaliation to Finnish artillery firing shots over the border in Mainila. Finnish history writers dissmiss the possibility, while Russian history still treat "the gunshots of Mainila" as a historical fact. Of course, there is no way to prove either side right or wrong at this pont.

edited 13th May '11 1:19:44 PM by JethroQWalrustitty

the statement above is false

EDIT:Ignore

edited 13th May '11 1:10:06 PM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

So, declare wear, then strike. Pretty sure there's rules on the books that state that much.

Getting into the ethics and reasons behind why you've declared war in the first place is another thing entirely.

EDIT: i kant spel

edited 13th May '11 1:17:16 PM by pvtnum11

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

[[quoteblock]Finland has one of the highest rate of men in military reserve per capita, is building more nuclear power and an officiaal of the previous cabinet said that Russia is our main threat, thus Russia has the right to pre-emptively bomb Finland, QED. [[/quoteblock]]

Winter War isn't good example, since back then we didn't even have "military" so to speak. More of a local guard with few stockpiled guns.

Try Continuation War. Yes, we were speaking to Germans because we knew Soviets would come again. Does this mean it was right for Soviet Union(not Russia, due to certain political reasons) to bring bombers and bomb Helsinki?

Amassing troops is not neccesary justification. Perhpas they are amassing troops because they feel threathened, thus prepare for possible attack. Which you proof correct.

Also, "Shelling of Mainila" is officialy by both finnish government and russian government considered to be False Flag Operation by soviets. This was confirmed by Mikhail Gorbachev in 1980s.

edited 13th May '11 1:46:08 PM by Mandemo

...During the siege of Leningrad and battle of Stalingrad? Surely they were a bit busy at the time. We were the agressors the second time around, and it was because of the bigger confilct south why we were able to go as deep as we did.

It's a bit late to debate the ethics of WWII. The scenario I ppresented was just a reducio ad absurdum oof Tom's view of pre-emptive war, and how other countries might use it. Hell, Russia used it in Georgia back in '08. The Georgian Governemnt was agressive towards South Ossetia, which was allied with Russia. The fact that South Ossetia was only recognized as a state by Russia is irrelevant, the US has gone to, and according to Major Tom should be able to go to, war over a lot less.

the statement above is false

Before Continuation War we got contact with germans. They pretty much presented us plan that said "We, you and romanians attack soviets" (Oh great irony of Romania).

Also, my point was that pre-emptive strike can't be justified with "massing troops" only. Troops can be massed for sake of defence, just as modern day policy of Finland. Army is not large because it plans to invade, it's large because it must hold the line.

Russia-Georgia war is good example, tough.

Not to derail, but I don't really understand why Finland needs as big an army as we have. I mean, only countries with higher reseve per capita are countries currently, or recently at war, like North Korea, Israel, Lebanon, Russia and Singapore.

the statement above is false

You know, when I came back from Afghan people wouldn't quit saying this to me, and I never really understood or cared much for it. I'm sure politicians would be more than happy to take a few photos with me and use the OP title as a buzzword to look patriotic, though at the end of the day they could give a shit if I got blown up by an IED tomorrow. At the end of the day crap like this is all just a meaningless buzzword.

Now, what is my interpretation of this phrase? We aren't protecting freedoms for the American people, but we're providing further safety. We're targets, plain and simple. Easily accessible targets for groups like Al Qaeda to target instead of running the gamut of security to get into our country and the years of planning to pull off a mass-scale terror attack. That much is certain.

However, is the net result a safer America? I'd like to think no, with the way that these two wars, one of which I feel was completely unjustified, have enraged the muslim world and created countless hordes of potential terrorists for decades to come.

TLDR: Americans are safer, because they'll just target soldiers overseas instead and we will damage their capabilities and kill them wherever we find them. But the duration of the actual threat is increased tenfold by the aggravation of the demographic normally recruited by terrorists as a result of us kicking over two Nation-Sized beehives.

^ Couldn't have said it better myself.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

Ding Ding Ding Ding.

We have a winner folks.

I remember someone saying "Bush (or more fairly, America) has been the best recruiting agent for Al Queda in history"

I don't want to turn this into a derail about Finland, but since Jethro seems to have misunderstood a couple of points, I'd just like to set the record straight for everyone.

Actually, that's not the case.

The Shelling of Mainila was a Soviet operation, and it's been confirmed. As mentioned previously, even the Soviet Union eventually confessed it.

That's because they had no choise; Finland had documents (that were investigated and declared genuine) that proved that Mannerheim (the supreme commander of the Finnish armed forces) had ordered all artillery to move so that they were not within firing distance to the USSR because the Finnish military command had a hunch that the Soviets might do something silly if our artillery was too close.

Here's Wikipedia:

and

As for the Continuation War:

Actually, we weren't; the Soviet Union started the Continuation War by bombing Helsinki without a declaration of war.

Sure, we were preparing for it and had agreed to assist the Germans in their invasion of the USSR, but the treaties we had signed at that point only guaranteed that we'd do our best to reclaim the land we'd lost in the Winter War and a bit more to serve as a buffer against Soviet counter-attacks.

So we didn't fire the first shots in the Continuation War, nor were we even entirely prepared for it.

edited 13th May '11 3:08:21 PM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.