Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="injuredwyvern" data-source="post: 1656206" data-attributes="member: 17830">Is it better to strike a potential enemy first, before they can muster their forces to attack you?     This question proves a bit difficult because there are undoubtedly conditional variables to any given situation.  In general terms though it seems to me that the phrasing of the question itself provides an answer.  Using the word "potential" indicates that the opposing party may not already be an enemy.  Attacking preemptively will create a definite enemy.  As long as there is a chance for peace, I believe that all must strive to make it so.  In such a situation, there are many other possibilities likely to be available, such as fortifing your own defenses (if you truly fear attack), or arranging for diplomatic discussions with your antagonist.       On a more personal note, I feel that I would be more willing to withstand an attack and be certain that I understand who is my enemy and why they feel the need to attack me.  I have been in a situation in the past that required me to make such a decision.  More specifically, I was forced to choose whether to place myself in a relatively defenseless position, or attack those who may or may not be my enemies.  I chose to put myself in a defenseless position and be certain I understood the situation.  Alas, I was not alone in my experience, and several of those I traveled with chose the other option - attack first.  Knowing what I know now, I am completely confident that I had made the right decision at the time, but the situation played out differently and hence I stand before you now.  This experience, as well as countless other experiences are what have led me to believe the position I have just defended.  It is NOT better to attack a potential enemy first.</blockquote>

Verification