http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/20/bush.national.security/index.html
That would be George W. Bush, the same man I saw on tv struggling, and failing, to make it through the saying, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”
Does it actually work that way? For example, if I shot somebody on the street because he looked like he could mug me, could I legitmately claim that I was exercising my right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively?
Am I the only one who sees the lack of logic here?
quoth pepperlandgirl:
Well you see, we’re acting on information that (the royal) We know, but cannot share with the American people in the interests of national security. If (the peon) we try to find out what (the royal) We know, we’re unpatriotic and possibly traitorous.
So sure we can attack someone who threatens us before they actually threaten us, so long as we know they’re threatening us before they threaten us. But we can’t tell ourselves what we know, what we’re planning, or what we’re doing, or we’ll throw ourselves in prison for betraying ourselves.
Such is the price of freedom.
If you are going to use a tactic, you pretty much give up the right to complain about it being used against you. This is a rather dicey step…
“Dicey” is putting it mildly. Hopefully Congress will not agree with it. Of course, if they do disagree, Bush will just go to the Supreme Court and my fear is that they might actually rule in his favor. We may end up with a small group of radical ideologues wielding the US military as they please.
PLEASE tell me that I’m being paranoid.
You’re being paranoid.
Why the Supreme Court, exactly? I’m not clear on how you are fearing that would work.
Speaking as the wife of someone who might actually have to go to Iraq, I am terrified. Granted, I knew Airman would have to go where he’s sent, and I have no problem with that; I just wish it were for something that’s been better thought out.
Lambs to slaughter, anyone?
Robin
You do realize that during Gulf War V1.0, it was safer to be on the front lines then it was to be at a base back in America?
Hey! Saddam might be building a nookuhler stockpile! hehehe I voted for Bush and I gotta’ say I did it for two reasons primarily (ok a lot more than two but those are not funny reasons)
- ALGORE is Big Coal’s bitch but pretends to be Nader’s environmental clone
and
- Dubya pronounces Nuclear just like Homer Simpson. I figure if we did get into a nuke tossin’ match I would at least get one last laugh when he announces it on the teevee.
Oh god. Let’s just hope that Chretien can be as stubborn on Iraq as he is on education and doing anything nice for the poor. This isn’t a game of Magic: The Gathering.
**
Israel did it and nobody really seems to have been bothered by it.
Would it be more logical to wait until after Iraq developed certain weapons and used them? We are talking about a country that has a recent history of using chemical weapons, targetting civilians for death, and invading their neighbors. Let’s not forget that they’ve also attempted to attain nuclear weapons and build up a large biological and chemical arsenal in the past 20 years.
Although I’m not exactly keen on attacking Iraq I find that I don’t really mind. I won’t lose any sleep if the United States decides to smash the Iraqi government.
Marc
Lambs to slaughter? I think this is a bit melodramatic. And this is coming from someone who may well wind up flying over Iraq. And I’m not sure what Iraq has to do with this new strategic policy. Things get dicey when you start factoring in India, China, Russia, North Korea, and their various potential alliances into this new equation. I’ll be much more nervous about gearing up for hostilities against China than I’ll be for Iraq. Especially if it’s a pre-emptive strike.
Chill out. China doesn’t have any oil.
“Certain weapons” - as opposed to, presumably, uncertain weapons. What exactly are these weapons cos I seem to have missed 'em ?
Do you mean the degraded beyond use chemicals or the non-existent nuclear capability and/or delivery system ?
Perhaps you’re basing your views on those piece-of-crap UNSCOM reports on which George seems to be relying ?
Or perhaps you actually believe George himself - at face value ?
The sad thing is, of all those options, the last is probably the most tenable.
When are the midterms ?
Y’know, I would buy this arguement…IF there was anything except the Shrub’s outraged sense of pride at work here. If there was any proof, we’d be leading an international coalition against Iraq, not weakly arguing “We will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively”
This was Japan’s exact justification for attacking Pearl Harbor, BTW.
You could argue that the World Trade Center/Pentagon attacks were pre-emptive strikes, given that we attacked Afghanistan shortly thereafter.
Oh really? How would you argue that, exactly? Were we at some point thinking about attacking or taking over Afghanistan before 9/11? [Not counting Clinton’s lame volley of TLAMs].
Sorry You’re Wrong - AGIP, BP and a few other multinationals like Exxon can show your not right there. If in doubt chick out AGIP’s on line deatails about oil production on the Yellow River.
Yes American Oil Interests have been looking to build an Oil Pipeline across Afghanistan for many years.
I was duscussing the very point of America’s Interest in Militarily taking over and controlling Afghanistan with Senior Staff of Oil Companies back in 1994/5. They seemed to know it was coming! I do belive that America has been looking to get access to the Worlds Largest Oil Reserves for some time!