That’s Marx Brothers humor for ya. 
But let me join minty and Olentzero in asking for a cite, and AZCowboy in pointing out that the dodge with uniforms would be meaningless if we didn’t invade, which means it’s a pretty silly justification for invading.
Canada has lots of uranium, and getting it is supposed to be the hard part. They have a number of nucular development facilities, including operating reactors with the cutesy name “Candu”, which even now they’re trying to sell to other countries, not all of whom we normally invite over for poker.
They’re not with Bush in this war, therefore they’re against us. Clearly Canada represents an imminent threat to US security and must be dealt with. You moosehumpers had better buckle up.
Well, that’s the Bush doctrine, isn’t it?
You’ve been sent back in time to August, 1939; Would you preemptively strike Germany?
And if Canada can produce one Celine Dion, it’s only a matter of time before they can threaten us with hundreds of them!
Al Qaeda may have declared a jihad, but the Taliban did not. The Taliban supported them, and gave them refuge, allowing Al Qaeda to plan and execute their attacks. At no point was Afghanistan itself considered a threat, but the actions of that government played a significant part in the 9-11 attack.
The Taliban should have been removed from power before 9-11 (if only for their brutal treatment of people), and Saddam should be removed before his gov’t plays a part in another attack.
even sven, I’d love to see an International Organization do something like that. Unfortunately, the only I.O. around, the UN, cannot even manage to enforce it’s own resolutions.
Severian: welcome to the SDMB. I think our enforcing no-tank zones over the eastern and western thirds of Germany would have sufficed.
You’ve been sent forward in time to June, 2027; would you pre-emptively strike Lithuania?
Or, better yet, you’ve been sent back in time to October, 1962; would you pre-emptively strike Cuba?
Two points: you’ve not proven that the same result will happen in the current situation as did happen in 1939; there are times when diplomacy is the stronger and wiser course of action.
RTF:
I’m 100% positive it is. If your interpretation were correct than we would indeed need to be attacking Canada right now according to the “Bush Doctrine.”
Since Bush is not saying or taking any of the actions that would follow from your literal semantic interpretation of those quotes in a vacumm, it’s pretty clearly not what Bush means.
Why pretend at confusion over this issue? Do you not understand what Bush has been saying all along. Surely you can disagree with him, but why pretend his stance is other than what it obvously is?
Thanks for the welcome.
Would a no-tank zone be sufficient? Or, knowing what you know about Nazi tendencies and ambitions would you rather ensure Germany was completely disarmed?
What would a no-tank zone matter if Germany had nuclear missiles? Is there really any doubt that Saddam’s true ambitions are on par with Hitler’s? Left to his own devices, are you really confident Saddam will be satisfied fading into history as the guy who got his butt kicked out of Kuwait?
I think his aims are clear. Give him enough time, enough opportunity to amass any real power, and he will lash out in whichever way he thinks will be most destructive. He’s shown with no uncertainty that he’s perfectly willing to mass murder his own citizens. Is there any question he’d do the same to anyone else given the chance?
It’s our own stupid mistake for not removing him when we had a chance before. That, however, is a mistake that needs to be corrected. It’s not an excuse to do nothing now.
The OP’s “argument” is a big fat fallacy of accident and as someone said “isn’t helpful.” This argument is a step backwards for those who oppose the war and ironically creates a staw man for those supporting the war.
The issue isn’t really whether or not Iraq can hurt us on our soil, but whether or not they can hurt one of our allies we’ve pledged to support and put us in a more dangerous position than our troops are in now. If you don’t support becoming involved in the problems of our allies that’s another argument.
It’s unfortunate that this is being called a “pre-emptive war” rather than merely acting unilaterally, and perhaps rashly, on what really is violated UN resolution.
I’m still interested in a fair analogy. Try this:
There’s a convicted child molester getting released from prison. He moves to the other side of your town. He claims he’s reformed, and claims he fulfills all the state’s requirements of him. Registers with the police, etc. Maybe he even moves into a house where kids live.
Some people don’t want him there. They petition the authorities to put him back in jail. They claim he does not meet all the relevant requirements.
Fair?
So, what’s to be done?
Be complacent?
Be wary, but otherwise ignore it?
Join a neighborhood watch to keep him under surveillance 24/7?
Shoot the guy on the street?
Burn the house down?
Burn the neighborhood down?
It doesn’t need to be proven. No one has proven you will get in a car accident tomorrow, but you’re still going to wear your seatbelt.
No one could foresee the consequences of doing nothing while Hitler annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia, then turned his aim east. No one can foresee the potential consequences of letting Saddam continue to drag his feet and flout U.N. demands either. But the fact is he is not cooperating, and therefore something more needs to be done.
Imagine you are the leader of a country two times the size of Idaho. The world-at-large has asked you to prove you do not have weapons of mass destruction. You have an opportunity here to open your doors to the world, proving you are a changed leader and want to be known for the good you have accomplished in your country. Why in God’s name would you drag your feet at every chance and in every possible way?
I agree. But I don’t believe Saddam gives a rat’s ass. U.N. demands are ignored. Sanctions are ignored, merely causing his citizenry to starve while he remains uneffected. The world has demanded Saddam disarm, or prove he has already done so. Yet he remains aloof. Diplomacy has failed. It is time to act with methods Saddam comprehends.
Yes. A thousand times yes. You bet.
Last I checked, Fidel Castro is still in power.
Thank you, RTFirefly for the Transcript you provided but I heard the President’s speech so I know theres a misspelling. It should be:
In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nucular terror
I like the metaphor, Scylla, and that wouldve been true 60 years ago but not anymore.
You see the dog has bubonic plague and it has fleas. It is not infectious now but will be soon and a scratch from this dog means death to any child in the neighborhood and this dog loves biting children. It does not leave its yard now because it was chased by the neighbors a while ago but only you (and a few of your buds) know for a fact it has plague and its just a matter of time before this thing can literally terrorize the entire neighborhood.
Its fleas are not yet infectious either. The dog hates the fleas and the fleas suck the dogs blood, but what are the chances the fleas wont be infectious when the dog is infectious? When the dog is infectious so will the fleas. You cant see these fleas but they are everywhere and when they bite you and you develop the plague, how are you going to prove it came from the infectious dog?
The proper thing to do is for the neighborhood to take care of this dog permanently, but the dog aggresively refuses to take its shots and some of your neighbors think that training the dog to be more friendly will eliminate the problem. There are no animal control services and your neighborhood is on its own.
My opinion is If I were in this neighborhood, I would shoot this dog in its backyard and pay the owner, then Id spray the surrounding area to get rid of the fleas.
Did you mean against Canada specifically or in general? Either way, what’s going on around Iraq gives this little gem of yours the lie.
Central Command: Iraq ordered U.S., U.K. military uniforms
Iraqi Camp to Train Homicide Bombers
It’s more than a justification for invading, it’s an example of what this crazy fuck is capable of. I don’t want to see what more he can or will do given more time.
Bush wants a premptive strike against Saddam for continuing violations of UN resolutions, like gassing his own people, even though the UN disagrees, so he is an evil man and must be taken out of office.
Clinton made a premtive strike against Saddam for continuing violations of UN resolutions, especially gassing his own people, without asking for UN permission and without asking Congress for permission, but he was a good man, was patted on the back, and at the time, the vast majority of the country was in favor of invasion if Saddam continued to violate the UN resolutions.
What a difference a political party makes.
I’m sure some vast differences existed though, right? Or is it just a matter of scale and ground troops?
Sorry, I must have missed the part where Clinton invaded, occupied, and governed Iraq. I also must have missed the part where anybody complained about Bush’s continuation of Clinton’s policy of bombing the shit out of anything that looked remotely threatening in the no-fly zones.
But hey, thanks for dropping by and letting us know we’re all a bunch of hypocritical morons.
The HUGE assumption is that the Frnech could find the button…
I think we may be safe, but I agree about the danger the Kiwi’s pose… they can’t be happy about losing the America’s Cup to the SWISS…
:dubious:
Ah, easy to say in hindsight, but demonstrates the impracticality of the “Bush Doctrine” described in the OP. It is only practical with perfect foresight.
No one that I recall was calling for the ouster of the Taliban for hosting Al Qaeda prior to 9/11 (and let’s not drag in “oppression of the masses”, unless you want to talk about our friend, Saudi Arabia, or trading partner, China).
Your justification, like Dubya’s, is Orwellian. You not only advocate being the world’s policeman (but without any legitimate international authority - vigilante, really), but now you will also be the international thought police.
Any country suspected of thinking bad thoughts will be subject to regime change. They don’t have to actually do anything bad. They don’t even have to be close to being capable of doing anything real bad. Just some nebulous description that they might do something sometime in the future.
Scary. Speak loudly and swing a big stick.