The Bush Doctrine: if they could hurt us someday, we can pre-emptively attack now!

[Turbo_Dog]

*Originally posted by minty green *
Then that is because you are sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalala. There is no way on earth we were EVER going to invade in 1998 with a paltry 24,000 troops. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

So even a paltry 24,000 troops comprised mainly of Army light infantry and Marine assault forces, who are obviously there to unload cargo from ships, not to mention the many other troops that were notified of possibility of deployment, were there for what exactly? You still haven’t answered that.

**

Uh, yes, and who would those people be, exactly? Go on, name names. Or, alternatively, you could just bloody well ask us like I told you to do the first time you made this unsubstantiated and meritless partisan snipe.**

First of all, I was speaking in general terms of the “hippies” in the world and a couple here, but lets just stick with you for just now, as you seem to have taken my post quite personal. Unsubstantiated and meritless snipe? Explain yourself. This thread is about the U.S. wanting to wage war without UN support, and I mentioned that the exact same situation, on a lesser scale, existed before with a lot less crying and wondered why there was a difference.
**

Fucking-A yes I would. I oppose this reckless and counterproductive enterprise precisely because the administration did not obtain the consent of the world community. **

So you are incapable of forming an opinion about foreign/military policy without outside influence? Very admirable. Answer me this. Did you support Clinton when he bombed the same country without consent of not only the world community but also our own congress? If so, fuck off. If you didn’t, please continue.

**

Uh, yeah. And just who the heck do you think those “people” who believe Saddam are? Go on, name names. **

again, the general whiners right now, and if you fit the profile, include yourself.

**

Quite so, at least to the extent that they have much greater access to information than you or I do. But so what? You think that translates into automatic good judgment and good faith on their part? Yeah, “terribly naive” does tend to come to mind here.**

So you have better ideas than the government. Good for you. Present them here and then forward your expert recommendations to those who can make a difference. There was a saying we had in the service that holds true in corporate and personal affairs. If you want to bitch, have a solution. If you don’t have a solution, then shut the fuck up. If you don’t like the problem, fix it. If you don’t know how to fix the problem, clam up. And suggesting things that have already been attempted are a waste of time. If it didn’t work before, obviously it wasn’t a good idea. Simplistic, since I’m naive and all, to be sure. But on a leap of faith, I’m thinking that maybe you’ll get the point.

**

[quote[Look, man, help me understand your perspective, 'cause I just don’t get it.** [/quote]

I thought I already did. In my first post, I asked what was different now with Bush than then with Clinton besides scale and ground troops. So far, you’ve only reaffirmed that the only difference is scale and ground troops. The intent is that same. What are you complaining about here? The intent is the same except that now it would appear that we prepared to see it through. You can cry about what you think is going to happen, or wait a bit and cry about what really does happen.

What is your stance right now overall? Did you support Clinton in Act II but not Bush I and Bush II in Act I and Act III? If so, please explain the difference. If not, then again, I’ll grant you respect for sticking to one side of the coin.

You talk a good argument, but I haven’t seen a real point yet. What do you want that hasn’t been done before? The only thing left is “more time”, and I ask again, how much is enough?

[Turbo_Dog]

fucking boards. My apologies for the double post.

[minty_green]

td:

So even a paltry 24,000 troops comprised mainly of Army light infantry and Marine assault forces, who are obviously there to unload cargo from ships, not to mention the many other troops that were notified of possibility of deployment, were there for what exactly? You still haven’t answered that.

You haven’t asked, but the answer is obvious: Defense.

was speaking in general terms of the “hippies” in the world and a couple here, but lets just stick with you for just now, as you seem to have taken my post quite personal. Unsubstantiated and meritless snipe? Explain yourself.

Your refusal to identify ANYBODY who actually would have supported this foolhardy enterprise if it had been led by Clinton instead of Bush merely demonstrates the merits of my charge that your whine is meritless political sniping. Ah, the politics of strawman-bashing.

Did you support Clinton when he bombed the same country without consent of not only the world community but also our own congress?

Clinton had the consent of the world community when he bombed Iraq. If memory serves, even France was dropping bombs that time, though I could be mistaken. They certainly weren’t being obstructionist at the time.

**If so, fuck off. **

Very classy. Were you perhaps mistaken about the forum for this thread?

There was a saying we had in the service that holds true in corporate and personal affairs. If you want to bitch, have a solution.

But I have a solution, TD: Remember all those compromise resolutions that were floated over the weekend? Chile said 30 more days, France said 120, etc.? Take 'em up on the offer. Then in a month or three, you still get your invasion, but now it has world approval instead of being merely an example of foolhardy vigilantism.

In my first post, I asked what was different now with Bush than then with Clinton besides scale and ground troops. So far, you’ve only reaffirmed that the only difference is scale and ground troops. The intent is that same.

Really? Fire up that search engine and demonstrate where Clinton or anybody else in his administration said those troops were there to invade, conquer, and subjugate the nation of Iraq. Prove “the intent is the same.” Assertions without proof don’t go over so good here in GD.

[minty_green]

Oh, and by the way:

*Originally posted by Turbo Dog *
Did you support Clinton in Act II but not Bush I and Bush II in Act I and Act III? If so, please explain the difference.

I supported Gulf War I and Clinton’s 1998 bombing campaign. Obviously, I oppose the current war. The differences between 1998 and now have previously been provided to you in a handy bullet list four or five posts up the page.

As for the differences between 1991 and now, they also ought to be obvious and can be summed up in three points: (1) Saddam had actually attacked someone instead of just being nasty and mean within his own borders; (2) we obtained the consent and support of the world community, including Security Council authorization; (3) we obtained the active assistance of dozens of countries in the military undertaking.

[RTFirefly]

*Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote *
After NOW refused to go after Bill Clinton for all of the misogynistic stuff that he did, and after the DNC refused to condemn his illegal activities, and after the shithead sold nuclear missile technology to the Chinese for funds to get re-elected I don’t ever want to hear about how a Republican president is less than honest.

Wow. If a Dem has done stuff that (in your opinion) is worse, then any Pubbie after that gets a free ride.

Look, if you’re complaining that Bush is getting unfairly harsh treatment compared to Clinton, I think we could even it out by impeaching Bush. :rolleyes:

Feel free to come up with a cite on the selling of nuclear missile technology to the Chinese for funds to get re-elected, btw. And make sure it doesn’t come from “Acme citations.” You know how well their stuff works.

[Wile_E.Coyote]

Okay,The Washington Post

A House-Senate conference has agreed to transfer export licensing for all commercial communications satellites from the Commerce Department to the State Department and toughen rules governing such transactions involving China. The move would reverse a 1996 decision by President Clinton that came under fire this year amid allegations of unauthorized technology transfers to China and favoritism to a big campaign contributor.

and

White House officials, who earlier this year had threatened a veto for House-approved proposals that would prohibit all satellite and missile parts exports to China, said yesterday that they were studying the conference language

More background on the topic.

And China wasn’t the only contributor whose money Clinton took to allow it.

For a more direct correlation, including the donations to the DNC from the Chinese Army:

I could go on, and on…

BTW, what’s that acme deal you were talking about?

[Spavined_Gelding]

As usual, this thing has turned into a pissing match with all the usual suspects ranting the usual rants. The are, however, facts and principals that cannot be ignored. First among those is that the Doctrine of Preemption, no matter how much you dress it up, is an apology for imperialism, no more, no less. It presumes American preeminence in all things, but especially in things that make money, and rationalizes any measure to preserve that preeminence. If you question that go read the Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz web site.

To go after Iraq in the absence of a CREDIBLE, as opposed to a CONJECTURAL, present danger to the United States and in the absence of an international consensus that time has run out on disarmament agreed to in 1991 is not a legitimate use of national armed force. It is an act of imperialism. I see little difference between this and 1898. I fully expect Iraq to shortly become a new Cuba/ Philippines/Porto Rico, and for the same reasons. Just substitute oil for bananas and sugar. The advocates of this dangerous and wrong headed policy can wrap them selves in the flag all they want but it does not change imperialism into altruism.

No mater what I think, this thing is going to happen. I can only hope that when the smoke clears we do no have my country standing on top of the ruins of Iraq saying, “Alright, you SOBs, who’s next?!”

[ElvisL1ves]

The doctrine of preemption also implies that other countries that might consider the US to be an imminent threat to themselves have the same right to preempt the US first. Unless, of course, one uses the assumption (stated or not) that Americans are inherently superior life forms with superior rights other than those gained through weaponry.

How much is North Korea selling those nukes for? One doesn’t need to guess who’d want to buy, only how long the list is.

[Insert derisive comment about the wisdom of Bush and his cheerleaders here, next to comment about unnecessarily-increased fear for our safety.]

[Wile_E.Coyote]

[aside]
Um…Spavined, I have to ask…why on Earth did you name yourself “An over the hill guy who has had his testicles removed”? I mean, you had to know that this would cause you unending grief with respect to people making the obvious correlation between that moniker and your views toward various topics, right? Jeez, why did you saddle yourself with that?
[/aside]

Okay, I’d like to ask you this. What would it take to get people like you who are committed to peace at any cost to believe that there’s a credible threat? I’m serious, not trying to flame. What would it take?

I have had a very small amount of experience in intelligence. I’m not an intell officer, but I have seen things within my classification level that pertained to my job. That being the case, I can tell you that if Secretary Powell had given any more info than he did to the United Nations, our sources would have been found and killed. I’m not convinced that, given how much he did give out, that they weren’t found and killed.

That being the case, I just don’t see how anybody is ever going to be able to convince folks like you (who seem to believe that all Republicans are liars) that there is, in fact, credible evidence that Saddam Hussein has WMD and has been trying to produce and/or procure them for a long while.

Okay, as to the “why now”, I’ll tell you why. We’ve been at this for twelve years. We’ve been trying to get him to obey the U.N. resolutions for twelve years.

President Bush has been trying to get him to obey the U.N. in this instance since what, November? SH has shown, time and time again that all he’s going to do is pull the wool over our eyes. Something that, very sadly, many of you keep falling for.

Also, you have to realize that there are windows where we can attack effectively, and those where we can’t. If we wait those three months, our troops will be far less effective due to the heat.

So, it’s attack now or wait until the fall. Of course, if we waited until the fall, then all of those idiot liberals who can’t get their heads out of their you-know-whats will start screaming that he’s only doing it for his re-election bid. And if he didn’t do it then, it’d be next spring before we could try this again. And then, of course, we could end up with another liberal idiot in office who’d rather allow another September 11th with WMD, courtesy of Al Qaeda with weapons engineered by Iraq.

The weapons are there. I know you’d rather lie to yourself and be all fuzzy and cozy in the belief that he doesn’t have them. But answer me this:

If he doesn’t have them, why has he finally admitted that he had them, but now claims to have destroyed them?

If he doesn’t have them, how has he been able to test them on his own people, or on the Kurds?

Reaquaint yourself with reality, bub, you have been sleeping too long.

[Evil_Captor]

All the debate or whether or not Hussein has WMDs begs the question of how likely he is to use them. I think, not likely at all. He’s stupid, but not so stupid that he doesn’t know he’ll be bombed into the stone age in short order if he does.

So, this war is unnecessary, and in promoting an unnecessary war, Dubya becomes a war criminal. Here’s hoping there’ll be a trial someday.

[X_Slayer_ALE]

Whether Saddam uses them or not is immaterial. The US will prove that Iraq has WMD by finding them in Iraq. This war was necessitated by Saddams uncooperative behavior.

[rjung]

*Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote *
Okay,The Washington Post

Someone corect me on this, but isn’t the Washington Post the newspaper owned by the right-wing ultraconservative looney Reverend Moon? The same Rev. Moon who’s called the United States “the Kingdom of Satan,” and backed Jerry Falwell’s anti-CLinton videotape series back in the mid-90s?

Just checking…

[nogginhead]

Nope, that’s the Washington Times. The Post is an excellent newspaper.

[Mtgman]

*Originally posted by Turbo Dog *
A lot of people do not support the probable war, much less how it is conducted, and that is their right and I have no problem with that. What I do find amusing though is people who don’t support the war because Bush is doing it instead of Clinton, or because the UN doesn’t fully approve, as if they would back the war if suddenly the UN got on board. Also the people that would support the war if only the government would divulge intelligence gathering techniques, operative names and locations or other hard evidence that will be shown on CNN and indicate to the “bad guys” the leaks, preventing further intelligence. It’s funny and sad at the same time that people would rather believe someone like Saddam over their own government, regardless of who they voted for.

Ok, but as long as you acknowledge that people may oppose war for reasons other than the ones you listed above as finding “amusing”. You should also realize that there are variations on the justifications you posted which are anything but laughable.

For instance, I oppose the war because I haven’t seen credible evidence of WoMD currently existing in Iraq. Also because the case been proven to me that Iraq would be capable of developing these weapons with the sanctions/inspections/etc imposed on them by the UN. The claim that Iraq will be so much more dangerous in a year, or in five years, just doesn’t have evidence behind it. At least not evidence which has been made public. It bothers me when people jump to the “this info can’t be provided because then they’ll know where the leaks are!” defense. Surely you realize that the intelligence operations secrecy/security and the release of some of the information gleaned by those operations are not mutually exclusive? I assure you that it is possible to prove that Saddam has been violating the terms of the cease-fire, mainly continuing his WoMD programs, without handing over a report so detailed that the informants would be listed as well as the times/dates/locations each piece of information was gleaned.

All this is over and beyond the fact that I believe the right and proper thing to have done if such evidence existed would have been to provide it to the inspectors so they could check it out and destroy any WoMD they found. I’ve seen lots of confidential documents released with names blacked out, dates blacked out, etc. Some form of the evidence, edited to protect our sources, should have been released to the inspectors and then publicly confirmed by them upon arrival at the alleged site of WoMD.

I have no desire to compromise our sources, or to make it easier for Saddam to ferret out our operatives and disable our intelligence efforts. I want these people to be able to do their jobs with a minimum of danger and a high degree of success, BUT, if you can’t show ANYTHING concrete, verified by other agents, then you simply don’t have justification for dropping MOABs on people. Absolute worst case scenario, pull your agents out and THEN release the reports which would have compromised them. It is more important to show the voter, consent by the governed remember, and the international community your hard, fast evidence than it is to safegaurd the secrecy of a handful of operatives.**

I don’t particulary care for war. Been there, done that, same fucking place, same fucking guy, don’t even have a fucking T-shirt (even though the medals are pretty). But what does it take? Peace offerings haven’t worked. Asking nicely hasn’t worked. Shows of force haven’t worked. Minimal action hasn’t worked. Remember Act I of the story? Battalion sized units surrendering to guys driving water trucks? We live in a world where you can get rich for life if a cop slaps you. Over there, you can get stuffed in a wood chipper for rolling your eyes at a picture of the Fearless Leader, or have your town gassed because you live in a certain “county”. That in itself, at least to me, is reason enough to use all force necessary to finally make a change. And by now, it appears at least to me, that all force possible is what is required. **

We obviously have different takes on what has and hasn’t “worked”. Given the lack of hard evidence of existing WoMD I’m inclined to say the sanctions/inspections ARE working to resolve the issue of WoMD. Tighter sanctions, more inspections, resolutions forbidding UN member states from selling military goods to Iraq. I’d support these things based upon the evidence we’ve got and the assumption that Saddam really is a bad guy who would build WoMD if he wasn’t stopped. I disagree about what it will take(has taken IMHO) to stop him from ever reaching that goal. I don’t think we’ll need MOABs.

As for liberating Iraq from a regime which would “stuff you in a wood chipper for rolling your eyes at a picture of the Fearless Leader” or other atrocities you mention, I’d probably support action on humanitarian grounds. I’d still be urging caution and careful introspection on both our motives and actions though. I seem to recall a time when the US thought “Making the world safe for Democracy” was an extremely important goal and we dedicated troops to stop advances of non-democratic governments. It’s not that I like the idea of people being stuffed in wood chippers for expressing dislike of their leaders. It’s just that I’m not so certain of our righteousness that I believe the world would be a better place if everyone was goverened/behaved like the US. Heck, I’m not sure it’s possible to have the entire world work like the US does. From a purely economic standpoint, each person having wealth and freedoms equal to the average American would probably exceed the carrying capacity of the planet. We’d certainly deplete our fossil fuels in a virtual eyeblink.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Wile_E.Coyote]

*Originally posted by Evil Captor *
**All the debate or whether or not Hussein has WMDs begs the question of how likely he is to use them. I think, not likely at all. He’s stupid, but not so stupid that he doesn’t know he’ll be bombed into the stone age in short order if he does.

So, this war is unnecessary, and in promoting an unnecessary war, Dubya becomes a war criminal. Here’s hoping there’ll be a trial someday. **

Um…wrong again. This guy has already used these WMDs on his own people. Now, if he’s willing to do so on his own people, what makes you think he’ll refrain from using them upon us?

Granted, I doubt that he’ll actually attempt to fling those ballistic missiles he’s developing at us, he’d get the rest of the world agreeing to nuke him or something. But I cannot think of a single earthly reason why he wouldn’t rush at the chance of giving them to Al Qaeda or other terrorist group dedicated to destroying the United States. Can you?

[vibrotronica]

Yep, Coyote, I sure can. It’s because Al Qaeda hates him as much as they hates us, and that if we ever found out where Al Qaeda got those weapons the United States would drop hydrogen bombs on him. But that’s all academic now that we’re poised at his border ready to sieze his oi…uh…disarm him. Now he has every reason in the world to use those alleged weapons of mass distruction or give them to somebody who will use them. I’m sure glad this war has made us safe!

[minty_green]

Are you saying Iraq has missiles capable of reaching the US?

[Wile_E.Coyote]

*Originally posted by vibrotronica *
**Yep, Coyote, I sure can. It’s because Al Qaeda hates him as much as they hates us, and that if we ever found out where Al Qaeda got those weapons the United States would drop hydrogen bombs on him. But that’s all academic now that we’re poised at his border ready to sieze his oi…uh…disarm him. Now he has every reason in the world to use those alleged weapons of mass distruction or give them to somebody who will use them. I’m sure glad this war has made us safe! **

Oh, brother. Yeah, the “no blood for oil” crap was raised in 1991 also. Hm…I don’t think that we took control of his oil wells then, did we? Do you honestly think that the Arab world would put up with us trying to occupy Iraq and take over its oil wells? Good God man, have you never heard the word “logistics”? Jeez, you amateurs sure think we soldiers can do anything, don’t you? There’s no way we could occupy Iraq against the will of that portion of the world. We’re going in, with their consent, to take out Saddam. Then we’ll help them rebuild, then we’ll leave.

*Originally posted by minty green *
**Are you saying Iraq has missiles capable of reaching the US? **

No, I’m not. However, The New York Times is reporting that Iraq has been purchasing the required materials to build ballistic missiles from France, and theorizes that this may be a huge reason that France doesn’t want us to invade Iraq. (I’ll leave it to you to figure out the logical relation there. )

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote *
Jeez, you amateurs sure think we soldiers can do anything, don’t you? There’s no way we could occupy Iraq against the will of that portion of the world. We’re going in, with their consent, to take out Saddam. Then we’ll help them rebuild, then we’ll leave.

Lemme guess . . . five years ago, you were bitching about “nation building,” weren’t you?

[RTFirefly]

*Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote *
Okay,The Washington Post…

Since your quotes didn’t back you up, I didn’t bother with your links.

BTW, what’s that acme deal you were talking about?

Have you seen any cartoons featuring your namesake? Check out the labels on anything he (spectacularly unsuccessfully, of course) uses to try to catch or destroy the Roadrunner.