We literally invented a new justification theory and called it the “Bush Doctrine”.
It says we no longer need to believe that a country is likely to attack us before we are justified attacking it.
It was a significant break from precedent.
Previously, we required a belief that a country was likely to attack us before we could justify war.
We streamlined that process.
We no longer have to sit around and wait for a country to be likely to attack us before we can defend ourselves.
Now we can defend ourselves without having to wait on a credible threat.
Very liberating.
I disagree. The point of a doctrine is that it’s a publicly stated principle. And as this thread shows, that wasn’t what happened with the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The real reasons were kept concealed. The public reason used to justify the invasion was Iraq was a current threat. So publicly we were following the old doctrine of self-defense.
This claim has appeared multiple times in this thread. Does it refer to the gassing of the Kurds in 1988, primarily with mustard gas? Are you aware that George Bush’s father destroyed Saddam’s chemical weapons factories in 1991? On my calendar, the 1988 gassing preceded the 1991 factory destruction, and both events preceded the 2003 attack by several years. How long do you think nerve gas can be stored without deteriorating?
But you are partly right! I think most people (incorrectly as it turned out) assumed that Saddam had amassed significant stores of mustard gas, a very low-tech weapon which, I guess, constitutes a “WMD” for those eager to believe Saddam had WMD’s.
Those who opposed the 2003 Cheney-Bush Stupidity opposed it not because they thought Saddam lacked mustard gas (:smack:) but due to the worry that destabilizing Iraq would have grave risks. I’ll ask the Cheney apologists: With the benefit of hindsight, do you think those worriers were correct?
Let me speak for myself. I supported the 1991 Gulf War and was disappointed that the War was halted without better concessions from Iraq. Yet in 2002, living in a remote location with little information except opinions published in the N.Y. Times, it was very obvious to me that an invasion of Iraq would be extremely foolish.
Incorrect understanding of the 2003 Cheney-Bush Stupidity has been debunked on this very message board many many times over the years. Yet we still get comments like that quoted above. The Board’s motto “Fighting ignorance … It’s taking longer than we thought” has ceased being a joke and become a grim commentary on America.
Yes, were fed a bunch of fear.
I have not forgotten the multitude threats the Bush Admin made to convince us like, “Let us invade Iraq or there could be a nuke in a major American city!”
But at the end of the day,[ol]
[li]it was known that Iraq was unlikely to attack the US, and[/li][li]we “adapted” the term “imminent threat” to the point where we no longer have to wait until a a threat is imminent. We can now attack a country is not likely to attack us.[/li][li]Do we still say hi?[/li][/ol]