>
Patriots Planet - New England Patriots Forums and Message Boards

Home Members List Top Posters Arcade Casino Toolbar
Go Back   Patriots Planet - New England Patriots Forums and Message Boards > The Razor > Politics and Religion Forum
Mark Forums Read rel="nofollow">Mark Forums Read
Register All Albums FAQDonate Calendar

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-12-2008, 12:12 PM   #1
Spinal Tap
dicktowel.com
 
Spinal Tap's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Paradise City
Posts: 9,995
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $256509
My Mood


Spinal Tap is top drawer
Spinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawer
Bush doctrine applied pre-9/11

The Sarah Palin interview has gotten quite the response from radio personalities, news reporters, and planeteers alike. I've heard a lot of people say that Palin didn't know what the Bush doctrine is, and how bad she screwed up when asked if she believed in it. I'd say that one could go either way on that question, but that's not the premise of this particular thread.

The Iraq war has gotten everybody pretty fired up against the Bush-doctrine, which Charlie Gibson believes is the belief that the United States should engage in pre-emptive wars if it sees fit to do so.

I'm assuming that most people on this board thinks that the Bush doctrine is the wrong way to approach foreign policy and global threats. The Iraq was is proof positive that it can certainly get you into hot water if you're not careful with it's application.

If the United States had information on 9/10 that Al Queda was plotting their attack, and a pre-emptive strike against Afghanistan would have prevented it from happening, would you have supported that strike? You have to assume that 9/11 never even happened, and that your country just decided to attack another on the basis of credible information that an imminent threat was upon us.

I think that this is an interesting question, because we obviously have the benefit of seeing the outcome of that fateful day, and that is sure to skew your thought process. But like I said, strip away the reality of the events of 9/11, and tell me if you would have supported a pre-emptive strike.

If you answer NO, then you have the blood of 3,000 Americans on your hands.

If you answer YES, then you should essentially support the war in Iraq, because at the time, we were told that they were an imminent threat to our security.
__________________
This signature taken from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 1/24/05

"Most of the North Shore was so quiet, you could hear cars starting over the whisper of tens of thousands of shuffling feet. One of the louder fans, in an outburst of helpless rage, screamed that he wanted to kill somebody. Another stomped on his Terrible Towel. Others muttered things that aren't fit for print."
  Spinal Tap is offline Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 12:19 PM   #2
mgoblue101415
GOD
 
mgoblue101415's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: IL
Posts: 13,364
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $2850
My Mood


mgoblue101415 can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficmgoblue101415 can make a spectacular post in heavy traffic
mgoblue101415 can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficmgoblue101415 can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficmgoblue101415 can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficmgoblue101415 can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficmgoblue101415 can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficmgoblue101415 can make a spectacular post in heavy trafficmgoblue101415 can make a spectacular post in heavy traffic
I believe that the war in Iraq was a lot more than the reasons they publicly put out. And I believe there have been numerous blunders made since the war began. So no, I don't support the war.


Having said that... I do believe in the pre-emptive strategy.

If we have concrete evidence of an attack on America or American interests then you're damn right I'm for going in and attacking first. What should we do? Wait until they attack then fight back? I don't agree with that all.
__________________


Reality leaves a lot to the imagination. - John Lennon

Subjectivity is truth, subjectivity is reality. - Soren Kierkegaard

Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions. - Friedrich Nietzsche

  mgoblue101415 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 12:21 PM   #3
TommyD420
Meet the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss.
 
TommyD420's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Worcester, MA
Posts: 31,211
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $65750
My Mood


TommyD420 is a glorious beacon of lightTommyD420 is a glorious beacon of light
TommyD420 is a glorious beacon of lightTommyD420 is a glorious beacon of light
There's a huge difference between an airstrike or a Special Op or even a small contingent of soldiers into an area that harbored people who attacked our embassies and naval ships and our own people as well as attacking us on our own soil at the WTC; and Bringing 150,000 troops into a sovereign nation that had not declared war on us; didn't show any signs of declaring war on us; didn't harbor anyone who declared war on us; didn't attack us in anyway.

Don't you think? To be pre-emptive, shouldn't there be an actual threat there to pre-empt? The Bush Doctorine difference is, it's ok to pre-emptively strike a county even if they could, maybe, some day, allegedly, sources say, attack you at some point in history in the future.
__________________
"Maybe you should check your notes." - Bill Belichick

"If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a trolleycar." - Jeffrey Kessler

"You know...Colts." - Julian Edelman
  TommyD420 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 12:25 PM   #4
Spinal Tap
dicktowel.com
 
Spinal Tap's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Paradise City
Posts: 9,995
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $256509
My Mood


Spinal Tap is top drawer
Spinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawer
Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyD420 View Post
There's a huge difference between an airstrike or a Special Op or even a small contingent of soldiers into an area that harbored people who attacked our embassies and naval ships and our own people as well as attacking us on our own soil at the WTC; and Bringing 150,000 troops into a sovereign nation that had not declared war on us; didn't show any signs of declaring war on us; didn't harbor anyone who declared war on us; didn't attack us in anyway.

Don't you think? To be pre-emptive, shouldn't there be an actual threat there to pre-empt? The Bush Doctorine difference is, it's ok to pre-emptively strike a county even if they could, maybe, some day, allegedly, sources say, attack you at some point in history in the future.

No, I think you read the question wrong. We were all told that Iraq was an imminent threat before we invaded. We were told they had WMD and that they intended to get them into terrorist hands. We were told they had to be stopped. Now you can say that you thought the President was full of shit BEFORE the war, and that you KNEW they were not a threat to us. If that's the case, then you must have a crystal ball and have every right to say that it was wrong to go into Iraq.

This question isn't really about Iraq, it's about 9/11, and whether or not you would have sent 150,000 troops into Afghanistan to stop that fateful attack.

It's a tough question, to be sure. But again, we have the benefit of seeing the destruction of 9/11 and the colossal blunder of the Iraq war. Try to answer this question without the luxury of this knowledge.
__________________
This signature taken from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 1/24/05

"Most of the North Shore was so quiet, you could hear cars starting over the whisper of tens of thousands of shuffling feet. One of the louder fans, in an outburst of helpless rage, screamed that he wanted to kill somebody. Another stomped on his Terrible Towel. Others muttered things that aren't fit for print."
  Spinal Tap is offline Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 12:30 PM   #5
Darth Despot
Not a real 'Merican - apparently
 
Darth Despot's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2005
Location: Upgraded to Probable
Posts: 20,000
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $436775
My Mood


Darth Despot should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumDarth Despot should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museum
Darth Despot should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumDarth Despot should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumDarth Despot should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumDarth Despot should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumDarth Despot should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumDarth Despot should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumDarth Despot should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumDarth Despot should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumDarth Despot should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumDarth Despot should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museumDarth Despot should have their sex organs bronzed for posterity and put in a museum
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinal Tap View Post
If you answer YES, then you should essentially support the war in Iraq, because at the time, we were told that they were an imminent threat to our security.
I supported the Iraq war at it's inception because I believed what I was told.

1. Iraq had WMDs
2. Iraq would give WMDs to terrorists
3. Terrorists would use WMDs against American interests

It seems #1 was not really true. Either due to bad intelligence or due to a desire to take out Saddam on the part of W's administration.

Since what I was told, and what I know now are different I don't support the initial decision to go tot war any longer.

That said we are faced with a situation now that's reality and we need to deal with it.
__________________
"An image haunts me:
proceeding across a battlefield,
my father now dead,
I am up front to draw the fire.
I look back,
and one of those I was to protect has fallen."

Nicholas Wolterstorff, Lament for a Son (1987)
  Darth Despot is offline Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 12:32 PM   #6
TommyD420
Meet the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss.
 
TommyD420's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Worcester, MA
Posts: 31,211
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $65750
My Mood


TommyD420 is a glorious beacon of lightTommyD420 is a glorious beacon of light
TommyD420 is a glorious beacon of lightTommyD420 is a glorious beacon of light
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinal Tap View Post
No, I think you read the question wrong. We were all told that Iraq was an imminent threat before we invaded. We were told they had WMD and that they intended to get them into terrorist hands. We were told they had to be stopped. Now you can say that you thought the President was full of shit BEFORE the war, and that you KNEW they were not a threat to us. If that's the case, then you must have a crystal ball and have every right to say that it was wrong to go into Iraq.

This question isn't really about Iraq, it's about 9/11, and whether or not you would have sent 150,000 troops into Afghanistan to stop that fateful attack.

It's a tough question, to be sure. But again, we have the benefit of seeing the destruction of 9/11 and the colossal blunder of the Iraq war. Try to answer this question without the luxury of this knowledge.
As we've seen, occupying Afghanistan really didn't accomplish much, now did it? Now in terms of pre-emptive airstrikes and Special Ops? Shit, we've been doing that for decades. I've got no problem with that. But how are you going to invade (and 150,000 troops is "invade") a country that hasn't attacked us? Afghanistan didn't declare war on us. The Taliban was sponsored by Al Qaeda, but they didn't directly attack us either.

If you want to say; let's do a massive air raid on every Al Qaeda hideout and training camp in the world (after 1993)? Done. No problem with it. But it's not like Al Qaeda was ONLY in Afghanistan. You'd have to invade Pakistan, England, Germany and the United States (and many, many more) if you're going to use that rationale.
__________________
"Maybe you should check your notes." - Bill Belichick

"If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a trolleycar." - Jeffrey Kessler

"You know...Colts." - Julian Edelman
  TommyD420 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 12:42 PM   #7
Spinal Tap
dicktowel.com
 
Spinal Tap's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Paradise City
Posts: 9,995
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $256509
My Mood


Spinal Tap is top drawer
Spinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawer
Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyD420 View Post
As we've seen, occupying Afghanistan really didn't accomplish much, now did it? Now in terms of pre-emptive airstrikes and Special Ops? Shit, we've been doing that for decades. I've got no problem with that. But how are you going to invade (and 150,000 troops is "invade") a country that hasn't attacked us? Afghanistan didn't declare war on us. The Taliban was sponsored by Al Qaeda, but they didn't directly attack us either.

If you want to say; let's do a massive air raid on every Al Qaeda hideout and training camp in the world (after 1993)? Done. No problem with it. But it's not like Al Qaeda was ONLY in Afghanistan. You'd have to invade Pakistan, England, Germany and the United States (and many, many more) if you're going to use that rationale.
So you're OK with a little pre-emptive strike, but not a big pre-emptive strike? What's difference if we send a squandron of bombers into Afghanistan and bomb the shit out of them, or if we send in a massive ground force? Aren't they both pre-emptive strikes?

And I'm sorry, but England, Germany, and the United States do not knowingly harbor terrorists and openly allow them to operate freely in their country. I understand the premise that Al Queda is everywhere, but you can't make that particular analogy in my opinion.
__________________
This signature taken from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 1/24/05

"Most of the North Shore was so quiet, you could hear cars starting over the whisper of tens of thousands of shuffling feet. One of the louder fans, in an outburst of helpless rage, screamed that he wanted to kill somebody. Another stomped on his Terrible Towel. Others muttered things that aren't fit for print."
  Spinal Tap is offline Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 12:45 PM   #8
Spinal Tap
dicktowel.com
 
Spinal Tap's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Paradise City
Posts: 9,995
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $256509
My Mood


Spinal Tap is top drawer
Spinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benign Despot View Post
I supported the Iraq war at it's inception because I believed what I was told.

1. Iraq had WMDs
2. Iraq would give WMDs to terrorists
3. Terrorists would use WMDs against American interests

It seems #1 was not really true. Either due to bad intelligence or due to a desire to take out Saddam on the part of W's administration.

Since what I was told, and what I know now are different I don't support the initial decision to go tot war any longer.

That said we are faced with a situation now that's reality and we need to deal with it.
I appreciate your honest response. Anyone else?
__________________
This signature taken from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 1/24/05

"Most of the North Shore was so quiet, you could hear cars starting over the whisper of tens of thousands of shuffling feet. One of the louder fans, in an outburst of helpless rage, screamed that he wanted to kill somebody. Another stomped on his Terrible Towel. Others muttered things that aren't fit for print."
  Spinal Tap is offline Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 12:45 PM   #9
TommyD420
Meet the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss.
 
TommyD420's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Worcester, MA
Posts: 31,211
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $65750
My Mood


TommyD420 is a glorious beacon of lightTommyD420 is a glorious beacon of light
TommyD420 is a glorious beacon of lightTommyD420 is a glorious beacon of light
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinal Tap View Post
So you're OK with a little pre-emptive strike, but not a big pre-emptive strike? What's difference if we send a squandron of bombers into Afghanistan and bomb the shit out of them, or if we send in a massive ground force? Aren't they both pre-emptive strikes?

And I'm sorry, but England, Germany, and the United States do not knowingly harbor terrorists and openly allow them to operate freely in their country. I understand the premise that Al Queda is everywhere, but you can't make that particular analogy in my opinion.
My point ST, is that it's one thing to attack the terrorists where they are (and where we'd known they were for 15 years at that point).

It's another thing entirely to invade a country, take over the capital and occupy it, in the name of fighting terrorism.

You really don't think so? It's cool if you don't.
__________________
"Maybe you should check your notes." - Bill Belichick

"If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a trolleycar." - Jeffrey Kessler

"You know...Colts." - Julian Edelman
  TommyD420 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 12:49 PM   #10
Claremonster
Semper Priapus
 
Claremonster's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The Glossalalia School of Business and Performing Arts
Posts: 53,056
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $222257
My Mood


Claremonster is a splendid one to beholdClaremonster is a splendid one to behold
Claremonster is a splendid one to beholdClaremonster is a splendid one to beholdClaremonster is a splendid one to beholdClaremonster is a splendid one to beholdClaremonster is a splendid one to beholdClaremonster is a splendid one to beholdClaremonster is a splendid one to beholdClaremonster is a splendid one to beholdClaremonster is a splendid one to beholdClaremonster is a splendid one to beholdClaremonster is a splendid one to beholdClaremonster is a splendid one to beholdClaremonster is a splendid one to beholdClaremonster is a splendid one to behold
To be fair about Iraq, it's not like we started a new war with them or anything. When we liberated Kuwait, etc... we stopped short of Iraq itself, and there was a ceasefire. A cease-fire. Not an end to the war. We were just resting up, and when we were rested, we finished the job.
__________________
To be honest my childhood became a bit of a blur once I started chasing my Ritalin with Jack and Cokes.




Look into a Michael Moore's eyes while he's feeding on a bucket of chicken and you'll understand Nietzsche.
  Claremonster is offline Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 01:00 PM   #11
Spinal Tap
dicktowel.com
 
Spinal Tap's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Paradise City
Posts: 9,995
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $256509
My Mood


Spinal Tap is top drawer
Spinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawer
Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyD420 View Post
My point ST, is that it's one thing to attack the terrorists where they are (and where we'd known they were for 15 years at that point).

It's another thing entirely to invade a country, take over the capital and occupy it, in the name of fighting terrorism.

You really don't think so? It's cool if you don't.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I concede that Iraq was indeed not a threat to our security, and we had no business invading their country. In hindsight, we should not have invaded Iraq.

Look, I think we're getting away from the original question because people harbor ill feelings towards Iraq.

Would you support a ground invasion of Pakistan if we learned that an enormous terrorist attack was being planned within their borders?
__________________
This signature taken from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 1/24/05

"Most of the North Shore was so quiet, you could hear cars starting over the whisper of tens of thousands of shuffling feet. One of the louder fans, in an outburst of helpless rage, screamed that he wanted to kill somebody. Another stomped on his Terrible Towel. Others muttered things that aren't fit for print."
  Spinal Tap is offline Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 01:01 PM   #12
BY1401
Make Loud. Go Boom.
 
BY1401's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Gundiana
Posts: 14,001
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $122500
My Mood


BY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirate
BY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benign Despot View Post
I supported the Iraq war at it's inception because I believed what I was told...
Sounds like we're in the same boat.

As far as the use of pre-emptive force, I think that is something we should have at our disposal if needed. But I also want to know if my government considers that to be an option of last resort or something they are free to use indiscriminately.
  BY1401 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 01:03 PM   #13
Spinal Tap
dicktowel.com
 
Spinal Tap's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Paradise City
Posts: 9,995
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $256509
My Mood


Spinal Tap is top drawer
Spinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawerSpinal Tap is top drawer
Quote:
Originally Posted by BY1401 View Post
Sounds like we're in the same boat.

As far as the use of pre-emptive force, I think that is something we should have at our disposal if needed. But I also want to know if my government considers that to be an option of last resort or something they are free to use indiscriminately.
Oh, no doubt, I totally agree with you. We'd better be 100% positive that the military action we are taking is indeed stopping an imminent attack.

This is a thread about the Bush doctrine, not specifically the Iraq war.

Would you have supported a ground invasion of Afghanistan if it would have stopped 9/11? That's the meat of this question. If we had stopped 9/11, we wouldn't have the insight of 9/11, and I'll bet there would be a SHITLOAD of people out there crying that we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan.
__________________
This signature taken from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 1/24/05

"Most of the North Shore was so quiet, you could hear cars starting over the whisper of tens of thousands of shuffling feet. One of the louder fans, in an outburst of helpless rage, screamed that he wanted to kill somebody. Another stomped on his Terrible Towel. Others muttered things that aren't fit for print."
  Spinal Tap is offline Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 01:05 PM   #14
BY1401
Make Loud. Go Boom.
 
BY1401's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Gundiana
Posts: 14,001
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $122500
My Mood


BY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirate
BY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirateBY1401 is a zombie robot ninja pirate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinal Tap View Post
Would you have supported a ground invasion of Afghanistan if it would have stopped 9/11? That's the meat of this question. If we had stopped 9/11, we wouldn't have the insight of 9/11, and I'll bet there would be a SHITLOAD of people out there crying that we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan.
Yes.
  BY1401 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 01:09 PM   #15
BradyLady12
Give me liberty!
 
BradyLady12's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Where there are Rays of sunshine
Posts: 24,072
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $478285
My Mood


BradyLady12 gets itBradyLady12 gets itBradyLady12 gets itBradyLady12 gets it
BradyLady12 gets it
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinal Tap View Post


If the United States had information on 9/10 that Al Queda was plotting their attack, and a pre-emptive strike against Afghanistan would have prevented it from happening, would you have supported that strike?
Striking before an attack that is imminent is legitimate. Even that doesn't require a Dec of War.

The danger of the Bush doctrine is:
1) that it goes after countries that are not involved in an imminent attack but who just don't like us or don't talk nice about us.
2) it can be abused by the political classes, who trump up threats just to do away with nation for progressive purposes instead of for defense.
3) leads to the chief executive being more like a king, when kings, got involved in too many unecessary wars for their own pet peeves.
4) is based on what a nation might do down in the road in the future so take them out now. ( this is probably the most dangerous of all and has way too much potentional for abuse).

Our intel is good enough to determine threats, but even intel info can be cooked and intel resources corrupted to server the narrow interests of certain interests like corporations or ideologues as a secret tool for not so noble reasons, depending on the circumstances.
__________________
"In government, the scum rises to the top."~ Hayek
  BradyLady12 is offline Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Template-Modifications by TMS
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Patriots Planet is not affiliated with the NFL or with the New England Patriots. The views and opinions on this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the owners and/or operators of this forum and website.