Interesting point Rick!
Quote:
|
It does nothing to supprt the assertion that preemption is anything but the action of an imperial bully.
|
What backs up your assertion that preemptive action was done for bullying purposes..other than your own distorted views of actions and consequences.
To some of us, preemption(though I don't agree with the Iraq preemption) was a valid alternative to the failed policy of passivity during the Clinton years. It went.."Talk loudly and carry a little stick"! Result an emboldened bunch of terorists who ramped up their destructive attacks on the innocents.
Bush and his so called neocons reacted to the latest murderous attack, 9/11, by intensifying the intelligence war and shoring up ouir defenses for the scourge of terrorism They also sought another alternative ...attacking those who would harbor terrorists and create the political instability thats seems to breed terrorists. Hence the Iraq thing was IMNSHO not a bullying thing, it was designed to attack the seeds of terrorism, and a disruptive country that was at least indirectly involved.A country that was firing on our miltary aircraft, refusing UN arms inspections and ignoring the covenents of its peace agreement over the Kuwait invasion plus repiorted to have been paying the families of suicide bombers and allowing terrorists to meet and train within its borders.
Afghanistan was the first choice, next choice Iraq. Sure the cost has been high but there is definitely a deterrent effect..see Pakistan, Libyia, Egypt. Lebenon. Kuwait, even Saudi arabia is cooperating.
And ...No more terrorist attacks on the US or its territories!