The Doctrine of Preemption

[Livemike]

Quote by: Zealot Quote by: bishop we are legally allowed to launch a unilateral attack on another country if one of the two criteria are met: 1. we have to be first attacked by that country (eg. retaliation) 2. we have information that we are facing an imminent attack (eg. unambiguous self-defense) did iraq qualify for either of these criteria? Yes Iraq qualifies, most certainly!!! Zealot

Based on what? Iraq never attacked the United States and the Bush team never
even claimed that the US was facing an imminent attack. You're lying worse
than your traitors heroes.

[Zealot]

Quote by: Livemike Based on what? Iraq never attacked the United States and the Bush team never even claimed that the US was facing an imminent attack. You're lying worse than your traitors heroes.

How many scud missles did Iraq fire at Israel? How many of our planes were fired upon by Iraq. Did Iraq invade another country? (Kuwait) Did not Israel bomb Saddams nuclear site? So he had one, huh? Did not Congress and President Clinton and the UN say Saddam was a threat to the world? Did not the Iraqi's attempt to asassinate President Bush? Who burn't all the oil wells, a definite attack on our environment right?

Traitor and liar are strong words and also rude, see the above rules.

Zealot

[RickSp]

Quote by: Zealot How many scud missles did Iraq fire at Israel? How many of our planes were fired upon by Iraq. Did Iraq invade another country? (Kuwait) Did not Israel bomb Saddams nuclear site? So he had one, huh? Did not Congress and President Clinton and the UN say Saddam was a threat to the world? Did not the Iraqi's attempt to asassinate President Bush? Who burn't all the oil wells, a definite attack on our environment right? Traitor and liar are strong words and also rude, see the above rules. Zealot

Zealot, you either need to learn some geography or more likely (or would that be less likely), establish a firmer grip on reality. Iraq never attacked us. Iraq never posed an imminent threat to us. Some of Saddam's greatest crimes were commited with US assistance.

Liar and traitor are hard words. It is a pity that they apply so well to our alleged leaders, the ones that you seem to want to deify.

[RickSp]

Quote by: rmnunez I believe there are a group of nations among which I'd include the US, China, Britain, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Indonesia, India, New Zealand and Mexico, which are in the lead in advocacy for development through enhanced trade. I realize more trade is seen by many as an expression of this nefarious globalization and the ubiquity of MacDonalds, but I see it also a step out of poverty and towards better education, health, and comfort. I see international terrorism as a direct threat to enhanced trade and advocate any effort at its curtailment and erradication. I think the world now faces a genuine international terrorist threat which will grow if not checked and which cannot be accomodated or tolerated. I don't see an end to US military support for Israel in the cards and since we know that isn't going to change what we've got to get rid of is those resorting to violence in demanding this happen.

By your own standards the Bush imperial worldview is a failure. American imperialism is a barrier to world trade. You cite McDonalds but you should consider KFC which has been effectively driven out of the Middle East. Bush is making the world safe for mercantilism, not free trade.

[rmnunez]

Not sure how my standards show Bushian imperialism fails or how US imperialism is a barrier to trade, especially not when you refer to mercantilist policies. I remember finding reference to a mercantilist policy in describing British trade ties with colonies in the Caribbean (sugar from and textiles to). Back then they emphasized this approach whereby raw products were shipped to the metropoli and manufactured goods to the primitive colonies. This colonization premised on imperial needs and the profitability of colonial exports to their far flung bastions was criticised as greedy and exploitative.

Was unaware the US now practices a "mercantilist" foreign policy, but if it did, how could it possibly be a barrier to trade -would seem more like the opposite with these raw goods shipped one way and manufactured things the other.

Whether its MacDonalds or KFC makes no difference, my reference was to caricaturize the critical lefty perspective which decries the presence of either as symptoms of globalization (something they see as very bad).

[RickSp]

Bush is no friend of free trade and never has been been. His bully boy foreign policy has been more of an obstacle of globilazation that a supporter of it, except for globalization is an imperial sense. His support for steel tariffs suggests that he is either wholly ignorant of economics or merely indifferent of the consequences of his policies. His foreign policy is certainly mercantilist in that it seeks to establish colonies to ensure raw materials for the mother country. His reliance on chartered monopolies, which is effectively to the role played by Halliburtan and the like, is also a throwback to 18th century merchantilism.

[Apeman81]

Personally, if one threatens me or my family, or for that matter, any innocent in my presence, and I believe the threat to be credible and actionable on the part of the person making the threat, it is not only my right but my duty to act in order to prevent the injustice from occurring. Don’t make threats if you don’t want the reaction.
If man attacks your neighbor, and occupies his home and mistreats his family, is not the neighbor deserving of your aid?
And if you come to his aid and repel the interloper, forcing him out of your neighbor’s home, is not the interloper deserving of punishment? Should he not be sent away to interfere in you neighbors life no more?
And if the interloper, from his place of punishment, strikes out against his jailors, trying to do them harm, is he not to be stopped? If he gives aid to those that would do others harm, should he not be made to stop? If he continues to bring death to those who cannot escape his tyranny, do we allow him to continue?
I say no. I say we put him down, as the dog his actions have proven him to be.
And Saddam soon will be.

[rmnunez]

The steel tariffs were not an expression of some foreign policy, they were a perceived necessity to buy time for US steel industry to recapitalize infrastructural investment. Steel production demands inordinately high capital investment. The substantial sums needed to finance major equipment overhauls required to improve US steel production, demand protracted time frames and some protections while they bring the improvements on line.

The WTO dispute resolution process is cumbersome and takes almost 3 years from initial complaint to a final determination. Bush was pressured by US steel producers with a credible claim they needed time to secure the financing and make the purchases necessary to upgrade production. Bush agreed to afford steel producers the protections they needed with enhanced tariffs to keep competing producers out while the domestic ones retooled.

Bush likely did this anticipating the reaction, knowing the US would get into litigation and eventually lose. Bush probably also realized that with any luck it would be 3 years before he'd have to lift the enhanced tariffs and that by then the US steel industry would be geared up and ready.

[RickSp]

I never suggested that the steel tariffs were foreign policy - only an indication that Bush doesn't understand or care about economics. The destructive effects of protectionist tariffs is well documented. They destroy many more jobs than they save. Tariffs on a raw material necessary for so much other manufacturing is especially dim witted.

Your justifications for such stupidty are rather silly. Bush's tariffs were understood at the time to be a political calculation - a pay-off to the steel unions immediately before a mid-term election. Economics be damned for a short term political benefit. Nothing more or less.

[rmnunez]

Didn't know about this political steel union payoff business. Didn't they revamp steel production machinery in the past 4 or 5 years?

[Zealot]

Quote by: Apeman81 Personally, if one threatens me or my family, or for that matter, any innocent in my presence, and I believe the threat to be credible and actionable on the part of the person making the threat, it is not only my right but my duty to act in order to prevent the injustice from occurring. Don’t make threats if you don’t want the reaction. If man attacks your neighbor, and occupies his home and mistreats his family, is not the neighbor deserving of your aid? And if you come to his aid and repel the interloper, forcing him out of your neighbor’s home, is not the interloper deserving of punishment? Should he not be sent away to interfere in you neighbors life no more? And if the interloper, from his place of punishment, strikes out against his jailors, trying to do them harm, is he not to be stopped? If he gives aid to those that would do others harm, should he not be made to stop? If he continues to bring death to those who cannot escape his tyranny, do we allow him to continue? I say no. I say we put him down, as the dog his actions have proven him to be. And Saddam soon will be.

Bush is facing the same problem George Washington faced: About 3% of the population supported him....apathy, self-interests, uncertainty, fear and a lot of partisanship. But he WON, right?

Zealot

[Clarence]

Quote by: Zealot Bush is facing the same problem George Washington faced: About 3% of the population supported him....apathy, self-interests, uncertainty, fear and a lot of partisanship. But he WON, right? Zealot

You didn't like comparing Algeria in the 60's to France now but have no trouble comparing Bush to Washington. The irony is that Washinton was seeking independence form other countries, while Bush seems to be selling us methodically.

[Zealot]

Quote by: Clarence You didn't like comparing Algeria in the 60's to France now but have no trouble comparing Bush to Washington. The irony is that Washinton was seeking independence form other countries, while Bush seems to be selling us methodically.

Thank you for using the word "seems", we know then that you are not sure yourself. And Washington had little support from the people he was fighting for, see the paralell?

Zealot

[Clarence]

no, I don't. and after that "If I were President" reply, I don't believe we live in the same America. The Doctrine of pre-emption is a crock. Do you realize, Zealot, you have the same character profile as Saddam or Hitler? granted, not as smart, but you're still an ass face and I'm suprised you're not in jail with your attitude. Maybe you just act this way online. Why aren't you in the services Zealot?

[Clarence]

I only said "seems" because I used methodically. I don't know whether he is doing it on purpose or what. Whether he means to or not, he is racking up a huge debt financed by other countries. sending jobs overseas.

can any of my fellow patriots expand this list of Bush's sellouts?

[Zealot]

Quote by: Clarence I only said "seems" because I used methodically. I don't know whether he is doing it on purpose or what. Whether he means to or not, he is racking up a huge debt financed by other countries. sending jobs overseas. can any of my fellow patriots expand this list of Bush's sellouts?

Good Clarence, you answered correctly. "I DON"T KNOW" Either he acts on purpose, or not! Either he means it or not. See how confused you are. And then you call out to others to bail you out, my goodness!!! tsk tsk !
Don't you see that you were at least half honest, right? That's good guy, keep tryin!

Zealot

[Livemike]

Quote by: Zealot Bush is facing the same problem George Washington faced: About 3% of the population supported him....apathy, self-interests, uncertainty, fear and a lot of partisanship. But he WON, right? Zealot

Zealot you're the most ignorant man on this board. There was NEVER a time when
Washington had less than 50% of the country cheering him on. There was never a
time when George Bush had more than 20% of Iraq cheering him on. The difference
should be obvious. So should the difference in the level of strategic expertise between
the General and the generally useless.

[Livemike]

Quote by: Clarence I only said "seems" because I used methodically. I don't know whether he is doing it on purpose or what. Whether he means to or not, he is racking up a huge debt financed by other countries. sending jobs overseas. can any of my fellow patriots expand this list of Bush's sellouts?

Well let's see I regard myself as a true patriot (not Loyalist) so although I'm not a yank I'll give it a go. He sold out; a CIA agent to discredit her husband, sold out the military by spending $200M a plane for the useless F-22 (what the hell is this thing supposed to do in the War On (Some) Terror anyway?) while scimping on body armour, sold out our Northern Alliance allies by not finishing the job in Afghanistan*, he sold out every american General who told the truth by firing them for doing so, he sold out National Security by keeping the abominablely incompetent Condi on as Adviser on it**, he sold out the troops again by cancelling the too-effective and not sufficently expensive A-10 and he sold out anyone who wants to proud of their president by sheilding the scum who outed Plame. That's all I've got off the top of my head. Will research further.




* Yes I know they're sons of bitches, but they're OUR sons of bitchs and I'd rather
drink with them than the Taliban.
** Her advice did not secure the nation, therefore she should not be National Security
Advisor. Seems like a "Slam dunk" to me.

[Livemike]

Quote by: Zealot Quote by: Livemike Based on what? Iraq never attacked the United States and the Bush team never even claimed that the US was facing an imminent attack. You're lying worse than your traitors {correction: traitorous} heroes. How many scud missles did Iraq fire at Israel?

After the end of the first war? None. In any case how is an attack on Israel a justification for the US to use preemptive force? You do remember that the capital of the USA is not Tel Aviv don't you?

Quote by: Zealot How many of our planes were fired upon by Iraq.

What you mean the planes that were bombing their country at the time? I don't see how even someone as deluded as you can call that an "attack".

Quote by: Zealot Did Iraq invade another country? (Kuwait)

Yes and the US dealt with that. Using it as an external excuse to hit them when you want to is not convincing.

Quote by: Zealot Did not Israel bomb Saddams nuclear site? So he had one, huh?

Yes and they were allowed to have one. They (unlike the Isrealis) were members in good standing with the NPT. The fact that a country has a "nuclear site" is not a reason to expect an attack from them.

Quote by: Zealot Did not Congress and President Clinton and the UN say Saddam was a threat to the world?

I don't know or care. Why would you believe "Slick Willy" or any of the other members of the usaul suspects?

Quote by: Zealot Did not the Iraqi's attempt to asassinate President Bush?

No they didn't. That myth was disproven a while ago.

Quote by: Zealot Who burn't all the oil wells, a definite attack on our environment right?

Well probably the yanks, but even if it was the Iraqi that doesn't constitute an attack on the United States. And it happened a decade ago so it's clearly not a justification for "preemption".

Quote by: Zealot Traitor and liar are strong words and also rude, see the above rules. Zealot

I didn't call anyone on this board a traitor, there is no rule against insulting people who don't post here (not that you've been following such a rule if there was one). As for calling you a liar, well I didn't, I just said you were lying. That's not an insult it's my assessment of your statements.