Until the parties figure out how to fix the business cycle then this stupid game of trying to assign blame for economic slumps is going to go on forever.
I still stand by my refutation about the Nazi thing. They declare war on us, so we send troops to Europe to defend ourselves?! I am <b>not</b> saying we shouldn't have done that; I am defending the concept of pre-emptive action.
But they were allied with a country that did attack us. We were at war with them. It wasn't a war we entered for pre-emptive reasons even though we made pre-emptive decisions during the war.
To be preemptive, the US would have had to attacked Germany before they invaded France or attacked Japan before Pearl Habor.
What had Germany done to us? Are we attacking them simply because of the company they keep? That doesn't sound very American! Call out the Hollywood elite....
Last week on a PBS episode of Frontline, they did a special about everything that's happened between Desert Storm and today. This policy of preemption taken on by Dubya is something that Wolfowitz presented to Bush senior back in 1991. Bush senior completely rejected it and now junior has completely embraced it. It's disgusting how 9/11 is being used by people like Wolfowitz to implement their wet dreams.
Why don't you read what I wrote, imbecile (or troll)? I specifically stated that a majority of Americans favored the use of force... under certain circumstances. Those vary greatly. Senate resolutions authorizing force do not necessarily mean "we favor the use of force under all circumstances, without attempts at diplomacy, regardless of how damaging such action might be to our international status." Tsk tsk... ignorant. Or why not quote the more than 50% of Americans who disfavor actions w/o a mandate... or the surprisingly large # of Democratic Presidential candidates who disfavor the use of force w/o greater int'l mandates? I can't figure out whether you're a troll... or an idiot. If you're selectively representing data on the basis that it's all you know... you're stupid. Or if you're doing so just to spoil for a fight, you're a troll. Given the "grandmother" speech in another thread of serious discussion... I'd say idiot. But it's possible you're just a talented troll.
Wow! You have done a great job of throwing insults my way. If you are a smart guy, you are wasting it with the above post. Let's go back to what you said, to get the discussion out of the gutter. I always love the use of the word "partisan." It's so pointless. It's almost always, too, used disingenuously by another parisan, engaging in partisan rhetoric. There are all sort of philosophical problems with proclaiming complete objectivity to begin with... but for johnheath to do so is doubly amusing. You start out by attacking me, so hold on- we still need to dig deeper to ascend from your gutter. The one point that Bird was completely correct about was the lack of debate in the Senate. It's truly curious that an issue which people disagree about garners so little political debate at higher levels. Everyone knows that most ordinary people (and politicians) favor a coercive exercise against Iraq under certain circumstances. However, their standards differ dramatically. Why is this not discussed more? You obviously did not know that the Senate has already discussed this issue at length, voted upon the issue, and Byrd's side lost. I am sorry to have contradicted you with FACTS, but isn't that the purpose of debate? I don't know if you have ever participated on a debate team, but we both know your last response would be met with cries of SHAME! Look, if you are going to take this personally, maybe you should just ignore me. Of course, if you don't ignore me, apparently you will learn a thing or two (or three, or four). So, lets lay off the insults, and discuss facts.
Its amazing how some people jump all over people because they have a low post count. If Colin Powell got on the board to discuss politics with some of you, you would totally discount his points by calling him a troll just because he was new to a basketball hangout BBS. On the random point of Germany and the U.S. and Japan and all that stuff... ...Most of you guys know that even though we weren't at war with Germany, we had been sending weapons, food, medicine, and raw materials to Britain for YEARS before we actually fought.
One more thing for Haven. The following Senate Joint Resolution is the result of Congressional Debate. ________________________________ IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES SEPTEMBER26, 2002 Mr. DASCHLE(for himself and Mr. LOTT) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read the first time JOINT RESOLUTION To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.Whereas Congress in 1998 concluded that Iraq was then in material and unacceptable breach of its international ob-ligations and thereby threatened the vital interests of the United States and international peace and security, stat-ed the reasons for that conclusion, and urged the Presi-dent to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compli-ance with its international obligations (Public Law 105_235); Whereas Iraq remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, con-tinuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring ter-rorist organizations, thereby continuing to threaten the -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 2 national security interests of the United States and inter-national peace and security; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in bru-tal repression of its civilian population, including the Kurdish peoples, thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repa-triate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully de-tained by Iraq, and by failing to return property wrong-fully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capa-bility and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its con-tinuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assas-sinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing re-sponsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on Sep-tember 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens; Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat that Iraq will transfer weapons of mass destruction to international ter-rorist organizations; -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 3 Whereas the United States has the inherent right, as ac-knowledged in the United Nations Charter, to use force in order to defend itself; Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the high risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify the use of force by the United States in order to defend itself; Whereas Iraq is in material breach of its disarmament and other obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, to cease repression of its civilian popu-lation that threatens international peace and security under United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and to cease threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq under United Nations Security Council Resolution 949, and United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes use of all necessary means to compel Iraq to comply with these ``subsequent relevant resolutions''; Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102_1) has authorized the President to use the Armed Forces of the United States to achieve full implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677, pursuant to Security Council Resolution 678; Whereas Congress in section 1095 of Public Law 102_190 has stated that it ``supports the use of all necessary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 4 means to achieve the goals of Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq (Public Law 102_1),'' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that Con-gress ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of Resolution 688''; Whereas Congress in the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105_338) has expressed its sense that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that re-gime; Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of inter-national terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107_40); and Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security inter-ests of the United States: Now, therefore, be itResolved by the Senate and House of Representatives1of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 2SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 3This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Further 4Resolution on Iraq''. 5 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 5 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. The President is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolutions referenced above, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region.
Safaris through ancestral memories teach me many things. The patterns, ahhh, the patterns. Liberal bigots are the ones who trouble me the most. I distrust the extremes. Scratch a conservative and you find someone who prefers the past over any future. Scratch a liberal and find a closet aristocrat. It's true! Liberal governments always develop into aristocracies. The bureaucracies betray the true intent of people who form such governments. Right from the first, the little people who formed the governments which promised to equalize the social burdens found themselves suddenly in the hands of bureaucratic aristocracies. Of course all bureaucracies follow this pattern, but what a hypocrisy to find that even under a communized banner. Ahhh, well, if patterns teach me anything it's that patterns are repeated. My oppressions, by and large, are no worse than any of the others and, at least, I teach a new lesson. --The Stolen Journals
More than likely, an earlier pre-emption would have placed American forces in Saudi Arabia earlier, thus enraging Bin Laden (whose hatred for America, it is generally agreed, was sparked by the American presence in Saudi Arabia) earlier, thus setting off a chain of events would have led to 9/11 occuring earlier.
Wait a second...Clinton called for preemptive action! Remember when he started shooting cruise missiles in Iraq and elsewhere. We were told the war on terrorism was taking a turn...that we HAD to be preemptive in order to fight this new threat. Where was this reaction then? Clinton's statements back then nearly mirror Bush II's today.
who does this sound like? this should answer many of your questions about why we're worried about disarming Iraq. Thanks, Bill!! http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/ClintonIraq.htm 16 December 1998 TRANSCRIPT: CLINTON ON PREEMPTIVE AIRSTRIKES AGAINST IRAQ (UNSCOM report "stark, sobering, profoundly disturbing") (2430) Washington -- President Clinton ordered America's Armed Forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq December 16 to "attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons," Clinton said in a December 16 statement from the White House. Clinton said the results of UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler's report to UN Secretary General Annan regarding Iraq's non-cooperation with UN weapons inspectors were "stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing." Clinton said that Iraq has failed to cooperate in four out of the five categories set forth. "This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance," Clinton said. "In halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the President said. "We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspections system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region." "If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people," Clinton said. "And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we are acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future." Following is the White House transcript: (begin transcript) THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary December 16, 1998 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT The Oval Office 6:00 P.M. EST THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's Armed Forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States and, indeed, the interest of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons. I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq, why we have acted now and what we aim to accomplish. Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors, called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. The inspectors undertook this mission, first, seven and a half years ago, at the end of the Gulf War, when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the cease-fire. The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there's one big difference: he has used them, not once but repeatedly -- unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war, not only against soldiers, but against civilians; firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Iran -- not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM, as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down. Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq, backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The U.N. Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance. Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the U.N. When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then, at the last possible moment, that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the U.N. that it had made -- and I quote -- "a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors." I decided then to call off the attack, with our airplanes already in the air, because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate. I made it very clear at that time what "unconditional cooperation" meant, based on existing U.N. resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning. Now, over the past three weeks, the U.N. weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's Chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to U.N. Secretary General Annan. The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars: Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party, and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though U.N. resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past. Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program. It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents, and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions. Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents, but even the furniture and the equipment. Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors; indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection. So Iraq has abused its final chance. As the UNSCOM report concludes -- and again I quote -- "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament. In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must, regrettably, be recorded again that the Commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program." In short, the inspectors are saying that, even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham. Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors. This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act, and act now. Let me explain why. First, without a strong inspections system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs -- in months, not years. Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction. And some day, make no mistake, he will use it again, as he has in the past. Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspections system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region. That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, including the Vice President, Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of State, and the National Security Advisor, I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors. At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam: If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisors, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare. If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse forces and protect his weapons. Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world, and therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East. That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it. Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses. So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction, and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people. First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq, or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force and, when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War. Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have caused Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people. The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently. The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt: If he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we are acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future. Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down. But once more, the United States has proven that, although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so. In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community; fear and hope. Now, in a new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past -- but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace. Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission, and their families. And may God bless America. (end transcript)
Max, Two things. First, Clinton's strike was a deplorable, transparent political ploy, just like the "new product roll-out" of the current situation just before the elections of last year. The difference here is that while you could certainly call Clinton's action pre-emptive, he didn't draft a new doctrine justifying any and all pre-emptive measures we might want to take, which is what Bush did and which is at least partly responsible for the escalation of the problem with North Korea. When you first call a country a member in an "axis of evil" (totally stupid wording since none of the three countries are acting in concert) and then promote a doctrine of pre-emptive actions whenever and wherever we feel like it, well, you can almost understand North Korea's decision to threaten us back. Second, go back and read my earlier post again. I was responding to johnheath's assertion that Byrd had no credibility on anything at all because of his past. I agree he has no cred on race issues, but for better or worse he's a senator saying things no one else has the guts to say. He DOES have credibility on those things. I'm not looking to bring up Bush's past except when a Bush supporter makes such a stupid logic leap with someone else's past.
1. i didn't hear that outcry when clinton called for preemptive action 2. i don't have a story to link to, but i absolutely remember madeline albright talking about the need for preemptive action in the war on terrorism...she said otherwise we'd end up with a massive terrorist event here...and she said we'd start to see a difference in the way that war was prosecuted. i wish i could find a link to that statement...maybe someone else can..but i believe it was after the attempts that hit a pharmaceutical factory in Yemen 3. Again...if Bush were a KKK member, you wouldn't give him a shred of credibility on any topic, race or otherwise. And I wouldn't either. The very fact they kept electing this man is ridiculous to me. I would vote for Sheila Jackson Lee before I'd vote for a guy who was in the KKK...and that's saying a LOT. Credibility: Gone.
But we weren't even looking to capture Bin Laden in 1991. The preemptive strike would have been against Iraq. Other than placing American troops in the Holy Land and thus drawing the ire of Bin Laden, how could this have done anything to prevent 9/11?
