Selective Pre-emption

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Zhukov, Mar 29, 2004.

  1. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    This is something I've wondered about.

    Why is it possible for this man to fret about the need to pre-emptively act against possible threats, and then sit there and blithely criticize the President for taking care of Iraq?

    I realize the man has contradicted himself on occasion recently, but doesn't he even see the logic of broadly pursuing his very own opinions? Or does he believe it is neccessary "to act on threats in the future before they happen" more selectively?

    He said invading Iraq undermines the war against terrorists. I don't watch any of the news-magazine programs he's visited, I just watched his testimony on C-SPAN, and I wanted to know if anyone caught his reasoning behind his criticism for the Iraq war as it relates to combatting terrorism?
     
  2. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    Because he’s sold out to the politically rewarding cash drawer of the anti-Bush agenda of the left! That you question his motives indicates a healthy dose of political realism. Hehe, like you said, I can’t disagree with what I agree with already .... Ahww well.
     
  3. st8_o_mind
    Online

    st8_o_mind Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    The operative word is "threat." We now know that Bush either exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq or was mistaken about the threat due to inaccurate intelligence. Either way, Three things are clear to all now.

    One. Iraq did not represent a "real and immediate danger" to the US at the time of the invasion.

    Two al Qaeda posed, and continues to pose a real and immediate threat to the security of the US., to our allies, and to US interests overseas.

    Three. The Bush Administration has focused on Iraq for the past two years.

    The most fundamental responsibility of the President is to "protect and defend" the US. Not bring democracy to Iraq. Bush fought the wrong war against the wrong enemy. Worse, invading Iraq was the best thing that could have happened to al-Qaeda.

    Bush is a fool and worse, an incompetent Commander in Chief at a time when our nation needs real leadership not some recycled AWOL drunk rich kid hiding in the Guard because Daddy is a Congressman with some pull moron.
     
  4. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    Many times over, Iraq was stated as a grave threat to america, its interests, and its allies.

    That would be YOUR opinion, but not others. Its certainly not mine. when we invaded afghanistan we should have pressed pakistan and cornered the bastards there. what we have now is a hodgepodge of border jumpers to deal with and thats making security in afghanistan and pakistan worse. To top it all off, we're now experiencing an increase of terrorism in our northern ally, uzbekistan.

    Its loaded with american military personnel, aka targets. This is how we lost vietnam, the slow attrition of our soldiers.
     
  5. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Had all of our soldiers been keyed in on Afghanistan, couldn't the same have been said about them there? In fact, more of Al Qaeda is in that area, so wouldn't that make the odds even worse? Couldn't this statement apply to our soldiers wherever they are to go to fight terrorists?
     
  6. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    BTW - Just wanted to say I agreed with these statements when they were made over a year ago, and I agree with them today.
     
  7. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    Ah yes, the "imminent threat" canard rears its fool head once again. When you use quotes around a statement it would actually be helpful if the words were actually spoken by Bush. The concept of “pre-emption” itself does not depend upon such clear knowledge of the threat. So why do you choose the liberal myth when you know we will hammer you mercilessly for attempting to propagate that here?

    The link to Bush’s public statement on Iraq, once again:


    2003 SOTU Speech:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

    ‘Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.’


    Bush just called you out, St8-O!


    Absolutely. So what’s your point? That we are failing to pursue Al-Qaeda because we have pursued Saddam Hussein? That we can’t do A. and B. both, or even that doing B.(Iraq) has worked against doing A.(fighting terror)?

    Someday I’d like to see Bush-haters get with the program here. It’s undeniable that Spain was bombed by Al-Qaeda based on their military action in Iraq. What’s amazing is that liberals still believe Iraq and Al-Qaeda are separate, unrelated issues.

    I mean Jeezus Christ, didn’t Al-Qaeda just say “leave us alone in Iraq or we’ll attack you?” Simplistic explanation but you should start with that one.

    Among other things. Doing B.(Iraq) does not preclude one from doing A(fighting terrorists), and could even help fight A.

    When A. bombs you over doing B., that means we pissed them off, and are doing something which hurts them. They want what you want, for the US to stop!

    You’re saying that leaving warmongers and cruel dictators to rule the nations world is the better way to “protect and defend” the US? I’m glad your people are not in charge!

    They loved it so much they bombed Spain to show their appreciation!

    It’s just Bin-Laden’s way of saying “Thank You!”.

    :dev3:

    We don’t want fools and morons in the White House now, do we?

    Libs better think up a new line on the war, and quick!

    :laugh:
     
  8. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    not necessarily so, if afghanistan had remained the only theater in the WOT then we would have a huge advantage in NATO support as well as the surrounding countries shoring up our offense. Moving the main theater to IRAQ has put us, as occupiers, in a defensive status where we are responding to attacks, not initiating the offensive.
     
  9. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    with the exception of Kay's report theres little evidence to show this to be true.
     
  10. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    maybe YOU need to get with the program. Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until after we got there, not sure of the logic you are trying to use in intimating that the two are connected. care to explain?
     

Share This Page