| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Like I have said numerous times - a dangerous; precedent was set by USA in Iraq. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 19 2004, 11:58 AM (571 Views) | |
| ImpulseEngine | Aug 19 2004, 04:48 PM Post #16 |
|
Admiral
|
From this National Strategy Report on this page:
It's dated September 19, 2002 and we all know which country Bush had in his sights at that time. And regardless of whether he was referring specifically and solely to Iraq, the statement certainly included Iraq since Saddam and his regime are classified by the administration as terrorists. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 19 2004, 04:53 PM Post #17 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
And your point is? I'm glad we had this in place rather than wait for some terrorist vermin to come a'knockin'! Here's the index, in case anyone is interested: Introduction I. Overview of America's International Strategy II. Champion Aspirations for Human Dignity III. Strengthen Alliances to Defeat Global Terrorism and Work to Prevent Attacks Against Us and Our Friends (where your quote came from) IV. Work with others to Defuse Regional Conflicts V. Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction VI. Ignite a New Era of Global Economic Growth through Free Markets and Free Trade VII. Expand the Circle of Development by Opening Societies and Building the Infrastructure of Democracy VIII. Develop Agendas for Cooperative Action with the Other Main Centers of Global Power IX. Transform America's National Security Institutions to Meet the Challenges and Opportunities of the Twenty-First Century |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Aug 19 2004, 05:05 PM Post #18 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ Dwayne was trying to suggest that the strikes weren't pre-emptive and my point is that it's a difficult argument to win when the President himself said they were pre-emptive (at least originally, because I know he no longer admits that - speaking of waffling :rolleyes:). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Aug 19 2004, 06:17 PM Post #19 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Here's what you're saying now...
This is what you initially said...
You point is a non-sequitur, because Mr. Bush was not speaking about Iraq, no matter how you attempt to spin it. What he speaking about is the policy of preempting terrorist, and not a preemptive war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Aug 19 2004, 08:57 PM Post #20 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Dwayne: Everyone on the face of the planet who has access to a TV here what Bush and his cronnies said. Except maybe you perhaps. Iraq had been subject to sanctions (for over a decade) and their military run down and put into a poor state as result, and they were totally demoralised and virtually unable to defend themselves (the Iraqi airforce never even fielded a single fighter thye were so demoralised). Iran is a different situation entirely. No effective sanctions have been applied to them, they are a more homogeneous society, and a country that's got 3 or 4 times the population Iraq had, and I understand they have purchased modern weapons recently as well as perhaps having nukes, they certainly have medium and long range missile systems. I doubt they would fall over as quickly as Iraq did, any war with Iran is likely to protracted and very very costly and bloody. If the Pentagon seriously thought they could take out Iran, they would have done it a long time ago when they had an excuse (in the eyes of the USA population). The USA does not have the capacity to fight a serious war with Iran - Look at trouble the USA is having maintaining and supplying its 150,000 troops in Iraq, or the stomache for it. Bush let the genie out the bottle and set a very dangerous precedent , now the whole world has to pay tne consequences for the next several decades . |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Sgt. Jaggs | Aug 19 2004, 09:25 PM Post #21 |
|
How about a Voyager Movie
|
Sorry to get in here late but DS9074 your views sharply disagree with mine. You sound afraid to offend or to take risk when threatened let alone take action. Quoting ds9074 "Setting the precident of a pre-emptive war is indeed a very dangerous thing. That is one of the main strands of my opposition to the war in Iraq. If we launch pre-emptive strikes what authority do we have to stand up to another country which does the same?" What world authority are you referring to? Dangerous because or the consequences? Politically or Militarily? Quoting ds9074 "Also with so many American troops in the region it makes it harder for the moderates in the Iranian Government to resist the pressure to gain a nuclear capacity for example. They see how easily Iraq was taken out, they also see us taking a totally different tact with North Korea that may have nukes." Come on Sparky, Iranian Moderates? Good luck getting them to go on the record. Some of you Britts Irritate me with your waffling, you even said in the Quote above "us' referring to U.S. policy and Brittain policy. What are you DS, a conciencious objector? Quoting ds9074: "When was the last time a nuclear power was invaded? That could have been part of the motivation for Saddam trying to gain nuclear weapons, he would know that his regime was a lot more secure once it got them - provided he never used them." I bet if Big Ben and Parlaiment were hit on 9-11-01 you would be singing a different tune. I can't believe that you can't see the facts. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Sgt. Jaggs | Aug 19 2004, 09:39 PM Post #22 |
|
How about a Voyager Movie
|
Quoting Somerled: "Bush let the genie out the bottle and set a very dangerous precedent , now the whole world has to pay tne consequences for the next several decades." Exacty right. Bush has not only let the Genie out of the bottle he kicked it in the ass. The whole world will SEE the consequences of the radical Muslim. You think you have no stake in this, wait until the Phillipines or New Guinea come into play. You are only a short sighted hater, your time will come to, when they deem you an infadel. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Aug 19 2004, 11:04 PM Post #23 |
|
Admiral
|
In your opinion. Most people who were paying any attention knew exactly what he meant by it at the time - he was opening the door for pre-emptive strikes on Iraq. Either you knew too or you weren't paying attention, but I don't expect you will admit either scenerio. Even Bush didn't initially deny that they were pre-emptive strikes even in the face of complaints about those strikes. It was only when such a gaping lack of anything justifying the pre-emptive strikes was found that the Bush administration started denying that the strikes were pre-emptive. And THERE was your spin... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Aug 20 2004, 02:11 AM Post #24 |
|
Admiral
|
I think it makes it more likely for one country to be able to invade another and claim to be taking pre-emptive action. So dangerous in a military sense. Also dangerous politically since it undermines the long held doctrines and international laws regarding the use of force. Namely that you only take military action in self defense, to defend an ally, or to prevent a humanitarian catastrophy that is unfolding. You also only take military action when all other options have been exhausted, as a last resort. And you do so preferably with the endorsement of the United Nations or at the very least another international body such as NATO.
Actually there are moderates in Iran. The President is one and only recently many tried to run for Parliament but were barred by the Islamic clerics. Without those clerics and their supporters in powerful places Iran would have a comparitivly democractic system of Government. The British Government has been trying to support the moderate elements in Iran with several high level trips from the Foreign Secretary and the Prince of Wales. The moderates are the people who arranged for our sailors to be returned.
That doesnt really answer my point. The 11th September 2001 attacks on the USA were an act of terrorism, an attack, against a nuclear power. They were not an invasion. I ask again when was the last time a nuclear power was invaded? These "rogue states" could well believe that if they can only obtain nuclear weapons they will be safe from invasion. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | Aug 20 2004, 03:06 AM Post #25 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
Not as much as you Yanks do sometimes
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | Aug 20 2004, 03:12 AM Post #26 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
Well, no one really knew for sure if Iraq had nuclear weapons before the Gulf War II. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | Aug 20 2004, 03:44 AM Post #27 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
Lets summarize what has happened since 2001 in one paragraph.... Bin Laden et al attack the US, The US and others respond by totally changing the culture and structure of Afghanistan and Iraq, many insurgents/terrorists are killed or are in hiding. Theres a lot of posturing from countries that object, but nothing has really changed in world politics. 1. The term 'War on Terror' is a nice little pc term for 'The War on Islamic Fundamentalism', its not just a war on a couple dozen terrorists, they have a lot of supporters in the places they are hiding, if these countries had the money, or most of the population was against them, they would have turned them over to the Americans by now.( Dont bother trying to tell me most muslims are nice - I already know) 2. Some analysts and Politicians have stated that this War may last till half way through this century - what a croc - lucky if it lasts 10 yrs, if there is another major attack, the Allies will just go after another country / area and mop up. Theres a reason these guys are hiding in the poorer islamic countries, its easier to recruit 'believers', easier to influence whicever government. The richer Islamic countries (moderates) are more interested in making money. 3. What has really changed?, A thousand or so American troops have lost their lives (G.B.T.S) but they have made a difference. And we now all get our bags checked when we go see the football ( but the extra security was going to happen anyway if America hadnt responded). Its all a big bruhaha, postering by politicians to get voters on their sides, media hyping up the threat to sell newspapers and ad spots. It only seems a big thing because there aren't any real wars anymore. History will dedicate a paragraph , maybe half a page at most to the Gulf War II. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Aug 20 2004, 07:22 AM Post #28 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Really now ... so prove it ... show the speech where Mr. Bush declared that since Iraq wasn't cooperating or whatnot, we must act preemptively. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Aug 20 2004, 07:53 AM Post #29 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
OK- here is one example - the language is clear and leaves no doubt what is meant. Bush II Bush Pledges Pre-Emptive Strikes (dated 2002-06-01)
and same piece
There are more but I'll leave those to others to find and submit if necessary. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Aug 20 2004, 07:58 AM Post #30 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Where did he mention Iraq? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |





3:24 AM Jul 11