Do we have the right to use a "First strike" doctrine?

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Common practice? Because of all those military strikes since 2003?

Even you, son, even you can admit that the Iraq war is and always will be seen as one of the most idiotic things ever done, i know it will be Blair legacy and Bush's too, and they will eventually be seen as moronic men with a taste for power.

But the Afghansitan war was needed, and the war with a nuclear nation that think it is safe Pakestan has just begun.

Our troops will NOT rest until every single Taliban is eardicated from this earth.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I specifically stated in my initial post that there OFFICIALLY is no such thing as the Bush Doctrine. There isn't. Prove it otherwise or please, STFU.

He and his people don't need to officially state it. They have done it in by starting the Iraq war. That's all the prove the entire world need to see.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Jmman
So do we take a nuclear missile on say, New York then? First strike has been and always will be an option.


The poll is really skewed if you ask me. I wouldn't say it is a good thing, but simply a fact of the world we live in with WMD........

For democracy, any man would give his only begotten son.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I specifically stated in my initial post that there OFFICIALLY is no such thing as the Bush Doctrine. There isn't. Prove it otherwise or please, STFU.

You know that you can refer to something by more then one word and have it mean the same thing right? It's called a synonym. If the President and his aides call something a 'doctrine of preemption', and everyone else calls it 'the Bush doctrine', they are using two different words to describe the exact same policy.(clearly articulated in official documents) Calling something by a different name doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

You said earlier that the Bush Doctrine was fiction. Did you mean to say that the Bush Doctrine did not exist because while the government has the exact same official policy as is described by the phrase "the Bush doctrine" they call it something different?

Please don't preach to me about the use of English. I write for a living and I'm well versed in words and the use of English. A synonym is an existing and recognized common usage word or phrase that has the same meaning. The phrase "Bush Doctrine" is a form of hyperbole. It's a literary device used by the BDS crew and is pure fiction in its invention to cast aspersions on Bush. If it were as you you claim I could state that "BDS moron" is synonymous with "eskimospy" and be completely correct in my assertion.

*sigh* Why is it always like this with you?

Calling Bush's foreign policy "The Bush doctrine" is not hyperbole. Nor was calling Eisenhower's foreign policy the Eisenhower doctrine hyperbole. Nor was calling the foreign policy of JFK the Kennedy doctrine hyperbole. Hey look, Clinton had one too. Also not hyperbole. It's a descriptive phrase used to encapsulate a president's foreign policy posture. The funny thing is that the term "the XXX doctrine" IS in fact a common useage phrase to describe foreign policy. So, by your own definition it is a synonym.

Note to everyone else: You really know TLC is getting desperate when he starts flailing around with the BDS business.

Again you continue to refuse recognize the I used the word "OFFICIAL". Keep trying to argue against that but you'll continue to be wrong in your assertion. There is no OFFICIAL doctrine referred to as the Bush Doctrine no matter how you try to spin it. Bush Doctrine an invention employed by the left to erect spectres, bogeymen, fearmongering, and nothing more. The lefties love to resort to those sorts of sound-bytes too and employ them at a whim, much as you have.

So show me where any such doctrine has OFFICIALLY been designated to be the "Bush Doctrine." I'll be waiting for your links to such a document. I'll be waiting till hell freezese over too. But no doubt you'll come back with some lame bullshit and evasions.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I specifically stated in my initial post that there OFFICIALLY is no such thing as the Bush Doctrine. There isn't. Prove it otherwise or please, STFU.

But there is now.

Attack them if there are lies enough to fuel the people with fear is the Bush attack doctrine.

He succeeded too, he had the people trollbound for a while and every one was chering, too bad he didn't listen to the man who know war, you know, the fucking military.

If Wesley Clark had done this, there would not have been ONE dead Ameican in Iraq, we have the technology to strike at what Donald said he knew where, they did not get SH though, and he dried to kill ma pa, so invasion next.

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
It seems after 9/11 we as a nation have moved into a new world. Or maybe thats what the government/administration would like us to believe. A military first strike seems like common practice for the U.S. now and I think that is attributed to fear. Somehow by attacking first we stop others from attacking us. If you think through it though, what stops other nations now, who have nuclear capabilities, from attacking first? By this doctrine we have removed ourselves from the moral leader and put ourselves in the position of world dictators.

MAD anybody?

This is the real world, there are no morals.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Again you continue to refuse recognize the I used the word "OFFICIAL". Keep trying to argue against that but you'll continue to be wrong in your assertion. There is no OFFICIAL doctrine referred to as the Bush Doctrine no matter how you try to spin it. Bush Doctrine an invention employed by the left to erect spectres, bogeymen, fearmongering, and nothing more. The lefties love to resort to those sorts of sound-bytes too and employ them at a whim, much as you have.

So show me where any such doctrine has OFFICIALLY been designated to be the "Bush Doctrine." I'll be waiting for your links to such a document. I'll be waiting till hell freezese over too. But no doubt you'll come back with some lame bullshit and evasions.

This is getting truly pathetic man, even for you.

I notice that you did not address the fact that nearly every single president that made a meaningful statement as to foreign policy has that posture described as "The XXX doctrine" XXX being whatever president it was. Do you believe that all of these descriptions are meant to disparage the president's foreign policy? If so, why? If other presidents have had their foreign policy views expressed as such, why is it wrong to describe Bush's as so? I would love to hear your answers.

I will also ask you again if I have your argument correct:

You said earlier that the Bush Doctrine was fiction. Did you mean to say that the Bush Doctrine did not exist because while the government has the exact same official policy as is described by the phrase "the Bush doctrine" they call it something different?

If that's what you're really arguing, you are retarded.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Common practice? Because of all those military strikes since 2003?

Even you, son, even you can admit that the Iraq war is and always will be seen as one of the most idiotic things ever done, i know it will be Blair legacy and Bush's too, and they will eventually be seen as moronic men with a taste for power.

But the Afghansitan war was needed, and the war with a nuclear nation that think it is safe Pakestan has just begun.

Our troops will NOT rest until every single Taliban is eardicated from this earth.

I have a son who was in the Marines in Iraq. He's probably close to your age, as a matter of fact. So I am definitely not your son.

And, no, I don't see that going into Iraq was idiotic. Yes, WMDs turned out to be a dud. I don't blame that on Bush though. I blame that on Saddam for keeping up a front and fooling not only the US, but everyone else as well for years and years. Tough shit for him. That ploy backfired.

But in the long run I believe that going into Iraq will be good for the ME and the world. Those who think in the short term only will no doubt disagree. But if we didn't disagree there'd be no use for forums like this in the first place, would there?

 

[Czar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...Presidential_doctrines

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Again you continue to refuse recognize the I used the word "OFFICIAL". Keep trying to argue against that but you'll continue to be wrong in your assertion. There is no OFFICIAL doctrine referred to as the Bush Doctrine no matter how you try to spin it. Bush Doctrine an invention employed by the left to erect spectres, bogeymen, fearmongering, and nothing more. The lefties love to resort to those sorts of sound-bytes too and employ them at a whim, much as you have.

So show me where any such doctrine has OFFICIALLY been designated to be the "Bush Doctrine." I'll be waiting for your links to such a document. I'll be waiting till hell freezese over too. But no doubt you'll come back with some lame bullshit and evasions.

This is getting truly pathetic man, even for you.

I notice that you did not address the fact that nearly every single president that made a meaningful statement as to foreign policy has that posture described as "The XXX doctrine" XXX being whatever president it was. Do you believe that all of these descriptions are meant to disparage the president's foreign policy? If so, why? If other presidents have had their foreign policy views expressed as such, why is it wrong to describe Bush's as so? I would love to hear your answers.

I will also ask you again if I have your argument correct:

You said earlier that the Bush Doctrine was fiction. Did you mean to say that the Bush Doctrine did not exist because while the government has the exact same official policy as is described by the phrase "the Bush doctrine" they call it something different?

If that's what you're really arguing, you are retarded.

Great. So show me where Bush has referred to his policy as the "Bush Doctrine" or STFU about it.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Czar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...Presidential_doctrines

Attribution != offiicial.

And do I need to repeat that this so-called "Bush Doctrine" that people are claiming exists was dropped in 2006?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

This is getting truly pathetic man, even for you.

I notice that you did not address the fact that nearly every single president that made a meaningful statement as to foreign policy has that posture described as "The XXX doctrine" XXX being whatever president it was. Do you believe that all of these descriptions are meant to disparage the president's foreign policy? If so, why? If other presidents have had their foreign policy views expressed as such, why is it wrong to describe Bush's as so? I would love to hear your answers.

I will also ask you again if I have your argument correct:

You said earlier that the Bush Doctrine was fiction. Did you mean to say that the Bush Doctrine did not exist because while the government has the exact same official policy as is described by the phrase "the Bush doctrine" they call it something different?

If that's what you're really arguing, you are retarded.

Great. So show me where Bush has referred to his policy as the "Bush Doctrine" or STFU about it.

I'm guessing this means you are not going to answer my questions.

Why does it matter if the president himself referred to their policy as "the xxx doctrine" or not? James Monroe never referred to his policy as "the Monroe doctrine". Clinton never referred to his as such either. Are you attempting to claim that they are fiction because of this?

 

[Noobtastic]

You guys take this stuff way too personally.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Czar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...Presidential_doctrines

Attribution != offiicial.

And do I need to repeat that this so-called "Bush Doctrine" that people are claiming exists was dropped in 2006?

Yes you do, in fact you should inform the White House as well because it's still up on their site as referenced in their most recent national security strategy.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

This is getting truly pathetic man, even for you.

I notice that you did not address the fact that nearly every single president that made a meaningful statement as to foreign policy has that posture described as "The XXX doctrine" XXX being whatever president it was. Do you believe that all of these descriptions are meant to disparage the president's foreign policy? If so, why? If other presidents have had their foreign policy views expressed as such, why is it wrong to describe Bush's as so? I would love to hear your answers.

I will also ask you again if I have your argument correct:

You said earlier that the Bush Doctrine was fiction. Did you mean to say that the Bush Doctrine did not exist because while the government has the exact same official policy as is described by the phrase "the Bush doctrine" they call it something different?

If that's what you're really arguing, you are retarded.

Great. So show me where Bush has referred to his policy as the "Bush Doctrine" or STFU about it.

I'm guessing this means you are not going to answer my questions.

Why does it matter if the president himself referred to their policy as "the xxx doctrine" or not? James Monroe never referred to his policy as "the Monroe doctrine". Clinton never referred to his as such either. Are you attempting to claim that they are fiction because of this?

No. I'm claiming that it's nothing more than a stupid label that someone else invented for their own purposes, just as "Bush Doctrine" was. Why you keep arguing contrary to that point is completely beyond comprehension. Once again, "Official" was my contention. Do you have proof that Bush referred to his policy as the Bush Doctrine or not? Stop trying to evade and answer the question.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Czar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...Presidential_doctrines

Attribution != offiicial.

And do I need to repeat that this so-called "Bush Doctrine" that people are claiming exists was dropped in 2006?

Yes you do, in fact you should inform the White House as well because it's still up on their site as referenced in their most recent national security strategy.

Summary of National Security Strategy 2002

Nice try. You fail. Keep googling though.

 

[Czar]

TLC,
Its just impossible to even describe your stupidity and thick headedness in this thread.

But just to make you look even more so.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/
The National Security Strategy
March 2006

Click section 5

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No. I'm claiming that it's nothing more than a stupid label that someone else invented for their own purposes, just as "Bush Doctrine" was. Why you keep arguing contrary to that point is completely beyond comprehension. Once again, "Official" was my contention. Do you have proof that Bush referred to his policy as the Bush Doctrine or not? Stop trying to evade and answer the question.

So explain how the "Bush Doctrine" is fiction? Does it describe policies that do not exist? Does it omit other relevant policies that would substantively change that which it is describing?

You are attempting to make the argument that because the administration uses a different phrase to describe the Bush doctrine that the Bush doctrine does not officially exist. This is obviously fallacious. The existence of something is not dependant on the administration using the same terminology as other people. It is only dependant upon whether or not the policies described by the phrase "the Bush doctrine" exist and if the word does not include or omit any relevant other policies that could substantively alter the described policies.

I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you.

I could give you one of a thousand examples. On my ship we referred to the engine room as "the hole". That term was found in no official documents as it would have been referred to in those as MER-1. To say that officially 'the hole' did not exist would be a descent into pedantry and stupidity so huge that nobody would ever dare.

Every thread you participate in.... every one... dissolves into some stupidity like this just so you won't admit you're wrong. You still haven't answered why "the Bush doctrine" is a pejorative while there are a dozen other presidents that have their foreign policy referred to as such without negative connotation.

You said you have a son who was in the marines, this means you have to be at least about 40. Start acting like it.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Czar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...Presidential_doctrines

Attribution != offiicial.

And do I need to repeat that this so-called "Bush Doctrine" that people are claiming exists was dropped in 2006?

Yes you do, in fact you should inform the White House as well because it's still up on their site as referenced in their most recent national security strategy.

Summary of National Security Strategy 2002

Nice try. You fail. Keep googling though.

Did you even read it?

I'm not googling anything, I'm going off your link, genius. The summary of the national security strategy of 2002 is the first part of their description of their current strategy. They then go on to explain the strategy outlined in 2002 in its current context. The strategy has not changed. In fact they reitorate that several other times in the "the way ahead" section.

Care to revise your statement?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No. I'm claiming that it's nothing more than a stupid label that someone else invented for their own purposes, just as "Bush Doctrine" was. Why you keep arguing contrary to that point is completely beyond comprehension. Once again, "Official" was my contention. Do you have proof that Bush referred to his policy as the Bush Doctrine or not? Stop trying to evade and answer the question.

So explain how the "Bush Doctrine" is fiction? Does it describe policies that do not exist? Does it omit other relevant policies that would substantively change that which it is describing?

You are attempting to make the argument that because the administration uses a different phrase to describe the Bush doctrine that the Bush doctrine does not officially exist. This is obviously fallacious. The existence of something is not dependant on the administration using the same terminology as other people. It is only dependant upon whether or not the policies described by the phrase "the Bush doctrine" exist and if the word does not include or omit any relevant other policies that could substantively alter the described policies.

I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you.

I could give you one of a thousand examples. On my ship we referred to the engine room as "the hole". That term was found in no official documents as it would have been referred to in those as MER-1. To say that officially 'the hole' did not exist would be a descent into pedantry and stupidity so huge that nobody would ever dare.

Every thread you participate in.... every one... dissolves into some stupidity like this just so you won't admit you're wrong. You still haven't answered why "the Bush doctrine" is a pejorative while there are a dozen other presidents that have their foreign policy referred to as such without negative connotation.

You said you have a son who was in the marines, this means you have to be at least about 40. Start acting like it.

iow, no, you can't prove it's anything else besides an invented label.

Thought so. Thanks for playing and proving once again that you simply have to try to butt heads with me just because.

Stop being such a moron just because it's me responding in a thread. Your penchant for always taking a contrarian position against me while completely ignoring what I actually say is really getting tiresome. Go pick someone else to bring your petty little vendettas against, troll.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
iow, no, you can't prove it's anything else besides an invented label.

Thought so. Thanks for playing and proving once again that you simply have to try to butt heads with me just because.

Stop being such a moron just because it's me responding in a thread. Your penchant for always taking a contrarian position against me while completely ignoring what I actually say is really getting tiresome. Go pick someone else to bring your petty little vendettas against, troll.

Are you crazy? You are making stuff up. Stop doing it and I'll stop having to correct you.

Out to the moon right wing people such as Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol have written adoring columns about the Bush doctrine back in 2002, and yet it's some sort of leftist Bush hating invention? The whole reason the Bush doctrine is viewed as a pejorative now is because of how badly it turned out.

The sort of arguments that you've made in this thread are so pathetic, and so outrageous, that they would be hilarious if they weren't coming from someone who claims to be at least 40. (or so)

Just to reitorate: You have made the argument that the set of policies described as the Bush doctrine don't officially exist because the administration doesn't use that term to describe them. That's retarded.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Nope, never acceptable.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Czar
India could invade Pakistan.

Do you really think India or Pakistan care what America does? America is going to help neither so it's not America that is stopping one from invading the other. It's MAD though.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Jmman
So do we take a nuclear missile on say, New York then? First strike has been and always will be an option.

Any country that has the capability of hitting our major cities with a nuclear missile would have more missiles than we could possibly stop with a first strike. We can't predict the future, and our intelligence has been incorrect on numerous occasions. Carrying out that first strike guarantees their retaliation.

 

[StageLeft]

Of course the answer is yes, but there is a big caveat, which the Bush administration has failed to heed, which is to do it properly. Anybody in any physical conflict, be it a bar fight or world war, would be wise to do a first strike, when possible. All this means is you hit first. It doesn't mean you hit just because somebody is looking at you funny, but if they're about to draw a gun and shoot, you draw quicker.