• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

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

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Personal Attacks. The first refuge of the fact-denying NeanderCons

Originally posted by: hellokeith
My pseudo-Moonbeam impression:

"Cain was the first and only first-strike. Everything since is self-hate manifesting itself as revenge."


What Moonie said:

Bull Shit, Fern. The weapons inspectors were reporting no WMD. The invasion was an illegal war crime. There was no imminent threat and no proof of one.


The Bold-faced Lie that Fern said:

In 2003 many people were of the opinion that peaceful measures had been exhausted. With hindsight, many now feel differently.


FACT: On November 8, 2002, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1441, demanding that Iraq give UN inspectors the unconditional right to search anywhere in Iraq for banned weapons.

FACT: Weapons inspectors from UNMOVIC (the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) returned to Iraq on November 18, 2002.

FACT: On 7 December 2002, Iraq submitted a declaration of some 12,000 pages in response to paragraph 3 of resolution 1441 (2002) and within the time stipulated by the Security Council. In the fields of missiles and biotechnology, the declaration contained a full disclosureof materials and information covering the period from 1998 onward.

FACT: In less than 2 months UNMOVIC built-up its capabilities in Iraq from nothing to 260 staff members from 60 countries. This included approximately 100 UNMOVIC inspectors, 60 air operations staff, as well as security personnel, communications, translation and interpretation staff, medical support, and other services at Baghdad and Mosul field offices.

FACT: Inspections included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections took place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day.

FACT: In the first two months during which UNMOVIC built-up their presence in Iraq, they conducted about 300 inspections at more than 230 different sites. Of these, more than 20 were sites that had not been inspected before.

FACT: Prior to the invasion of Iraq the roster of inspectors continued to grow with a training program in Vienna. At the end of that course, a roster of about 350 qualified experts were to be added from which to draw inspectors.

FACT: On March 16, 2003, five Bell-212 helicopters used by the inspectors left Iraq because the helicopter's insurance company decided to withdraw coverage. They were British and Canadian. This effectively ended UNMOVIC inspections. Here is a complete list of the 96 daily inspection briefings given by UNMOVIC from November 27, 2002, to March 16, 2003.

FACT: On March 17, 2003, during an address to the nation, President George W Bush declares: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

FACT: On March 19/20, 2003, the invasion of Iraq began as 'Shock & Awe' launched air strikes on key Iraqi infrastructure and command

FACT: On May 30, 2003, during a press conference, Lt. General James Conway, USMC declares: "It was a surprise to me then, it remains a surprise to me now, that we have not uncovered weapons... in some of the forward dispersal sites. Again, believe me, it?s not for lack of trying. We?ve been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they?re simply not there... We were simply wrong."

FACT: On July 14, 2003, George W. Bush said about Hussein, ?We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn?t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power.?


...................../´¯/ )
....................,/ ¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/ ´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../ ......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\ .................'...../
..........''...\ .......... _.·´
............\ ..............(
..............\ .............
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Personal Attacks. The first refuge of the fact-denying NeanderCons

...................../´¯/ )
....................,/ ¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/ ´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../ ......./¨¯
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\ .................'...../
..........''...\ .......... _.·´
............\ ..............(
..............\ .............

The irony always makes me chuckle.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,984
55,389
136
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

No doubt that by "everyone" you mean the usual people in this place that, like you, throw reading comprehension and reason out the window to kneel at the altar of BDS sound-bytes and spewage against those that doesn't march in rhetorical, goosestep fashion to everything that is anti-Bush. In that case, I heartily agree with you. "Everyone" saw what happened.

You never give up do you?

I have a feeling like everyone on this board could continue stomping on you until the end of time, and you would dutifully respond to every post with some sort of "hurf blurf BDS" until you starved to death in your computer chair.

The reason why it seems like "everyone" is against you here is because you've made an argument so stupid that literally no one else is willing to defend it. Look around at other threads and other posters. Usually they have some people that agree with them, some that don't. Not here. You're bravely flailing away at more then half a dozen people who are all repeatedly pounding on you.

Did you even for a moment wonder why you're so completely alone on this one? You are either the victim of a vast conspiracy of a pack of Bush haters, or you've made a stupid point. I'm sure I can guess which one you think is more likely.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

No doubt that by "everyone" you mean the usual people in this place that, like you, throw reading comprehension and reason out the window to kneel at the altar of BDS sound-bytes and spewage against those that doesn't march in rhetorical, goosestep fashion to everything that is anti-Bush. In that case, I heartily agree with you. "Everyone" saw what happened.

You never give up do you?

I have a feeling like everyone on this board could continue stomping on you until the end of time, and you would dutifully respond to every post with some sort of "hurf blurf BDS" until you starved to death in your computer chair.

The reason why it seems like "everyone" is against you here is because you've made an argument so stupid that literally no one else is willing to defend it. Look around at other threads and other posters. Usually they have some people that agree with them, some that don't. Not here. You're bravely flailing away at more then half a dozen people who are all repeatedly pounding on you.

Did you even for a moment wonder why you're so completely alone on this one? You are either the victim of a vast conspiracy of a pack of Bush haters, or you've made a stupid point. I'm sure I can guess which one you think is more likely.
Unlike you, I don't need to have someone coming in here and giving me reach-arounds to validate my statements.

You WAY overestimate anything you've posted in this thread, but that's par for the course for you and your idiiotically one-sided viewpoint. Your entire rebuttal has consisted of ignoring my actual statement, bastardizing the meaning of synonym, and using a ridiculously shallow proof to claim that Bush Doctrine is an official designation.

You want me to use your own methodology of argumentation? Here, look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome

Well holy SHIT! Wiki has an entry on Bush Derangement Syndrome. Not only that, but Charles Krauthammer even defined it himself. CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER. That makes it official. Appeal to authority FTW.

Last of all, you seem to be under the delusion that a few of the usual and like-minded BDS tools coming in here and attempting their usual dog pile qualifies as "everyone."

I guess if I was to follow more of your methodology I'd now throw up my hands in glorious victory, dance around, and proclaim what a complete and total clueless idiot you are since I just completely owned you simply by linking to a Wiki article.

:roll:

Get real, Beav. Your superficial and transparent smear tactics and arguments of idiocy in here may fool some dolts but they by no means fool "everyone" except in your delusional little mind.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,984
55,389
136
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

No doubt that by "everyone" you mean the usual people in this place that, like you, throw reading comprehension and reason out the window to kneel at the altar of BDS sound-bytes and spewage against those that doesn't march in rhetorical, goosestep fashion to everything that is anti-Bush. In that case, I heartily agree with you. "Everyone" saw what happened.

You never give up do you?

I have a feeling like everyone on this board could continue stomping on you until the end of time, and you would dutifully respond to every post with some sort of "hurf blurf BDS" until you starved to death in your computer chair.

The reason why it seems like "everyone" is against you here is because you've made an argument so stupid that literally no one else is willing to defend it. Look around at other threads and other posters. Usually they have some people that agree with them, some that don't. Not here. You're bravely flailing away at more then half a dozen people who are all repeatedly pounding on you.

Did you even for a moment wonder why you're so completely alone on this one? You are either the victim of a vast conspiracy of a pack of Bush haters, or you've made a stupid point. I'm sure I can guess which one you think is more likely.
Unlike you, I don't need to have someone coming in here and giving me reach-arounds to validate my statements.

You WAY overestimate anything you've posted in this thread, but that's par for the course for you and your idiiotically one-sided viewpoint. Your entire rebuttal has consisted of ignoring my actual statement, bastardizing the meaning of synonym, and using a ridiculously shallow proof to claim that Bush Doctrine is an official designation.

You want me to use your own methodology of argumentation? Here, look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome

Well holy SHIT! Wiki has an entry on Bush Derangement Syndrome. Not only that, but Charles Krauthammer even defined it himself. CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER. That makes it official. Appeal to authority FTW.

Last of all, you seem to be under the delusion that a few of the usual and like-minded BDS tools coming in here and attempting their usual dog pile qualifies as "everyone."

I guess if I was to follow more of your methodology I'd now throw up my hands in glorious victory, dance around, and proclaim what a complete and total clueless idiot you are since I just completely owned you simply by linking to a Wiki article.

:roll:

Get real, Beav. Your superficial and transparent smear tactics and arguments of idiocy in here may fool some dolts but they by no means fool "everyone" except in your delusional little mind.

From this little temper tantrum I'm guessing you chose option A.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
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.

This is officially the dumbest, most pedantic line of argument on this board, ever.

If you go stand in the middle of the interstate, an whatsit will hit you. Now whatsits have anything between two and 18 wheels. The two wheeled version weighs a few hundred pounds and up. The largest whatsits weigh many tons.

Dang it, they aren't officially called whatsits. Since they aren't official, they don't exist. Feel free to stand on the highway in complete safety.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Anyway, obfuscations aside, yes we have the right. I think that the famous liberal writer George Will said it best. A legitimate preemptive attack depends entirely on the correctness of it's presumed assumptions.

You cannot make a moral argument in any way for attacking another without making sure you are right. "Oops" doesn't cut it.

Bush didn't use the resources he had before making an elective war. Since he didn't he has their blood on his hands. That's how it is.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
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.

This is officially the dumbest, most pedantic line of argument on this board, ever.

If you go stand in the middle of the interstate, an whatsit will hit you. Now whatsits have anything between two and 18 wheels. The two wheeled version weighs a few hundred pounds and up. The largest whatsits weigh many tons.

Dang it, they aren't officially called whatsits. Since they aren't official, they don't exist. Feel free to stand on the highway in complete safety.
Whatsits on the highway couldn't possibly be official. Wiki has no article defining highway whatsits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whatsit

:p
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Anyway, obfuscations aside, yes we have the right. I think that the famous liberal writer George Will said it best. A legitimate preemptive attack depends entirely on the correctness of it's presumed assumptions.

You cannot make a moral argument in any way for attacking another without making sure you are right. "Oops" doesn't cut it.

Bush didn't use the resources he had before making an elective war. Since he didn't he has their blood on his hands. That's how it is.

I'm glad you make this argument.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,984
55,389
136
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Whatsits on the highway couldn't possibly be official. Wiki has no article defining highway whatsits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whatsit

:p

If you're complaining about people using wikipedia links, I suggest you go back and check my post about the various doctrines. One of them I deliberately chose from globalsecurity.org to vary things up a bit. Or is that site some Bush hating site as well? Oh, and don't forget the Bush hating Army War College.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Anyway, obfuscations aside, yes we have the right. I think that the famous liberal writer George Will said it best. A legitimate preemptive attack depends entirely on the correctness of it's presumed assumptions.

You cannot make a moral argument in any way for attacking another without making sure you are right. "Oops" doesn't cut it.

Bush didn't use the resources he had before making an elective war. Since he didn't he has their blood on his hands. That's how it is.
Are WMDs a moral argument though? To consider the moral aspect we have to understand what the moral rationales for invading Iraq were, both explicitly stated and the implicit ones as well.

imo, the biggest moral argument, and an implicit one, is "What was the best course of action for this country to take after 9/11 to address the persistent problems in the ME Arab countries that were directly affecting us?"
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Whatsits on the highway couldn't possibly be official. Wiki has no article defining highway whatsits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whatsit

:p

If you're complaining about people using wikipedia links, I suggest you go back and check my post about the various doctrines. One of them I deliberately chose from globalsecurity.org to vary things up a bit. Or is that site some Bush hating site as well? Oh, and don't forget the Bush hating Army War College.
Allow me to repost my initial statement that started this all:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The "Bush Doctrine" is a fiction of the left used as a fearmongering tool. In reality there is officially no such thing as the Bush Doctrine. The closest thing that comes to it is:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

Notice the link above that I posted?

As far as the Army War College, you are confusing their own phrases of choice with an opinion article printed in their quarterly magazine. I seriously doubt that qualifies using that article as indicative of being an official Army War College reference.

There is animosity between you and I. Using that animosity to distort what I said and build of this huge straw man of an argument on your part is pretty ridiculous, and petty. Capice?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,753
6,766
126
Ridiculous and petty?


Hehehehehehehe hohohohohoh hahahahahahaha That's a good one.

Everywhere I go, there I am.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,984
55,389
136
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Whatsits on the highway couldn't possibly be official. Wiki has no article defining highway whatsits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whatsit

:p

If you're complaining about people using wikipedia links, I suggest you go back and check my post about the various doctrines. One of them I deliberately chose from globalsecurity.org to vary things up a bit. Or is that site some Bush hating site as well? Oh, and don't forget the Bush hating Army War College.
Allow me to repost my initial statement that started this all:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The "Bush Doctrine" is a fiction of the left used as a fearmongering tool. In reality there is officially no such thing as the Bush Doctrine. The closest thing that comes to it is:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

Notice the link above that I posted?

As far as the Army War College, you are confusing their own phrases of choice with an opinion article printed in their quarterly magazine. I seriously doubt that qualifies using that article as indicative of being an official Army War College reference.

There is animosity between you and I. Using that animosity to distort what I said and build of this huge straw man of an argument on your part is pretty ridiculous, and petty. Capice?

Nope. If you take the time to read the thread you will notice there are at least two or three other people calling you out on your insane argument. I'm sure they all just hate you (and Bush) too, right?

You called the Bush Doctine a 'fiction of the left'. That was a lie. Me and about 5 other people called you on it, and you got what you deserved for saying it/trying to defend it.

Anyways, I gotta go. Enjoy your wonderful weekend, I'm going to vegas. wheee!
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Whatsits on the highway couldn't possibly be official. Wiki has no article defining highway whatsits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whatsit

:p

If you're complaining about people using wikipedia links, I suggest you go back and check my post about the various doctrines. One of them I deliberately chose from globalsecurity.org to vary things up a bit. Or is that site some Bush hating site as well? Oh, and don't forget the Bush hating Army War College.
Allow me to repost my initial statement that started this all:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The "Bush Doctrine" is a fiction of the left used as a fearmongering tool. In reality there is officially no such thing as the Bush Doctrine. The closest thing that comes to it is:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

Notice the link above that I posted?

As far as the Army War College, you are confusing their own phrases of choice with an opinion article printed in their quarterly magazine. I seriously doubt that qualifies using that article as indicative of being an official Army War College reference.

There is animosity between you and I. Using that animosity to distort what I said and build of this huge straw man of an argument on your part is pretty ridiculous, and petty. Capice?

Nope. If you take the time to read the thread you will notice there are at least two or three other people calling you out on your insane argument. I'm sure they all just hate you (and Bush) too, right?

You called the Bush Doctine a 'fiction of the left'. That was a lie. Me and about 5 other people called you on it, and you got what you deserved for saying it/trying to defend it.

Anyways, I gotta go. Enjoy your wonderful weekend, I'm going to vegas. wheee!
Allow me to direct you to another Wiki link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Have a blast in Vegas.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Anyway, obfuscations aside, yes we have the right. I think that the famous liberal writer George Will said it best. A legitimate preemptive attack depends entirely on the correctness of it's presumed assumptions.

You cannot make a moral argument in any way for attacking another without making sure you are right. "Oops" doesn't cut it.

Bush didn't use the resources he had before making an elective war. Since he didn't he has their blood on his hands. That's how it is.

++

Kind of like Cheney's "One Percent Doctrine", where his opinion is that if there is a 1% chance that someone is a terrorist (or could make a nuclear bomb, etc...) he treats it as if it is a certainty. So if there is a !% chance you could be a terrorist, I guess Cheney feels like it's justified in taking you out, since he won't take the chance. Tough luck for the 99% of wrong people that get hurt by this, I guess.
 

hellokeith

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2004
1,664
0
0
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Personal Attacks. The first refuge of the fact-denying NeanderCons

Originally posted by: hellokeith
My pseudo-Moonbeam impression:

"Cain was the first and only first-strike. Everything since is self-hate manifesting itself as revenge."

Lack of a sense of humor. Last refuge of anonymous internet libs. :D
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
In matters of foreign policy, a doctrine, also known as dogma, is a body of axioms fundamental to the exercise of a nation's foreign policy. Hence, doctrine, in this sense, has come to suggest a broad consistency that holds true across a spectrum of acts and actions. Doctrines of this sort are almost always presented as the personal creations of one particular political leader, whom they are named after. Examples include the Monroe Doctrine, the Stimson Doctrine, the Truman Doctrine, the Eisenhower Doctrine, the Nixon Doctrine, the Brezhnev Doctrine, the Kirkpatrick doctrine, the McCain Doctrine, and the pacific ocean doctorine of 1293 by abe lincoln.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Personal Attacks. The first refuge of the fact-denying NeanderCons


What Moonie said:

Bull Shit, Fern. The weapons inspectors were reporting no WMD. The invasion was an illegal war crime. There was no imminent threat and no proof of one.


The Bold-faced Lie that Fern said:

In 2003 many people were of the opinion that peaceful measures had been exhausted. With hindsight, many now feel differently.

-snip-

It's silly to rebut my statement on how people felt by listing a bunch of details about UNMOVICs activities.

Rather, you'd need to go back and post polititions' statements, and polls on the support of the war by the American populace. I think you'd find a lot of Congresspersons making remarks that dovetail with my remark above. You'll also find pretty high support for the war. Am I to presume you're saying that the American people supported war even while pieceful measures were left unused?

As everyone knows, Saddam was playing a ton of games, had been for sometime. Hence, the "pieceful measures" were seen as ineffective back then.

Fern
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Bush didn't use the resources he had before making an elective war. Since he didn't he has their blood on his hands. That's how it is.

You are right in a sense. He selectively chose intel that would lead to an invasion of Iraq. If you take a look at history and review Team B vs CIA, then look at the same faces being involved in the Iraq intel, you see a common theme. ;)
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Regardless what some think, this "pre-emptive first strike doctrine" will go down in history as the "Bush Doctrine".

Secondly I believe some may have BDS. Bush Deferral Syndrome :laugh: