• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

GOP pollsters running scared of DEAN in memos.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MonstaThrilla

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2000
1,652
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Genesys
how, exactly, is pre-emption a radical new doctrine? its been around since the dawn of time. its the 'ill get him before he gets me' train of thought.

its like me and some friends playing HL or Quake. they would always whine about how i would kill them when they had no gun [or they gun they started with]. they wanted it to be 'fair', they wanted me to wait untill they got the rocket launcher or something more powerful than i had.
why should i let my enemy have a gun to shoot me with? kill him before he can cause any ammount of serious damage.
International Politics can't be equated with Quake or Half Life. Likewise, who cares if Hitler, Stalin, Kahn, Attila or others used Pre-emption this is the now and Pre-Emption has been deemed as too dangerous in a world which can be destroyed in 20 minutes.
Furthermore, its a radical new doctrine for our country. In other words, the truly conservative (by definition) method of dealing with Iraq would have been the way the Democrats suggested to do so. Read a history book or two to learn how truly great Presidents (Washington and Truman come to mind) laid pragmatic, and sane, foreign policy doctrines that have since made this country great.

Like sandorski said, international politics is not a fragfest. If it was, huge fat nerds would rule the world. We wouldn't want that now would we?

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Genesys
how, exactly, is pre-emption a radical new doctrine? its been around since the dawn of time. its the 'ill get him before he gets me' train of thought.

its like me and some friends playing HL or Quake. they would always whine about how i would kill them when they had no gun [or they gun they started with]. they wanted it to be 'fair', they wanted me to wait untill they got the rocket launcher or something more powerful than i had.
why should i let my enemy have a gun to shoot me with? kill him before he can cause any ammount of serious damage.
International Politics can't be equated with Quake or Half Life. Likewise, who cares if Hitler, Stalin, Kahn, Attila or others used Pre-emption this is the now and Pre-Emption has been deemed as too dangerous in a world which can be destroyed in 20 minutes.
Furthermore, its a radical new doctrine for our country. In other words, the truly conservative (by definition) method of dealing with Iraq would have been the way the Democrats suggested to do so. Read a history book or two to learn how truly great Presidents (Washington and Truman come to mind) laid pragmatic, and sane, foreign policy doctrines that have since made this country great.

Like sandorski said, international politics is not a fragfest. If it was, huge fat nerds would rule the world. We wouldn't want that now would we?
I hate to continue this off topic tangent but I have a huge problem with some mis-information furthered by Monsta.
To say "pre-emption" is a "New" concept for this country is wrong. Now one could possibly make the argument(but not entirely successfully) that the degree of "pre-emption" is "new", but again - the idea of "pre-emption" is not new - it's been used before.
Also to protray it as "radical" is also BS. Like I said - it isn't some new concept drempt up by Bush it has been used before and is actually quite a "normal" and sane tactic as far as defense is concerned. Now again with this one - people could argue that "degree" plays a part but it is by no means "radical".

Yes - the "conservative"/status quo way of dealing with Saddam/Iraq would have been to just allow him to continue to not follow the terms he agreeded to but that is not how you deal with people who have made it known they want you to no longer exist. "Big stick" diplomacy only works if you actually use that stick at times, especially when people openly defy you. We had to use our stick because we had allowed Saddam to poke our chest one too many times. It also didn't help his cause that we had just been bit on the ankle by a snake we had allowed to get away.

CkG
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I'm a Democrat and always will be. But I have no problem agreeing with the President when he's right.

BTW, who do you think neo-conservatives are anyway? They're Democrats that support a strong American foreign policy, like Republicans. If the Democratic Party chooses Howard the Duck as their presidential nominee, then it will prove once again why neo-conservatives are what they are: their home party supports a weak American foreign policy, like in the 1960s when neo-cons jumped ship.
we have been fooled Dari, Wars today are nothing more than modern day carpet-bagging dressed up as "liberation", "genocide prevention" etc.

From haiti to panama to Iraq it's all the same.

1. Support a dictator, ignore when he's killing even support him sometimes.
2. When he gets greedy and don't listen to us he's gone.
3. Fabicate evidence, or just tell the media to start telling the real evidence they have been ignoring so the public will empathize with the mission since we're all tought from birth about freedom from the english and remember the nazis horors too.
4. War, After taking out his power structure "liberating" his people install another USA (read: wall street) friendly governemnt or dictator.
5. Open up the war torn countires businesses and resources to "free and open biding" "globalization" (read:wall street gets assests for pennies on the dollar)
6. Rinse repeat in another 25 years.

When people see the patterns and read things like order 39 from iraq there can be no other explination. If that fails read war is a racket by Maj Gen smedley.

I don't doubt this perpetual war theory will continue forever.
We have war every 3-5 years nowerdays and the CIA many more both covert and overt.
 

MonstaThrilla

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2000
1,652
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Genesys
how, exactly, is pre-emption a radical new doctrine? its been around since the dawn of time. its the 'ill get him before he gets me' train of thought.

its like me and some friends playing HL or Quake. they would always whine about how i would kill them when they had no gun [or they gun they started with]. they wanted it to be 'fair', they wanted me to wait untill they got the rocket launcher or something more powerful than i had.
why should i let my enemy have a gun to shoot me with? kill him before he can cause any ammount of serious damage.
International Politics can't be equated with Quake or Half Life. Likewise, who cares if Hitler, Stalin, Kahn, Attila or others used Pre-emption this is the now and Pre-Emption has been deemed as too dangerous in a world which can be destroyed in 20 minutes.
Furthermore, its a radical new doctrine for our country. In other words, the truly conservative (by definition) method of dealing with Iraq would have been the way the Democrats suggested to do so. Read a history book or two to learn how truly great Presidents (Washington and Truman come to mind) laid pragmatic, and sane, foreign policy doctrines that have since made this country great.

Like sandorski said, international politics is not a fragfest. If it was, huge fat nerds would rule the world. We wouldn't want that now would we?
I hate to continue this off topic tangent but I have a huge problem with some mis-information furthered by Monsta.
To say "pre-emption" is a "New" concept for this country is wrong. Now one could possibly make the argument(but not entirely successfully) that the degree of "pre-emption" is "new", but again - the idea of "pre-emption" is not new - it's been used before.
Also to protray it as "radical" is also BS. Like I said - it isn't some new concept drempt up by Bush it has been used before and is actually quite a "normal" and sane tactic as far as defense is concerned. Now again with this one - people could argue that "degree" plays a part but it is by no means "radical".

Yes - the "conservative"/status quo way of dealing with Saddam/Iraq would have been to just allow him to continue to not follow the terms he agreeded to but that is not how you deal with people who have made it known they want you to no longer exist. "Big stick" diplomacy only works if you actually use that stick at times, especially when people openly defy you. We had to use our stick because we had allowed Saddam to poke our chest one too many times. It also didn't help his cause that we had just been bit on the ankle by a snake we had allowed to get away.

CkG
Ok. So what are the examples of previous instances where our country used preemption?
 

busmaster11

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2000
2,875
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYI hate to continue this off topic tangent but I have a huge problem with some mis-information furthered by Monsta.
To say "pre-emption" is a "New" concept for this country is wrong. Now one could possibly make the argument(but not entirely successfully) that the degree of "pre-emption" is "new", but again - the idea of "pre-emption" is not new - it's been used before.
Also to protray it as "radical" is also BS. Like I said - it isn't some new concept drempt up by Bush it has been used before and is actually quite a "normal" and sane tactic as far as defense is concerned. Now again with this one - people could argue that "degree" plays a part but it is by no means "radical".
It's not a new concept, but in the modern, post-cold war era with a very globalized media and where atrocities are easily put under a microscope, and one where we'd all like to think we're more "civilized", it is much harder to justify preemption. Prior to this, justification was hardly an issue.

Calling it "normal" is purely subjective and calling it "sane", well, if you mean right or wrong, thats definitely a point of contention...

 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYI hate to continue this off topic tangent but I have a huge problem with some mis-information furthered by Monsta.
To say "pre-emption" is a "New" concept for this country is wrong. Now one could possibly make the argument(but not entirely successfully) that the degree of "pre-emption" is "new", but again - the idea of "pre-emption" is not new - it's been used before.
Also to protray it as "radical" is also BS. Like I said - it isn't some new concept drempt up by Bush it has been used before and is actually quite a "normal" and sane tactic as far as defense is concerned. Now again with this one - people could argue that "degree" plays a part but it is by no means "radical".
It's not a new concept, but in the modern, post-cold war era with a very globalized media and where atrocities are easily put under a microscope, and one where we'd all like to think we're more "civilized", it is much harder to justify preemption. Prior to this, justification was hardly an issue.

Calling it "normal" is purely subjective and calling it "sane", well, if you mean right or wrong, thats definitely a point of contention...
Premtion violates two international treaties we signed which are our law. Before that anything gos.

- Article VI of the Nuremberg Charter
and
-Article II, Section 4 of the united nations charter.

Read them ....and explain to me Bush is'nt a war crimminal.

Then our occupation is violating the hague Regulations of 1907:

Any movement serious about Iraqi self-determination must call not only for an end to Iraq's military occupation, but to its economic colonization as well. That means reversing the shock therapy reforms that US occupation chief Paul Bremer has fraudulently passed off as "reconstruction" and canceling all privatization contracts flowing from these reforms.

How can such an ambitious goal be achieved? Easy: by showing that Bremer's reforms were illegal to begin with. They clearly violate the international convention governing the behavior of occupying forces, the Hague Regulations of 1907 (the companion to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, both ratified by the United States), as well as the US Army's own code of war.

The Hague Regulations state that an occupying power must respect "unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country." The Coalition Provisional Authority has shredded that simple rule with gleeful defiance. Iraq's Constitution outlaws the privatization of key state assets, and it bars foreigners from owning Iraqi firms. No plausible argument can be made that the CPA was "absolutely prevented" from respecting those laws, and yet two months ago, the CPA overturned them unilaterally.

On September 19, Bremer enacted the now-infamous Order 39. It announced that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatized; decreed that foreign firms can retain 100 percent ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories; and allowed these firms to move 100 percent of their profits out of Iraq. The Economist declared the new rules a "capitalist dream."
Text
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY