Seattle Post-Intelligencer - U.S. forfeits claim to moral authority

[Bowfinger]

Here is an interesting op-ed piece in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer about the historical precedents for a pre-emptive first strike like the U.S. attack on Iraq. It's a good read if you want to move beyond celebrating our current success in Iraq to think about a bigger, long-term picture. I don't think there's much new that hasn't been hashed through in other threads here, but it's well-done, offers several specific historical references, and puts it all in one place.

 

[XMan]

"Bob Randolph was Washington state trade representative from 1994 to 1997 and a member of the Clinton administration's foreign-policy team with overall responsibility for U.S. foreign assistance programs in the Middle East and Asia."

Hmmm.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Here is an interesting op-ed piece in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer about the historical precedents for a pre-emptive first strike like the U.S. attack on Iraq. It's a good read if you want to move beyond celebrating our current success in Iraq to think about a bigger, long-term picture. I don't think there's much new that hasn't been hashed through in other threads here, but it's well-done, offers several specific historical references, and puts it all in one place.

Until George W. Bush, every president since Washington, including Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower and Kennedy, has adhered firmly to the principle of non-aggression and eschewed the temptation to engage in a pre-emptive war

This statement is so historically incorrect it is not even funny.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Yeah . . . while a spattering of American Presidents have avoided war like the plague . . . others could hardly contain themselves.

Eisenhower and Kennedy can claim to be above the fray to some extent. Eisenhower ended the Korean War . . . well at least ushered in the armistice. He didn't start Vietnam, although I believe US 'advisors' were sent to the South. Then again Kennedy would probably claim he inherited Vietnam from Eisenhower . . . and the Bay of Pigs.

Could you imagine Bush in office during the Cuban Missile Crisis . . . now that's scary!

 

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Yeah . . . while a spattering of American Presidents have avoided war like the plague . . . others could hardly contain themselves.

Eisenhower and Kennedy can claim to be above the fray to some extent. Eisenhower ended the Korean War . . . well at least ushered in the armistice. He didn't start Vietnam, although I believe US 'advisors' were sent to the South. Then again Kennedy would probably claim he inherited Vietnam from Eisenhower . . . and the Bay of Pigs.

Could you imagine Bush in office during the Cuban Missile Crisis . . . now that's scary!

Not as scary as imagining Jimmy Carter in office during the Cuban missile crisis.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

What do you think Carter would do?

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
What do you think Carter would do?

Go hug Castro and tell him he could put whatever missiles onto Cuba he wanted?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: X-Man

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
What do you think Carter would do?

Go hug Castro and tell him he could put whatever missiles onto Cuba he wanted?

wow, do you see a shrink for your dillusional tendances?

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: X-Man

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
What do you think Carter would do?

Go hug Castro and tell him he could put whatever missiles onto Cuba he wanted?

wow, do you see a shrink for your dillusional tendances?

joke ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jk)
n.
Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.
A mischievous trick; a prank.
An amusing or ludicrous incident or situation.
Informal.
Something not to be taken seriously; a triviality: The accident was no joke.
An object of amusement or laughter; a laughingstock: His loud tie was the joke of the office.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: X-Man

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
What do you think Carter would do?

Go hug Castro and tell him he could put whatever missiles onto Cuba he wanted?

Like Kennedy, Carter was hardly fond of Communism. Whom do you think initiated US aid to the mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan?

Read a history book or three, then come back and make quip partisan remarks that are at least partially informed.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: X-Man

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
What do you think Carter would do?

Go hug Castro and tell him he could put whatever missiles onto Cuba he wanted?

Like Kennedy, Carter was hardly fond of Communism. Whom do you think initiated US aid to the mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan?

Read a history book or three, then come back and make quip partisan remarks that are at least partially informed.

Good grief, some of you guys are cranky.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: X-Man

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
What do you think Carter would do?

Go hug Castro and tell him he could put whatever missiles onto Cuba he wanted?

LOL, the following is a true question from a study guide for an American History class I took a couple years ago:

Explain why Carter proved to be a failure as president

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: X-Man
"Bob Randolph was Washington state trade representative from 1994 to 1997 and a member of the Clinton administration's foreign-policy team with overall responsibility for U.S. foreign assistance programs in the Middle East and Asia."

Hmmm.

Is that a "hmmm" as in "this guy has a lot of Middle East experience, I'd like to hear what he has to say"? Or, is it a "hmmm" as in "Oops, he's from the wrong party, I'm going to close my mind and dismiss everything he says out of hand"? Yes, it's an opinion piece- I clearly labeled it as such. Nonetheless, he builds his opinion around many specific "facts", and he offers a lot to think about.

If his facts are wrong - quite possible - then I hope someone with better historical information will jump in and correct them. To ignore the man just because you don't like Democrats is just lame.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Until George W. Bush, every president since Washington, including Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower and Kennedy, has adhered firmly to the principle of non-aggression and eschewed the temptation to engage in a pre-emptive war

This statement is so historically incorrect it is not even funny.

Examples? You're probably right, but I'd like something factual to support you.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Here is an interesting op-ed piece in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer about the historical precedents for a pre-emptive first strike like the U.S. attack on Iraq. It's a good read if you want to move beyond celebrating our current success in Iraq to think about a bigger, long-term picture. I don't think there's much new that hasn't been hashed through in other threads here, but it's well-done, offers several specific historical references, and puts it all in one place.

Until George W. Bush, every president since Washington, including Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower and Kennedy, has adhered firmly to the principle of non-aggression and eschewed the temptation to engage in a pre-emptive war

This statement is so historically incorrect it is not even funny.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Until George W. Bush, every president since Washington, including Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower and Kennedy, has adhered firmly to the principle of non-aggression and eschewed the temptation to engage in a pre-emptive war

This statement is so historically incorrect it is not even funny.

Examples? You're probably right, but I'd like something factual to support you.

Jefferson and the Barbary pirates, we could have paid tribute, but we wiped them out instead.
WW1, entered without anyone shooting at us.
WW2, we attacked germany without them shooting at us.
We entered vietnam without them shooting at us.
We entered kosovo without them shooting at us.
We entered bosnia without them shooting at us.
...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Until George W. Bush, every president since Washington, including Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower and Kennedy, has adhered firmly to the principle of non-aggression and eschewed the temptation to engage in a pre-emptive war

This statement is so historically incorrect it is not even funny.

Examples? You're probably right, but I'd like something factual to support you.

Jefferson and the Barbary pirates, we could have paid tribute, but we wiped them out instead.
WW1, entered without anyone shooting at us.
WW2, we attacked germany without them shooting at us.
We entered vietnam without them shooting at us.
We entered kosovo without them shooting at us.
We entered bosnia without them shooting at us.
...

Except for the first example(don't know anything about it), none of those are examples of a non-warring nation being attacked.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Until George W. Bush, every president since Washington, including Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower and Kennedy, has adhered firmly to the principle of non-aggression and eschewed the temptation to engage in a pre-emptive war

This statement is so historically incorrect it is not even funny.

Examples? You're probably right, but I'd like something factual to support you.

Jefferson and the Barbary pirates, we could have paid tribute, but we wiped them out instead.
WW1, entered without anyone shooting at us.
WW2, we attacked germany without them shooting at us.
We entered vietnam without them shooting at us.
We entered kosovo without them shooting at us.
We entered bosnia without them shooting at us.
...

Except for the first example(don't know anything about it), none of those are examples of a non-warring nation being attacked.

All the examples listed above are conflicts we entered into and did not have to. I think it is quite dishonest to call Iraq a non-warring nation.

 

[skyking]

WW2, we attacked germany without them shooting at us.

Did we actively attack Germany prior to losing merchant ships to the U-boats?

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: skyking

WW2, we attacked germany without them shooting at us.

Did we actively attack Germany prior to losing merchant ships to the U-boats?

Nope.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: skyking

WW2, we attacked germany without them shooting at us.

Did we actively attack Germany prior to losing merchant ships to the U-boats?

I dont recall, but I do know we were sending Europe supplies, so merchant ships would have been fair game to Germany.

 

[skyking]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: skyking

WW2, we attacked germany without them shooting at us.

Did we actively attack Germany prior to losing merchant ships to the U-boats?

I dont recall, but I do know we were sending Europe supplies, so merchant ships would have been fair game to Germany.

Fair game, with American merchantmen drowning in the North Atlantic..........Reminds me of other rhetoric i hear justifying war and destruction.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Entering existing conflicts we may have not absolutely had to enter is a far cry from starting a conflict we may not have absolutely had to start.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Entering existing conflicts we may have not absolutely had to enter is a far cry from starting a conflict we may not have absolutely had to start.

I guess you are now unhappy that Saddam is out of power?
I guess you are now unhappy that a couple Al queda camps in Iraq no longer exist?
I guess you are now unhappy that a several international terrorist are now in custody?
I guess you are now unhappy that Iraq is now disarming?
I guess you are now unhappy that Iraqi citizens have a chance at democracy?

 

[jjones]

The US declared war on Spain resulting in the Spanish - American war. For years the US press had been clamoring for intervention in Cuba against the Spanish who were trying to maintain their colonial presence amidst Cubans fighting for independence; the Spaniards all the while prepetrating countless human rights violations, the most horrendous probably being the Reconcentration policy. When the USS Maine was sunk in Havana Harbor, the press whipped up public opinion to a frenzy pointing all blame to the Spanish and likely pressuring the McKinley administration into a final declaration of war and intervention in Cuba. The sinking of the Maine outraged the public, but the exact cause is still debatable and when that incident, or accident, is viewed dispassionately it is hardly a cause to go to war.

Edit: Incidentally, to me, this war in 1898, backed by the earlier Monroe Doctrine, is the start of the US as a global power on its way to becoming a superpower. The US handily defeated the Spanish after about six months and ending with the Treaty of Paris. This relinquished Spanish control of Puerto Rico and Guam to the US and forced the Spaniards into selling the Phillipines to the Americans who now had an established presence in the Pacific.