Wolfowitz says US must act even on "murky" data

[DKlein]

BTW: If somebody nukes a city, whatever country that came from is gone...done...erased...a parking lot for the next 10,000 years...one huge freaking creater.

I've always had a problem with this line of thought. It may have been acceptable policy with the Russians, MAD was a great deterrent, but this loses value when dealing with countries that are incapable of utterly destroying us. Just look at the mess the relatively few casualties have caused so far, and we're not trying to kill these people! Now imagine if we killed 10-20million people with a barrage of nukes... Granted we would at first have huge support for having been attacked in such a way (9/11 like X 100+), but with such a greater reaction we would see an equally greater outcry (Iraq like X 100+)... It would quite possibly be the worst foreign policy decision in U.S. history (actually take out quite and possibly from that). Perhaps they would be a parking lot, but with complete lack of international support - change that to pure international hatred for destroying an entire country - we'd probably end up the same way, at least as far as our economical and political might goes.

Sorry to pick on that one little statement, but I just want this idea of nuking a country out of existence on account of a single nuclear attack to be addressed.

 

[Trezza]

Originally posted by: DKlein

BTW: If somebody nukes a city, whatever country that came from is gone...done...erased...a parking lot for the next 10,000 years...one huge freaking creater.

I've always had a problem with this line of thought. It may have been acceptable policy with the Russians, MAD was a great deterrent, but this loses value when dealing with countries that are incapable of utterly destroying us. Just look at the mess the relatively few casualties have caused so far, and we're not trying to kill these people! Now imagine if we killed 10-20million people with a barrage of nukes... Granted we would at first have huge support for having been attacked in such a way (9/11 like X 100+), but with such a greater reaction we would see an equally greater outcry (Iraq like X 100+)... It would quite possibly be the worst foreign policy decision in U.S. history (actually take out quite and possibly from that). Perhaps they would be a parking lot, but with complete lack of international support - change that to pure international hatred for destroying an entire country - we'd probably end up the same way, at least as far as our economical and political might goes.

Sorry to pick on that one little statement, but I just want this idea of nuking a country out of existence on account of a single nuclear attack to be addressed.

I didn't say it was a good idea or what i would do, just that it would be the most likely solution...well maybe not the whole country but any country would have to do something (nukewise) to show that this could not be tolerated. A simple invasion would not suffice. Think about the movie Sum of All Fears (yeah i know its a movie but still work with me) they pretty much wear going to nuke Russia and start WW3 because they thought, key word THOUGHT it was Russian. This is real life and i couldn't tell you if the US red button would be more likely or less likely to be pressed within that time period. I hope to god if that ever happens they are 200% sure that its the right place and then deal with it accordingly, however it is done that group would be done because thats just the ultimate wrong. Whatever country it would be in would prolly have the military out in full force within the country to make sure it never happened a second time.

 

[Trezza]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Trezza
First off i think that Wolfowitz is looking to get fired with statements like that. Come on thats the eqivalent of racially profilling a country.

Wolf : Ok, looks like we got a report hear that says Iran has a nuke in development but the report is kinda funky cause somebody wrote it in crayon...hmmm ok lets attack Iran next.

Stupid.

Wolf: Ok we got a report that says that terrorists are going to attack a cruise ship in florida, its kinda scetchy but whatever lets send something there.

Good.

I would prefer that we take murky evadense as truthful when it comes to defense but offense thats just crap and he should be ashamed of himself. If anyone thinks that HIS idea is a good one then your a freaking moron.

BTW: If somebody nukes a city, whatever country that came from is gone...done...erased...a parking lot for the next 10,000 years...one huge freaking creater. If they need ground forces to invade a country after that i don't think many people would be saying no.

try saying that when you are responsible for 280 million lives. Raising hell after the act won't bring back dead americans.

EDIT: your simple example is not exemplary of the real world.

dari, a country must learn when to pick its fights just like a person does. Would you go around beating up / killing people if you were told that they were going to do something equivalent to WTC or Nuking your body (possibly shoot you)? how good must the information be before you did this? Murky is not a good word when it comes to evidence. Could you convict somebody with a murder charge on Murky evidence? I don't think so. I would love to agree with you but i have to go to the other side on this one. Murky's ok for defense but not offense. You give me something solid and i say ok. Otherwise after too many opps' your the bad guy. Its simple, such a statement as Wolf's is just ... retarded.

 

[DKlein]

By all means, that country would get the greatest ass-kicking of all time if they nuked us. The use of nuclear weapons is a very serious matter, and when not pressured by possible annihilation as with Russia, cooler heads would probably prevail (no need to act too quickly, there aren't 100 more on the way. Not to underestimate the insanity that would follow a nuclear attack though). Thus nuclear retaliation would be fairly unlikely in such a situation (I still have some belief that the guys behind those buttons aren't complete idiots). Not to rule it out, but it would probably not happen, and if it did, would most assuredly be a huge mistake.
Anyway it is poor decision making, at least from a cool-headed perspective, and that's what I'm trying to say - we shouldn't be saying now that we'll do it then or that it's even a good idea.

I suppose you're not quite disagreeing with me here, this is more in regard then to everyone else that I hear saying this with perhaps a bit more belief that it's for sure the right thing to do in said situation.

 

[SebastianK]

Why do you guys bother with Dari? He's in self-denial.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: SebastianK
Why do you guys bother with Dari? He's in self-denial.

I agree

People like Dari who are so proud to live in the biggest and best democracy in the world are the most serious threat to that same democracy. He doesn't care that his president lied to him. He doesn't care that american soldiers die every day because of the same lies.
The FACT is that the war was sold to the WORLD that Irag had WMD and that these WMD could be deployed in 45 minutes. If people like Dari can't see what is happening then IMO they are nothing but spoon fed sheep. They are so blinded by the big american flag wrapped around their head that it's becoming more and more pathetic to read their posts.

 

[da loser]

c-span had a good congressional briefing by 3 former cia directors under clinton, robert baer, and a csis guy that works for abc. essentially murky intelligence is going to be the best we can get against an authoritarian government.
also no one has ever been able to tell the imminence of a threat (which is obvious), so you're going to have to attack first to stop an attack and you might be wrong. So if you throw out pre-emption, then you're resigning yourself to reaction after you've been attacked.

UQ is exactly right about the regional threat, but 9/11 made that regional threat into a possible worldwide threat through terrorism. if you couple that with the knowledge you can't predict an imminent threat and the refusal of this administration to wait to be attacked, plus the ease of resistance and chance to implement a democratic ME country, then you get the iraq war.

The question is are the American people willing to wait to be attacked first? I think if you came out with that policy, you wouldn't be elected. Let's see if a candidate comes out with that policy and wins. Although in reality, what you'll get is candidates saying they would attack based on good intelligence, of course since that never happens then they never have to attack preemptively or they take potshots ala Clinton. so maybe that question is moot.

 

[cpumaster]

I think Wolfowitz was getting too comfortable among the neo-cons at Fox network and speak his mind freely, forgetting that Fox still in news business and broadcast what he said. My guess is Paul and his boss, Donald, both like to talk too much, just like what they said about Saddam's personal secretary, Mr. Mahmud...

To be honest I am amazed that Bush admin still hasn't lock both in a small room somewhere inside the Pentagon, at least until the 2004 election. Seriously, between those two, they provide more ammunition for Democrats and even tilt the sentiment of US public toward the left more than this illegal war could ever have...
seemed like Bush have no control over these two village idiots...

 

[Drift3r]

Yes but when the preemptive action is committed against a target that in all truthfulness was non-threatening or contained and it provokes the "next attack" then you just created a self fulfilling prophecy. In fact going with a defensive approach is one of the reasons why A.) We are all still alive or not living in a post-nuclear nightmare B.) why we went with a MADD strategy instead of a pre-emptive strike emphasis during the "Cold War".

 

[DKlein]

Let us not forget that if you attack us you will be destroyed is a great way to deter any attacks on the US. Just because we won't nuke a country for a terrorist attack doesn't mean they have no reason to then go and attack us. If a country attacks us, directly or indirectly, they will eventually get their asses kicked - call this just AD (assured destruction) - depending on how great the attack. This is simple diplomatic/military policy that has been well know for the last few thousand years. Why now all of a sudden we have to start attacking them first because they could at any time attack us is beyone me. There have always been enemies a few moments away from attacking us, no matter how big or small, but they didn't - they were wise because they knew that if they did, they had better wipe us all out or the aftermath would be great, in which case MAD does come in - why now will they start?

With terrorism though does come some anonymity to a possible attack. So we could suppose that a nation would see that, and then pass their attack onto a small group whose origins might not be able to be traced via weapons or aid. Now let me ask you what's the best method of dealing with this new threat: A) pre-emptively attacking anyone who could help terrorists in the foreseeable future and who may not like us. This option carries a rather large list with it, or B) giving our intelligence agencies a major boost, and letting the world know that they may think that they will be anonymous, but we will know. In this case the old rules of attack and be destroyed come back into play, and we can stop inventing our own rules.

Preemptive war is not only unnecessary, but dangerous. It allows other countries to as well claim possible attack as a reason for war. We *may* have defused one small bomb today, but have started a hundred more set to go off tomorrow.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: Dari
if we have to act, we will, come what may. If the lives of americans are at risks, the objections of liberals and foreigners take back seat to the primacy of our national interests.

I agree. We can't live normally knowing that Saddam could deploy his huge stockpiles of WMDs in 45 minutes!

WMDs or not, that outlaw regime is in the dustbin of history. The threat from an iraqi state that sponsored international terrorism, created instability in the region, and threatened our friends and allies, is no more.

curionsly enough, no links to al qaeda or 9/11 been found and most of iraq's neighbours did not support the war.

Oh, but don't let these little facts bother you.....I'm just an evil bush-hating, anti-american, foriegn liberal revisionist historian....

stop your crying and self-pity. I never accused you of such. And Al-Qaeda is not the only international terrorist group out there. They may be regarded as Category-1 Terrorists, but there are many others, including Hezbollah and those that work against Israel. Furthermore, most of the citizens in the region may have been against the war, but only because we were the main fighters in the coalition. Nevertheless, the gov'ts in the region tactically supported us and our cause.

Where, to start..hmmm

First, if you really wanted to do something terror, Iraq would not have been first on your list. Second, are you talking about the undemocractic, authoritarian, oppressive goverments that would make any freedom loving person cringe? The ones the US barely coerced into providing their airspace and didn't even want to have their names on the Coalition of the Billing..errr...Willing?

yes, those are the countries I'm talking about. I don't get what kind of gov't they have, the end justified the means. The only people who didn't like the take-out of saddam were Saddam and Syria.

As for our war against terror, ummmm, Afghanistan was first on our list. Next was iraq because she was overflowing with oil and seething hatred of america.

But I'd bet you'd want us to go after iran because they recently killed a fellow canadian, right?

The only people? I seem to recall 90% of Turks (remember...your ALLIES) being against it. But hey, your 'murky' data is probably better than my facts.

Afghnistan is over, so lets look to the present and future. Overflowing with oil and seethign hatred of america you say? I can name 3 countries that fit that profile, each has been much more supportive of terrorists and one of them has even supported al queda. Of course, you might not know one of them, Bush & Co have been busy taking pages out of the 9/11 report so that the supporter could be protected.

Finally, ending diplomatic ties with Iran would be good enough for me. You see, I do not crave death, misery and carnage the way you do.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: DKlein


Preemptive war is not only unnecessary, but dangerous. It allows other countries to as well claim possible attack as a reason for war. We *may* have defused one small bomb today, but have started a hundred more set to go off tomorrow.

Yeah I was thinking about North Korea, China on the Taiwan issue, and few other places.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: SebastianK
Why do you guys bother with Dari? He's in self-denial.

I agree

People like Dari who are so proud to live in the biggest and best democracy in the world are the most serious threat to that same democracy. He doesn't care that his president lied to him. He doesn't care that american soldiers die every day because of the same lies.
The FACT is that the war was sold to the WORLD that Irag had WMD and that these WMD could be deployed in 45 minutes. If people like Dari can't see what is happening then IMO they are nothing but spoon fed sheep. They are so blinded by the big american flag wrapped around their head that it's becoming more and more pathetic to read their posts.

The President lied? To whom? This is all news to me.

If you'd read any of my post, you would see that I supported this war no matter what. THere were too many opportunities in Iraq for us to just let pass. Iraq is the future of a new Middle East. Her new character will be the beacon for the greater region.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: SebastianK
Why do you guys bother with Dari? He's in self-denial.

I agree

People like Dari who are so proud to live in the biggest and best democracy in the world are the most serious threat to that same democracy. He doesn't care that his president lied to him. He doesn't care that american soldiers die every day because of the same lies.
The FACT is that the war was sold to the WORLD that Irag had WMD and that these WMD could be deployed in 45 minutes. If people like Dari can't see what is happening then IMO they are nothing but spoon fed sheep. They are so blinded by the big american flag wrapped around their head that it's becoming more and more pathetic to read their posts.

The President lied? To whom? This is all news to me.

If you'd read any of my post, you would see that I supported this war no matter what. THere were too many opportunities in Iraq for us to just let pass. Iraq is the future of a new Middle East. Her new character will be the beacon for the greater region.

self-denial, so funny

obviously you don't care that the Bush administration sold this war to the world on the premises that Iraq was a threat because of WMD. If you don't care about the motives of your elected leaders, IMO you don't care about what democracy is all about. You are always talking about oppressive dictators but you have the ideal profile to go live in North-Korea. Sheeps like you don't question the policies of their leader so I bet you would be a great fan of "The Great Kim Who Knows Everything". Luckily there are other people who question their elected leaders and are not so spoon fed like you are.

 

[phillyTIM]

Seems about everyone realized what a liar Bush is and what a fraudulent invasion he waged, except for you Daria. That's OK, we know deep down you realize it and the more you try to avoid that line of realization, the stronger and sooner it will come into reality for you.

Give him about a week, folks.

 

[Gaard]

Dari - <<If you'd read any of my post, you would see that I supported this war no matter what.>>

I've seen a number of members say this.

WMDs, imminent threat, uranium, Powell's plagiarized speech to the UN, majority of world against any war, war not UN sanctioned, Al-Queada links, government officials not convinced a war is necessary <---- none of this means anything to you?

 

[phillyTIM]

It's been over 3 months since the "end of major combat" where we kicked a country's ass for having WMD's, killed well over 6 thousand Iraqi's, Americans are dying every day in our invasion, and we've YET to come across ANY WMDs--THE reason we went in there int he first place. Who could support anything as crazy as that?

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Dari - <<If you'd read any of my post, you would see that I supported this war no matter what.>>

I've seen a number of members say this.

WMDs, imminent threat, uranium, Powell's plagiarized speech to the UN, majority of world against any war, war not UN sanctioned, Al-Queada links, government officials not convinced a war is necessary <---- none of this means anything to you?

people like Dari need another Vietnam with at least 10.000 killed american soldiers before their peanut shaped brain start to work