It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush Preemptive War Strategy Reaffirmed

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
In hindsight, my comments could be relevant to the topic. As the American "Empire" (using the term loosely) will probably fall from grace due to similar over commitments and economic strain.

Time will tell


Obviously, hindsight has its advantages, huh, stumason?
Personally, you must have done some reflection upon your own birthplace and realized that it was the US "Empire" that replaced the British "Empire;" that it was the "empire by invitation"*** United States hegemon that replaced the defunct imperialism based British hegemon.

You know, all-in-all, I was using the terms 'reflection' and 'hegemon' loosely.
I know it is tough to recognize what once was to what is.

And as this planet's current unipolar power hegemon, be rest assured that the strategy of pre-emption remains a viable and rightly alternative (as with any other state having the right), unless of course, you, as with some others, insist that the defunct UN reserves the right to have any say to the contrary...

***John Lewis Gaddis. 1991. "Great Illusion, the Long Peace, and Future of the International System." In The Long Postwar Peace: Contending Explanations and Projections. 25-55. Edited by Charles W. Kegley, Jr. New York: HarperCollins. See also Lundestad, Geir. 1986. "Empire by Invitation? The United States and Western Europe, 1945-1952." Journal of Peace Research. 23:263-77, and Ikenberry, John, G. 1989. "Rethinking the Origins of American Hegemony." Political Science Quarterly. 190:4375-400.



As for the "Bush" pre-emptive war strategy, one word: Hardly.
The strategy has been around longer than many of you or I have been on this planet. The use of it neither signals desperation or decline as a national or international entity--to the contrary disdain of some who have already registered their commentaries within this topic.





seekerof

[edit on 16-3-2006 by Seekerof]




posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Seekerof rather then bash the UN do you care to explain how the preemptive strategy is sustainable ?
Are you willing to pay higher taxs to pay for the war on terror ?
Cheers Xpert11.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

And btw, Marg, can I join your band? Maybe we could play some Merengue, or Salsa even?



I am a great dancer
we can dance anything you want even country.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Seekerof rather then bash the UN do you care to explain how the preemptive strategy is sustainable ?

First, the UN is worth every nickel of bashing I throw at it, and being that my tax dollar go to supporting it, ummm, I am simply getting my money's worth.
Secondly, "sustainable" applies to the pre-emptive strategy how?





Are you willing to pay higher taxs to pay for the war on terror ?

Been paying taxes for quite sometime.
"Higher taxes" are relative.





Cheers

And cheers to you.






seekerof



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Its simple currently the US government is funding the building of two nations. Add the cost of maintaining US forces that are taking part in the war on terror and other defence related costs you have to ask.
How long can the US government keep footing the bill ?

Higher taxs isnt relative. You cant say that an increase in taxs is relative however if someone said "I pay high taxs" then that would be relative because you cant define what exactly high taxation is.
You failed to answer the question so I ask again.
Are you prepared to pay more in taxs in order to pay for the war on terror ?
Remember your income tax may not go up but governments excell at inventing ways to extort money from the general population.

Your UN bashing makes you no better then the Bush bashes who blame Bush when the cake dosnt turn out right in the oven.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
As for the "Bush" pre-emptive war strategy, one word: Hardly.
The strategy has been around longer than many of you or I have been on this planet. The use of it neither signals desperation or decline as a national or international entity--to the contrary disdain of some who have already registered their commentaries within this topic.


Seekerof, any chance you might discuss your feelings on the preemption strategy-

1) relative to Iran, and how that might play out

2) relative to other potential targets such as Syria and North Korea

I'd like to get your take on those... And oh, one last request...like, in words that don't take your walking encyclopedia and dictionary, not mention excessive introspective, to decipher please?


[edit on 16-3-2006 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Seekerof, any chance you might discuss your feelings on the preemption strategy-

In a manner and tone of use in memory of and in harmony with the "Three Stooges" (nothing implied against anyone here): certanly (mis-spelled on purpose) I can.





1) relative to Iran, and how that might play out

The pre-emptive strategy as applied to Iran is simply a matter of military contemplation, along the same lines as Israel's option to pre-empt some aspects of Iran's nuclear program. Pre-emption in this applied case would be solely military airstrikes and cruise missile attacks aimed at aspects of Iran's nuclear program. Having said that, Iran's nuclear program cannot be entirely destroyed, being some aspects of it are buried underground, but enough of it can be pre-empted to seriously 'dent' or hamper or put Iran behind it's alleged and somewhat speculative nuclear weapons timetable. Further, the US internationally vocalizing the ability to use such a pre-empt option acts as a stimulus, motivator, or incentive, with either good or bad results or implications, but more importantly, what it does do is make it clear to the Iranian that the US, along with some aspects of Europe, are dead serious against Iran acquiring or pursuing nuclear weapons, to the point of using some degree of force. Thus the strategy of pre-emption serves as both a military and political tool.




2) relative to other potential targets such as Syria and North Korea

NKorea: NKorea has stipulated that IT reserves the right to pre-empt the US. As much bluster as that is, they do have that right, but as with anything else in the diplomatic international community, NKorea performing a pre-empt on the US would be like making a serious mistake that undoubtedly, would have severe repercussions. A US pre-emption strategy against NKorea has already been drawn up, though the option is on the rear burners because of China's involvement in trying to adequately seek a remedy to the ongoing situation.

Syria: A pre-emption strategy against Syria is way down on the list of military and/or foreign policy agendas. Not seeing it being applicable at this time.




I'd like to get your take on those... And oh, one last request...like, in words that don't take your walking encyclopedia and dictionary, not mention excessive introspective, to decipher please?









seekerof

[edit on 17-3-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by stumason
In hindsight, my comments could be relevant to the topic. As the American "Empire" (using the term loosely) will probably fall from grace due to similar over commitments and economic strain.

Time will tell


Obviously, hindsight has its advantages, huh, stumason?
Personally, you must have done some reflection upon your own birthplace and realized that it was the US "Empire" that replaced the British "Empire;" that it was the "empire by invitation"*** United States hegemon that replaced the defunct imperialism based British hegemon.

You know, all-in-all, I was using the terms 'reflection' and 'hegemon' loosely.
I know it is tough to recognize what once was to what is.

And as this planet's current unipolar power hegemon, be rest assured that the strategy of pre-emption remains a viable and rightly alternative (as with any other state having the right), unless of course, you, as with some others, insist that the defunct UN reserves the right to have any say to the contrary...

***John Lewis Gaddis. 1991. "Great Illusion, the Long Peace, and Future of the International System." In The Long Postwar Peace: Contending Explanations and Projections. 25-55. Edited by Charles W. Kegley, Jr. New York: HarperCollins. See also Lundestad, Geir. 1986. "Empire by Invitation? The United States and Western Europe, 1945-1952." Journal of Peace Research. 23:263-77, and Ikenberry, John, G. 1989. "Rethinking the Origins of American Hegemony." Political Science Quarterly. 190:4375-400.



As for the "Bush" pre-emptive war strategy, one word: Hardly.
The strategy has been around longer than many of you or I have been on this planet. The use of it neither signals desperation or decline as a national or international entity--to the contrary disdain of some who have already registered their commentaries within this topic.


seekerof

[edit on 16-3-2006 by Seekerof]


Not entirely sure what the point of your ramblings are there, Seeker, apart from to take a swipe at me. That in itself is nothing new.

I merely pointed out that our Empire fell not to an invading Army, but to economic and political pressure.

The "hindsight" I displayed and that which you have obviously taken out of context refers not to our Empire, but to my comments on the topic (or the lack of in my first post). Perhaps re-reading my posts may help there.

No reflecting or comparing of the British Empire of old and the current American "Empire" took place on my part, except for the single similarity in being overstretched.

You seem to hint that I hark back to bygone era of British supremacy. Not at all. Empire was more trouble than it was worth, which is one of the reasons why we let it go.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Happy day! Something you wrote that I actually understood. Thank you.


Originally posted by Seekerof
...Further, the US internationally vocalizing the ability to use such a pre-empt option acts as a stimulus or motivator, with either good or bad results, but what it does do is make it clear to the Iranian that the US, along with some aspects of Europe, are dead serious against Iran acquiring or pursuing nuclear weapons. Thus the strategy of pre-emption serves as both a military and political tool.


Well good input, for sure. And I don't know if you read any of my previous posts in here, but if you did you would know that I am very concerned about the precedent that this could set for the near future to come, and moreso really the issue of: how long before the tables are turned and we are preempted ourselves? And possibly in an unprecedented way?


Korea: Korea has stipulated that IT reserves the right to pre-empt the US. As much bluster as that is, they do have that right, but as with anything else in the diplomatic international community, Korea performing a pre-empt on the US would be like making a serious mistake that undoubtedly, would have severe repercussions.


Unilaterally, maybe so. But what about in unison with other powers such as China and/or Russia, and dare I say even India? You think we could handle that conventionally, even with allies involved?


Syria: A pre-emption strategy against Syria is way down on the list of military and/or foreign policy agendas. Not seeing it being applicable at this time.


Now that is very curious you feel that way. Is that because of its recent withdraw from Lebanon? Do you feel Syria is out of this equation, according to the Bush administration? What about the rumors of Saddam's WMD's currently residing in Syria? No effect? I mean, if they are there, they could still be very dangerous, and worse, if they are, the potential for proliferation of those weapons to terrorists would seem to me to be very high. That combined with Syria's supposed defense pact with Iran, its continued harboring of terrorists, and I can't quite comprehend your feelings on this one. Maybe you could elaborate?

Thanks and Regards,
TA



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Five basic reasons that the enormous Roman Empire was destroyed:

1. The dramatic increase of divorce undermined the institution of the family.

2. The imposition of higher taxes undermined the economic stability and vitality of the Empire. Taxes were raised to pay for deficit government spending, to pay for food for all in society and to pay for government-sponsored activities of diversion, such as circuses and sports. Interestingly, as the time of the final collapse drew closer, greater emphasis was placed on sports, to divert the attention of the public from the distressing news of massive trouble within the Empire.

3. The drive for personal pleasure had become very intense, even to the point of obsession. Gibbons noted that, at the very end, sports had become more exciting and brutal.

4. People lost their faith, both religiously and in their government. Paganism gave way to Christianity and the efficient Roman Government gave way to chaos and disintegration.

5. Hidden conspirators were working within the government to secretly destroy it. They worked quietly, invisibly and deceitfully; during the entire time they were secretly dismantling the government of the Roman Empire, they publicly proclaimed their unswerving support of it.


Find a floatation device or start dressing like women and children, 'cause the ships going down, and we're all in it.

[edit on 3/17/2006 by ViolatoR]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Happy day! Something you wrote that I actually understood. Thank you.

Your welcome.






Well good input, for sure. And I don't know if you read any of my previous posts in here, but if you did you would know that I am very concerned about the precedent that this could set for the near future to come, and moreso really the issue of: how long before the tables are turned and we are preempted ourselves? And possibly in an unprecedented way?

Personally, I am not concerned with the "precedent" this may or may not set. Objectively, neither is this administration or crop of foreign policy advisors and makers. As mentioned, the strategy of pre-emption is not foreign to governments or militaries. The strategy is simply that: a historically long-standing strategy. The only difference is that since the Cold War era, the strategy has become a vocalized political tool instead of strictly a military option, doctrine, and/or strategy.





Unilaterally, maybe so. But what about in unison with other powers such as China and/or Russia, and dare I say even India? You think we could handle that conventionally, even with allies involved?

Not concerned with India, despite their connections to the Russians.
As for a 'team-banging' of the US, its plausible, but highly unlikely. I simply could back this with a list of reasons, but I will only produce two: sheer economics (consider how closely tied or interlinked the Chinese and US economies are) and if the 'team-banging' of the US is not completely devastating, the response will be nuclear devastation, on a world scale.





Now that is very curious you feel that way. Is that because of its recent withdraw from Lebanon? Do you feel Syria is out of this equation, according to the Bush administration? What about the rumors of Saddam's WMD's currently residing in Syria? No effect? I mean, if they are there, they could still be very dangerous, and worse, if they are, the potential for proliferation of those weapons to terrorists would seem to me to be very high. That combined with Syria's supposed defense pact with Iran, its continued harboring of terrorists, and I can't quite comprehend your feelings on this one. Maybe you could elaborate?

All you have said above is of merit, but as I indicated, Syria is simply on the 'back-burner.'




seekerof

[edit on 17-3-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ViolatoR


1. The dramatic increase of divorce undermined the institution of the family.


What has divorce got to do with the war on terror little alone preemptive strategy ?




3. The drive for personal pleasure had become very intense, even to the point of obsession. Gibbons noted that, at the very end, sports had become more exciting and brutal.


You must have the wrong thread.
How much physical contact there is in a sport has bearing in modern day politics unless you count politics as a sport.




5. . They worked quietly, invisibly and deceitfully; during the entire time they were secretly dismantling the government of the Roman Empire, they publicly proclaimed their unswerving support of it.


Are you claiming that members of the Bush admin are working to undermine the US government ?


[edit on 17-3-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 03:17 AM
link   
Do we already have some response from other countries about the preemptive war comment?



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jefferson101
Do we already have some response from other countries about the preemptive war comment?


Even if we do, yours are welcome as well!



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   
~~

This administrations Preemptive Doctrine
is not the same as the ColdWar 1st Strike,
which the USA committed itself to not do.

Pres. GW Bush, is re-emphasizing the Preemptive Doctrine
as part of his legacy...
if you figure the next administration wont get into power
until Jan 2009, and then it will take some time for defining
and implementing a new, different strategic policy.
I'd say that the Preemptive Doctrine will be part of the larger
Total Spectrum Dominance until at least 2010...

Rogue states and gov'ts take heed, that's the Bush 'Road Map'
for the global Anglo-American empire.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
Pres. GW Bush, is re-emphasizing the Preemptive Doctrine
as part of his legacy...
if you figure the next administration wont get into power
until Jan 2009, and then it will take some time for defining
and implementing a new, different strategic policy.
I'd say that the Preemptive Doctrine will be part of the larger
Total Spectrum Dominance until at least 2010...


Interesting that you think it would take so long for another policy, St Udio. How long does it take to say, "Ok, we no longer bomb nations without getting attacked by nations first, we only attack terrorists where we can find them, and we will always go through Congress and all appropriate channels, and advisors, before we will ever start a war in this new administration." ??

Took me all of about a minute. gg.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jefferson101
Do we already have some response from other countries about the preemptive war comment?


Does this count?



SEOUL, South Korea -
North Korea suggested Tuesday it had the ability to launch a pre-emptive attack on the United States, according to the North's official news agency. A Foreign Ministry spokesman said the North had built atomic weapons to counter the U.S. nuclear threat.

"As we declared, our strong revolutionary might put in place all measures to counter possible U.S. pre-emptive strike," the spokesman said, according to the Korean Central News Agency. "Pre-emptive strike is not the monopoly of the United States."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Source: N. Korea Suggests it can Strike U.S. First

[edit on 21-3-2006 by koji_K]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Pre emptive strikes should only be used when there is ample evidence that points to an imminent threat, we still have yet to see the evidence for WMD out of iraq. As for Iran we do know they are in the process of building a nuclear program, as far as weapons go, logically it would make sense for them to pursue nuclear weapons especially with an enemy right on their doorstep. So stay tuned for further develpments



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   
The thing is, if you read your stratagy text books, most of this 'pre-emptive' business is actually nothing of the sort... these are 'preventative' wars... 'pre-emption' only counts if there is an actual and imminent threat... Bush would like to've believed that this is the case with Iraq (and maybe Iran hypothetically) but even if there were the weapons that were claimed to be there, this still wouldn't have constituted a pre-emptive state as there was no imminent danger. 'Preventative' conflict on the other hand, recognises that there is a threat of billigerance from an actor (like say.. Iraq) but it is not imminent and could even be of limited strategic cost or importance... a kind of 'nip it in the bud' stratagy... such a war is textbook Iraq... whatever the hidden motives or actual reasoning...

Pre-emtion is far more justifiable when you keep this in mind... as the conflict for all intense purposes (in the eyes of the 'pre-empter' anyway) is inevitable and probably catastrophic should it go unchecked immediately (Israel is a good example of this, was it the 57 war? I always forget which... ask Riwka).

Bush's doctrine is NOT pre-emptive... but they would have you think it is for the same reasons I have just stated...

a good one to read on this is Lawrence Freedman's Deterrence which you'll pick up cheap on Amazon I'm sure...

Amazon link

Q



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   
This is a personal opinion but I think True American said it best on page on...


Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Yeah sure it should be kept as an option. But keep in mind it is also an option for them.


If any country believes that they are under "investigation" with a view to a pre-emptive strike, they to would have equal justification to retaliate before the U.S. declare their pre-emtive attack... this is just paranoia breeding paranoia.

I am surprised that this kind of legislation was not put in place by Regan during the cold war era...

On what basis would a pre-emtive strike be authorised? Based on an conclusion drawn on evidence similar to a trial where the U.S. becomes Judge Jury and Executioner?

The fanaticism of some countries with a hatred for the western culture (not purely political ideolgy but the cultural lifestyle shared by the west and other countries in the world who share idealism of the west) should be addressed by the NATO council, Partnership for Peace or the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join