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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Right on Klepto.


Another thing about announcing a preemptive doctrine is that it telegraphs the preemptor's intentions to the enemy. You might as well be saying "we're coming to attack you." And hell, Bush has done more than just talk on that one. Countries like North Korea and Iran have every right to believe that they will be attacked, and frankly I would not be surprised if they attacked first. The first one with the surprise element always has an advantage. And Bush just took that away from himself and any others pursuing his paranoid doctrine.

If NK and Iran decided to attack together at once, NK in South Korea and Iran in Iraq and the Gulf, Bush is going to have a real mess on his hands. Add to that a counterinsurgency, and Hizbollah attacks on Israel, and we got ourselves a real disaster in the Gulf. And he won't be able to blame anyone but himself for announcing his intentions ahead of time. He should have just shut the hell up, not named any "axis of evil" and then gone in with major surprise. Hell, he was going to do it anyway with or without public/international support. So now both Iran and NK are just going to sit there, waiting for the inevitable? I am just wainting any day now for the headlines:

ALERT!!! NORTH KOREA ATTACKS SOUTH KOREA AND IRAN ATTACKS US FORCES IN THE GULF! ALERT!

And gee, what a perfect time for China to decide that they've had enough of the Taiwan issue and attack it as well.




posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
announcing a preemptive doctrine is that it telegraphs the preemptor's intentions to the enemy. You might as well be saying "we're coming to attack you." And hell, Bush has done more than just talk on that one. Countries like North Korea and Iran have every right to believe that they will be attacked, and frankly I would not be surprised if they attacked first. The first one with the surprise element always has an advantage. And Bush just took that away from himself and any others pursuing his paranoid doctrine.

The phrase "paronoid doctrine" is ambiguous and misleading, simply relegating itself to be used and coined by those who do not understand such a doctrine and as to why it has become a vocalized political instrument in foreign policy for the current administration.

You, as with others, may see the vocalizing (ie: the "telegraphing") of such as being negatively detrimental or as a hinderance and giving away initiative, but I would and have contested otherwise, have I not, TrueAmerican? The vocalizing or 'threatening' the use of pre-emption is simply being currently used as a motivator or as an incentive device.

Further, if the issuing of a pre-emotive declaration causes the one who is being issued the pre-emptive declaration to attack or 'pre-empt' first, in the case of the two states, Iran and the US, who would fair or suffer more proportionately? Remember, no matter who pre-empts who, there will likely be a corresponding response. Again, who would suffer more proportionately?






seekerof

[edit on 21-3-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
The phrase "paronoid doctrine" is ambiguous and misleading, simply relegating itself to be used and coined by those who do not understand such a doctrine and as to why it has become a vocalized political instrument in foreign policy for the current administration.


I understand it completely seeker, and furthermore, mean every last ounce of it in its indigenous sense. "Paranoid doctrine", of course, is meant to refer to Bush's preemptive doctrine, albeit with different adjectives. It is my belief that it is excessively paranoid, promotes other countries to do the same, and there are other political and economic tools that can be used to achieve better, more peaceful results with no loss of life. But that's just me, and we may just have agree to disagree with the validity and effectiveness of its current use. No biggie, I can hang.


You, as with others, may see the vocalizing (ie: the "telegraphing") of such as being negatively detrimental or as a hinderance and giving away initiative, but I would and have contested otherwise, have I not, TrueAmerican? The vocalizing or 'threatening' the use of pre-emption is simply being currently used as a motivator or as an incentive device.


Well, regarding that point, I do not know seeker whether you have or not. Honestly, I had not seen that issue discussed before specifically, ie, that it unnecessarily telegraphs intent to the enemy, and thought it was my own spin. Guess I was wrong about that, and that's cool. Maybe you could show me exactly where you have discussed that specifically.

I understand that you want to attribute it to being used as a motivator, and I can empathize with your sentiment. But the truth is, seeker, it is being used as an ultimatum, and being acted on as well. One down, two to go. I would not be surprised if Bush has those poor people in Iran and NK absolutely terrified. And I'm talking the people, not the military.


Further, if the issuing of a pre-emotive declaration causes the one who is being issued the pre-emptive declaration to attack or 'pre-empt' first, in the case of the two states, Iran and the US, who would fair or suffer more proportionately? Remember, no matter who pre-empts who, there will likely be a corresponding response. Again, who would suffer more proportionately?


Well ultimately, it is the people who will suffer, IMO. And I don't know about who would suffer more in your context there. If Iran attacked right now and caught the US out of position, and worse, if they did it in conjunction with NK, HAMAS, a counterinsurgency in Iraq, and even Syria, and devastated US forces currently there, what's the US going to do? Nuke the middle east? Doubt it. Public opinion would run so heated in this country, I'd say they'd either be forced to pull out or have to institute a draft, which will be met with fierce resistance, considering it would NOT be to protect the US mainland.

Frankly, Bush has been extremely lucky to this point that those countries have not united to a degree high enough to coordinate and oust the US from their territory. And IMO, they will be forced to, or they will fall, one by one, on Bush's schedule. And I'll take that a step further and say that WE, the people, who have allowed our administration to do this have been even luckier. So far. I am just wondering how many countries Bush will conquer before they say "enough."

[edit on 22-3-2006 by TrueAmerican]



new topics
 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join