It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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?