Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Let's Clear the Air A Bit: Origins of "Pre-emptive Strike" Policy.

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2003 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Link: (will require membership)
www.chuckmuth.com...

Article:
"....Who Originated "Pre-Emption" Policy?" Posted 12/7/2003

Excerpts:
"Anti-war kooks in general, and Democrat presidential candidates in particular, continue to hammer the President for his pre-emption policy of "do it to them before they do it to us." But if you thought Democrats went nuts over comparisons of President Bush's tax cuts to JFK, you ain't seen nothing yet. Wait'll they hear who originated the doctrine of pre-emptive defense.

First, let's get everybody on record here.

Earlier this year, an online left-wing organization called MoveOn.org hosted a "virtual" Democrat presidential primary in which Howard Dean came out on top.

In competing for votes from the MoveOn members, Dean posted a position statement on the organization's website www.moveon.org... Included in the statement was this line: "On my first day in office, I will tear up the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war." In his online Candidate Interview with the MoveOn folks, Dean elaborated: "I've said all along that the Bush doctrine of preemptive war is wrong for America, and sets a dangerous precedent."

But Dean's not the only current Democrat presidential candidate to tell the MoveOn folks that they oppose the pre-emption doctrine.

"The Bush Administration's pre-emption doctrine is unnecessary and unwise," declared John Edwards in his interview. "The Administration's provocative new doctrine has been distracting and damaging." Dick Gephardt chimed in, "The U.S. should not have a pre-emptive war doctrine." Sen. John Kerry said "it's counterproductive to make pre-emption a doctrine." Dennis Kucinich stated flatly that "As President, I will repeal the pre-emptive war doctrine." And Al Sharpton declared that "It's a dangerous and traditionally un-American doctrine."

This is unarguably the same position held by the vast number of MoveOn members and left-wing Democrat activists. It's not too much of a stretch to suggest this is the official Democrat position for the 2004 campaign.

So I wonder how Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the patron saint of liberal Democrats everywhere, would have responded to the question of pre-emptive defense in that interview? Actually, I don't have to wonder. I have it right here www.usmm.org...

In a Fireside Chat on - and you're not going to believe the coincidence of this date - September 11, 1941, FDR told the nation, "When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him."

Hmmmm. Response, Mr. Dean? Rep. Gephardt? Sen. Edwards? Sen. Kerry? Rep. Kucinich? Rev. Sharpton?

At issue at the time was German submarine attacks on American ships, particularly a September 4, 1941, torpedo attack on the American destroyer Greer en route to Iceland. Roosevelt warned that "It is time for all Americans...to stop being deluded by the romantic notion that the Americas can go on living happily and peacefully in a Nazi-dominated world." He described the Greer attack by Hitler as "one determined step toward creating a permanent world system based on force, on terror, and on murder."

Roosevelt continued: "Normal practices of diplomacy - note writing - are of no possible use in dealing with international outlaws who sink our ships and kill our citizens."

"Let us not ask ourselves whether the Americas should begin to defend themselves after the first attack, or the fifth attack, or the tenth attack, or the twentieth attack," FDR declared. "This is the time for prevention of attack." With that, Roosevelt declared open season on any German or Italian vessels in the water.

By the way, discovery of this FDR policy statement isn't something new. But funny how the media never seem to bring it up when questioning the Democrat candidates who criticize the Bush policy, isn't it?

At any rate, the doctrine of pre-emption didn't originate in the Bush administration. It was a policy adopted and implemented exactly 50 years, to the day, before the September 11 al Qaeda attacks on U.S. citizens. And it was articulated, not by a 21st century Republican president, but by the Democrat Party's liberal icon who recognized that America's security and defense were of paramount importance - and didn't require the approval of France.

They don't make Democrats the way they used to, do they?"



Well...........what do many to some of you think of this?
IMHO....I think the Monroe Doctrine was a form of legitimate "pre-emptive" policy. It seems that the policy, in general, dealing with "pre-emptive" striking or strikes has been in play, in regards to history herself, for quite a very, very long time....probably even goes back to historical biblical records and references.....
And if such is the case, why have many to some here claimed that Bush's "pre-emptive" policy is one he made and is dasterly in design? Has underlined motives and such? I mean golly, history proves otherwise but again....it is, after-all, ALL about Bush isn't it?

Thoughts or comments?


regards
seekerof




posted on Dec, 7 2003 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Thanks Seeker,

the truth hurts doesn't it!



posted on Dec, 7 2003 @ 04:09 PM
link   
The link was unavailable to me so I could only go off of the the information you posted...at any rate any writer that chooses to to start with "anti-war kooks" damages his/her creditability.

The difference between the FDR policy and the Bushies policy is very clear. The Bushies aren't practicing pre-emptive war, but elective war. Some Bushies want to overthrow the governments of sovereign nations that have not threatened us. The current policy is one of imperialism--the secondary goal is sercurity. The primary goal is to indoctrinate which leads to privitization (a byproduct of spreading this "democracy").

The problem with calling Iraq pre-emptive war is that the policy has been laying on a desk for over 12 years. 9-11 has little to do with it. And, basically there is no snake nation set to strike the US. If there is a snake set to strike, we're it. The threat that looms doesn't come for a specific nation but that's what we want to attack. The goal is to build a world in our image--that's not pre-emptive war. Its elective war. I think, Gen. Clark is the only one saying this about the Bushies policy.



posted on Dec, 8 2003 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Seek:
Do you own acerage in Nebraska? You seem to be a never ending supply of of Straw Men - makes me visualize the "March of the Wooden Soilders" - when they let loose the brigade against the boogeymen! ( OK, it's the holidays & I've always loved that part!)

1941:
One of the World's Super Powers is attacking our merchant/military fleets & has aligned themselves with other top 5 military powers; after already toppling several countries and having had a very visible build up of their war machine

VS

An Iraqi overthrow with no established link to the 911 attacks.

Seek, you post some great volume & people of the stripe like Neo eat it up, but the sources are always tainted & the arguments......made of straw.
But hey, if they could be pushing to put Reagan on the Dime, all quantum leaps of fancy are sound, no?



posted on Dec, 8 2003 @ 12:33 PM
link   
A pre-emptive war is like #ing some one to keep your virginity.



posted on Dec, 8 2003 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Seeker;

Yes, You are right, many times in our history as a country we have had to choose between taking a strong
position in a confrontation with an other country OR to back-down and take our chances. We have, for the most part choosen the strong position. Examples:

1) The Monroe Doctrine, early 1800's

2) The Civil War, 1865

3) France's Attempt to Annex Mexico, 1870's

4) Barberry Coast Pirates, 1880's

5) WW I , 1918

6) WW II, 1945

7) Korean War, 1953

8) Cuba Quarantine, 1963

And these don't include the U.N. Sanctioned/Requested "police actions" from the last 35 years that the U.S. has assisted with.

I feel that "time" will tell if the U.S./Coalition incurrsion into Iraq was justified or not. But at least as of how the situation now stands I will stand by our Country(Allies) and our President, and God bless our Military as they guard the gates of freedom.

Keep up the good work; USAFSS-SP



posted on Dec, 8 2003 @ 03:35 PM
link   
And keep them from being utilized as a tool for Corporate Imperialism engineered by their political avatars who stretch to justify blatant Corporate Manifest Destiny and dress it up as just cause in the protection of the Great U.S of A. by using warranted points in history as a blanket excuse.



posted on Dec, 9 2003 @ 03:20 PM
link   
It is with extrem pleasure I ready your entry on pre-emptive strikes. It is very refreshing to see someone who is able to see thru the smoke screens the democrates use to confuse issues.





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join