Do you agree with the Bush* Doctrine of 'preemptive/preventative' war?

[Q]

- Did Bush* attack Iraq in defense of our country? It seems that many Republicans and Democrats believe this to be the case.

- Republicans say that Bush* is not afraid to stand up for America. They especially like the part of the SOTU speech where Bush* says he doesn't need a 'permission slip' (or evidence) to attack any country he 'feels' is a threat.

- Democrats are mostly silent on this issue...afraid of looking unpatriotic as Bush* makes more enemies and threatens the world with his insane foreign policy. Except for a few bold Democrats like Kennedy, Gore and Byrd...the party hasn't presented an official position on Bush's* wars of aggression.

- What's your opinion of Bush's* policy of aggressive war?

[davhill]

1. Aesop Said it Best

In the "Wolf and the Lamb" fable. "Any excuse will serve a tyrant"

(Updated to correct fable)

[SHRED]

2. 99.9%

Of Bu$h's ideas suck.

Make that 100%.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

3. The * position is untenable.

I am 1000% against it.
He SHOULD be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

I will cast a vote for president, ONLY, for the candidate who greets * with shackles at the first oppurtunity.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RapidCreek]

21. What news would that be?

Please enlighten me oh wise one.

RC

[Demonaut]

74. Shoot 'em all and let God sort them out

Its funny, the repugs say that we've removed Saddam so that the Iraqi people can be free, no more rape rooms, no more executions..i agree that that a great thing but ....when have repugs truly cared about the plight of brownskinned muslim people? No matter how you look at it the repug party is basically a racist organization, Trent Lott and countless others have let it be known that the only important people to them are Christian Whites, preferably not catholic....The few blacks and hispanics who support them are either misinformed, sellouts or fundy....The school voucher system will hurt minorities far more that poor white children...anyway thats just a few of my thoughts...mostly about Grand Hypocrisy.

[Racenut20]

4. Preventive War ????

I would need that term defined to me??? Is that something like LBJ's "bombing them to save them?"

[laruemtt]

5. as whacked as his plan

to cut down all the trees to prevent forest fires :wtf:

[pocoloco]

6. Preemptive yes, if facing imminet attack.

Preventative, of course not.

[Q]

10. Do you think Bush* attacked Iraq in 'defense' of the US?

- Or did he simply use 9-11 as an excuse for including Iraq in his 'war on terrorism'?

[pocoloco]

38. Answer B, no question that he used 9-11 as an excuse

( the PNAC's Pearl Harbor they were hoping for)to attack Iraq for a myriad of reasons including but not limited to: revenge for attempt on pop, war profiteering (military industrial complex), imagined profit from Iraq oil(Haliburton), pacify Sharon and fire up fundamentalists, and to booster his ego to make up for a shot dick.

[bowens43]

7. Opposed.

Preemptive attacks are illegal and immoral. Besides, in the case of Iraq, there was nothing to preempt.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Q]

18. You're being very cryptic...

...why not come right out and tell us how you feel about preemptive strikes against countries that pose no real threat?

[RapidCreek]

27. cause a lot of folks would be to chicken shit to pick a fight with

Pakistan or China....you know...places where they film themselves running over folks protesting for Democracy with tanks. It's allot easier to pick on third world nations. It makes you feel so tough and righteous and you don't need to worry about getting punched in the eye. Classic panty waist bully tactics. Then again...Bush is a classic AWOL panty waist bully....as are most of his compatriots and supporters.

RC
USN VET

[RapidCreek]

24. So what is your point?

Do you have anything worthwhile to say? You quite obviously love your neighbors here at DU....does that give me liscence to blow up your house wife and kids? I find you threatening....even though you haven't threatened me.....does that give me liscence to murder you? Using your logic I suppose it would, no?

RC

[Iverson]

25. There's a rhetorical strategy here ...

Imply, but never state.

[RapidCreek]

30. rhetorical strategy?

I think you are giving way to much credit. I'd say the "strategy" is more along the lines of "got nothing but RW talking points to spout and I know damn well if I actually do it I am among a bunch of folks who will suggest how it might be wise to educate myself before opening my mouth".

RC

[Iverson]

33. sure

Let us suppose for the sake of argument that the writer in question is an intellectual flyweight who has, accordingly, accepted uncritically the ideology of the radical right. He or she is still using language as an instrument, and that can be analyzed.

Even the most intellectually bereft, empty, and morally offensive right-wing mantras involve some rhetorical strategy.

[RapidCreek]

39. Hehehehehe

touché! A pathetically ineffective, dull and rusted instrument...but an instrument none the less.

RC

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Q]

43. The RWingers don't seem to care about all the unnecessary deaths...

...in a 'war' that happened for no other reason that to prop up Bush* and the Republican party. In fact...the phony 'war on terrorism' will be the centerpiece of Bush's* campaign for 2004.

- But even the Army War College has stated that Bush's* war is nothing but a distraction and has taken needed resources AWAY from the real war on terrorism.

- No matter how the RWingers spin it...Bush* is a war criminal...responsible for the unnecessary death of thousands of innocents. That puts him in the same category as Saddam.

[pocoloco]

42. It is preventative wars that are illegal,

which is what the war in Iraq clearly is, and you are right, not much left of Iraq's military to preempt after the first Gulf War. And not much hope of justice either, I'm afraid.

[RUexperienced]

8. Yes

If the alternative is waiting to be attacked, then yes.

[Q]

11. Are you suggesting Iraq had 'plans' to attack the US?

- We should explore your statement. This is the rationale Bush* used to attack Iraq...that we couldn't 'wait' for them to attack us so he attacked them first.

[RUexperienced]

13. The question is this:

Do you agree with the Bush* Doctrine of 'preemptive/preventative' war?

And, yes, I agree with that question that does not mention Iraq.

Was Iraq a threat to the US and its interests? Yes. It is the degree of threat that I question.

[Q]

20. You're framing the question so it works for Bush*

- Bush* said we had to strike Iraq before they attacked us. How does this explain the 'degree' of threat you're referring to?

- Bush* attacked Iraq without provocation or ANY evidence that they were a threat to our security. This was called 'war of aggression' when Hitler did it.

[tom_paine]

49. Hi, RU.

RU knows how to frame. RU has a tremendous advantage over DU in framing.

Framing is a marketing skill widely in use by RU.

Moreover, I must confess acertain jealously of RU's framing skills.

At this late juncture, not only do I laud RU for his framing skills, but I also agree that DU must emulate them.

Better late than ever, I always say.

Thanks, RU. You are a true friend.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

80. Framing skills, yes

Debating skills, no.

He frames them in the contest of RW talking points, and when questioned on them, proceeds to re-frame the same points in a different way.

He's very clever, unlike the usual ones we see around here...

[Snappy]

9. NO!!!

NO!!! This was a land grab.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Q]

17. Could you elaborate?

- What's this 'new place to live'? Are you referring to Gitmo?

[RapidCreek]

41. You should probably stick to monosyllabic expression Q

Big words like Elaborate might confuse some folks.

RC

[Q]

15. Republicans use the excuse that the Bush* Doctrine...

...is 'taking the war to the terrorists'. They don't seem to care that Bush* had to lie to set Iraq up for an attack. They feel that any attack on ME countries is justified in the context of a 'war' on terrorism.

- Yet...the disconnect is frightening. How can the Bushies justify attacking Iraq as part of the war on terrorism when it's been proven that Iraq was in no way connected to 9-11 or any terrorist network?

- The answer is that they don't need to justify it when the media refuses to call them on their lies and deceit.

- There's also evidence that Bush* is HIDING the connection between his Saudi friends and their financing of terrorism...while he goes about attacking countries with no connection to terrorist acts on American soil.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Q]

23. Congressional hearings uncovered evidence that Saudi...

...royals and others were financing terrorism. The Bush* administration knew who they were...but refused to hand over the list of names to congress and classified them instead.

- There's also the 28 pages of the initial 9-11 report related to the same subject that Bush* refused to release to the public.

- And there is absolutely NO evidence that Iraq had anything to do with terrorist acts on American soil.

[RapidCreek]

37. Nah we all already did that been there......

It really isn't to difficult to discover such links yourself....you should give it a try! Wow what a concept!!! Here is a hint.....one of many I could offer. Have you heard of Google? It is called a search engine. Here is the address. "http://www.google.com/". Now type the stuff between the quotes into the little box at the top of your browser and hit Enter. (Instructions on how to find the "Enter" Key below.) Type "Bush Bin Laden" into the little box on the page that comes up.....without the quotes....now hit enter on your keyboard.....that's the big key next to the comma on your keyboard......the keyboard is that big chunk of plastic in front of you with all the little squares that you can push down. If you are able to successfully follow the steps above you will be presented with over thirteen pages of links for you to click on.

RC

[Iverson]

22. I am pro-civilization.

Thus, I am against wars of aggression, which is subsumed by the Bush doctrine. I hold his policies in the deepest contempt.

However, I'm told that I'm also one of those intransigent extremists, so it may be mainstream to applaud killing civilians in countries that haven't attacked us. I just can't be sure. Better check.

[trumad]

26. This is just Q's way of flushing out the freepers...

:evilgrin:

[Q]

34. Whew...they DO turn out in droves...don't they?

- Aggressive war is illegal and immoral. Bush* had no more reason to attack Iraq than Hitler did Poland.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

36. hehehe...you're good Q...

:loveya:

[RapidCreek]

45. It's not mainstream if they can lob a Nuc into LA for your efforts

You give them most favored nation status and broker trade deals with them and let them murder their own civilians. It's only mainstream to applaud the murder of civilians if they can't murder you back.....or can't they? Hmmmmm something to think about.....nahhh thinkin is for unpatriotic sissies. Now where is that flag...that one with the Made In China thingy on it.....I got a hankering to wave it around and tune in to CNN for my daily dose of double plus feel good!

RC

[Devils Advocate NZ]

28. The Nuremberg Tribunal said it best:

THE COMMON PLAN OR CONSPIRACY AND AGGRESSIVE WAR

The Tribunal now turns to the consideration of the Crimes against peace charged in the Indictment. Count One of the Indictment charges the defendants with conspiring or having a common plan to commit crimes against peace.

Count Two of the Indictment charges the defendants with committing specific crimes against peace by planning, preparing, initiating, and waging wars of aggression against a number of other States. It will be convenient to consider the question of the existence of a common plan and the question of aggressive war together, and to deal later in this Judgment with the question of the individual responsibility of the defendants.

The charges in the Indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

The first acts of aggression referred to in the Indictment are the seizure of Austria and Czechoslovakia and the first war of aggression charged in the Indictment is the war against Poland begun on the 1st September, 1939.

Before examining that charge it is necessary to look more closely at some of the events which preceded these acts of aggression. The war against Poland did not come suddenly out of an otherwise clear sky; the evidence has made it plain that this war of aggression, as well as the seizure of Austria and Czechoslovakia, was pre-meditated and carefully prepared, and was not undertaken until the moment was thought opportune for it to be carried through as a definite part of the pre-ordained scheme and plan.

For the aggressive designs of the Nazi Government were not accidents arising out of the immediate political situation in Europe and the world; they were a deliberate and essential part of Nazi foreign policy.
http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/nuremberg/judgement-nazi-regime.html

Sound familiar? The attack on Iraq was a pre-meditated part of Bush foreign policy, and was NOT an "accident arising out of the immediate political situation". It was an illegal aggressive war, and as such was, in the words of the Tribunal, "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

[Q]

40. Thanks for the Nuremberg quotes...

...as they are very relevant to the Bush* Doctrine.

[sendero]

29. I think....

.... calling anything dreamt up by Bush* a "doctrine" is like calling the scribbling of a 3 year old a "thesis".

[Q]

31. Actually...the Neocons refer to it as the "Bush Doctrine"...

...so I didn't invent it out of thin air.

- Meanwhile...others are commenting about Bush's* SOTU speech...calling it nothing but lies and exaggerations.

Dangerous fantasies and signs of 'psychosis' in the White House

- So says Hans Von Sponeck, head of the UN Iraq Mission about Bush's* comments on Iraq in his SOTU speech. On Democracy Now this morning, he went on to say that Bush* lives in an unreal world and his speech was 'void of reality' about the conditions in Iraq. He concludes that Iraq is not 'free' and is simply an occupied state afraid of their conquerers.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

35. it is EVIL...Bush IS EVIL...straight out of the pits of hell!...

IT IS THE DOOM OF AMERICA AND THE WORLD...:CRY:

[Q]

44. What will be the response of the Democrats...

..if Bush* 'declares war' on yet another country? Did Bush* include the Democrats when he stated that he wouldn't seek a 'permission slip' before he attacked another country?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

46. you nailed it Q....yes that was his crypted message to the dems...they

to either to scared or too stupid to hear it?...and i will not be holding my breath for any response from them either.... :grr:

[Blue_Chill]

47. Yes I agree with preemptive/preventative war!

....in cases where there is a real threat and all diplomatic solutions have failed. For example, if our eyes in the sky spot a nuke preparing for launch and this info agrees with what we know from the ground then I fully expect and demand my government take action. They shouldn't wait for the nuke to hit us, hit them first hit them hard and destroy the threat.

Now on to specifics....

- Did Bush* attack Iraq in defense of our country? It seems that many Republicans and Democrats believe this to be the case.

In defense? No. I can see a case being made for removing Saddam, I am not part of the crowd that thinks dictators should be allowed to stay so we don't "push our way on others". I think that's a load of shit. Freedom is a ideal I firmly believe in and I won't change because I fear the US influence on the world. However when such business comes up the world must act, and failing that, the US must act in the interest of the people who are oppressed. Occupation and the dealing of lucrative contracts to campaign contributors is certainly not what I have in mind.


Republicans say that Bush* is not afraid to stand up for America. They especially like the part of the SOTU speech where Bush* says he doesn't need a 'permission slip' (or evidence) to attack any country he 'feels' is a threat.

Rhetoric and mindless dribble. These are, let us remember, the same idiots that cheered at the mention of 'freedom fries' and 'freedom toast' not too long ago. You could do anything you wanted and as long as it didn't help gays or raise taxes they would be behind you 100%.


Democrats are mostly silent on this issue...afraid of looking unpatriotic as Bush* makes more enemies and threatens the world with his insane foreign policy. Except for a few bold Democrats like Kennedy, Gore and Byrd...the party hasn't presented an official position on Bush's* wars of aggression.

Politics are tricky. You can't just get up on stage on have a scream fest like Dean has done. As you can see from recent results that attitude can come back to bite you in a heart beat.

There is a big difference between running a race to win, and running a race to make a point.




What's your opinion of Bush's* policy of aggressive war?

"Aggressive war" = redundant

I'm assuming you mean preemptive war. In which case I would have to say I don't see it as policy yet. I think Iraq was a isolated preplanned incident. Perhaps in the future there will be another such event but I doubt it. I think this is the prize that some deep pockets were after and now republicans will be getting back to what they do best, promising more then they can offer after tax cuts....and of course delivering nothing to the middle and lower class.

[Q]

48. Preemptive war = aggressive war

- And sure it's a 'policy'...and it's being followed to the letter by the Bushies according to the 'plan' presented by the PNACers. Read their literature...it's spelled out for all to see.

[Tennessee_tarheel]

50. yep

I'd have to say on balance that considering what could happen with all the tyrants who mean us harm and the radical Islamicists who are desperate to kill as many of us as possible that, with ample diplomatic efforts & congressional approval, yeah I'd strike before the threat could be real. This day and age that might be chemo/bio/nuke and a lot more problematic (e.g. N. Korea). Easier to take it out sooner than later in that game.

Its hard to come to this opinion but if I personalize it with my own kids, then yeah I'll err on the side of being absolutely sure they are safe. Sorry if this ruffles some feathers. BTW I think Joe L. is in my camp on this too.

[tom_paine]

51. This is a false dichotomy

The answer isn't "yes" or "no". Not 1 or 0.

And if we are truly after tyrants who pose a threat, why attack Saddam? Emasculated, beaten, head of a diseased and weak nation that didn't have a pot to piss in?

Now what happens if a nation that really poses a threat rattles it's sabre...what then? Our forces committed to securing a nation with no WMDs, kiddie like scribblings on a piece of notebook paper was the extent of their WMD program.

Bush said Saddam could attack us in 45 minutes if he wished.

But none of it was true. Saddam probably couldn't get a pizza delivered in 45 minutes (with lamb and couscous toppings).

Even if I agreed that aping the Nazis policy of preemptive strikes ("We shall lend our neighbors a helping hand. We shall lend our neighbors two helpong hands...and help ourselves to our neighbors," as the Three Stooges put it) was correct in certain situations, the Iraq Invasion was most assuredly NOT one of those situations.

Now what happens if we run into a situation where we are genuinely under threat with 70% of our forces committed?

[Tennessee_tarheel]

52. disagree

1st -I never heard Bush say that 45 minute quip (Blair maybe). But EVERYONE - even the french and howard dean thought he had those weapons (and the jury is still out) so that is the situation. He, as far as anyone knew, had them ... period. We can say in hind sight all day long what we would do based on what we know NOW but that isn't how a decision in the WH gets made.

2nd- That said, I would absolutely stop a mad dictator with WMD who, in this day and age, could deliver those to like minded folks who want to kill as many Americans as possible (or as I said substitute your kids). Before 9/11? screw him we can contain him with dithering UN etc. But after 9/11? He's toast, I'm not taking the chance. And there may be more who knows? But a few bad guys certainly seem to have gotten the message (see Libya, Iran, etc.).

3rd - If a N Korea (or China, or ... ) starts trouble? Well you're right it is a predicament. I shudder to think of that. But that is a false choice too. We could always say "we can't do anything because another situation might develop and then we'd be unable to respond".

Gotta' call 'em as you see 'em when they appear. Tough call, that's why they make the big bucks. I for one do feel safer knowing that there is one less source of WMD in the world for Al Quaieda to work from. Could this have been done without invasion? Maybe, maybe not. Again after 9/11 I say "no second chances" and take the threat out before it is "imminent" (which is a squishy term anymore).

[Q]

58. But the Bushies KNEW there was no connection between 9-11...

...and Iraq. They KNEW it before they attacked. That's why they invented an excuse to invade and told people there MAY be a connection even though they knew it was untrue.

[tom_paine]

60. All of your premises are based on falsehoods

(with the exception of your personal opinions, of course, which as opinions may be formed by believing falsehoods, but not be false themselves)

Let's go down

1st- You might have never heard it, but both Bush and Cheney said it. I have to go to work and thus can't do your research for you, but check it out. It won't take long. Many fine websites devoted to recording the numerous lies of the Imperial Family and their Stooges, all (unlike most Right-Wing Sub-Media) are backed up with citations to credible publications who, unlike the vast majority of the Party-Loyal Right-Wing Sub-Media, have fact-checkers. Another falsehood is that EVERYONE believed they had them.

No they didn't.

The "boots on the ground" the UN Weapons Inspectors knew. In spite of being maligned and ignored by the Emperor, they knew. They tried to tell the Imperial Family, but they wouldn't listen. Apparently, they weren;t the only ones who didn;t listen.

So #1 is based on not one falsehood, but actually TWO (do you watch Fox News as your primary source of information...jus wondering as more people who are likely to believe these falsehoods watch that station). You never heard the quips. Does that mean they didn't happen? Many people have never heard of the Boxer Rebellion.

But it happened.

2nd--considering that your 2nd is based entirely on the false premise of the first, I would say it is invalidated. The people who knew best KNEW Saddam didn't have WMD.

Perhaps if there were NO credible sources (as opposed to the most credible who had spent 8 of the last 10 years crawling around Iraq with a friggin' magnifying glass), your assertion might be correct.

But it's not. Even if I agreed with it, it doesn't apply to this situation and the only reason you argue it does is because you have believed two falsehoods.

3rd-- Again, this point builds of the erroneous 1st or 2nd, not to mention ignores my own point. The point is not just "what will happen if another situation arises?", it's "what will happen if another situation arises where forces we squandered in aan unneccessary invasion?"

Two very different things. I have no problem applying force when necessary. I'm a USAF veteran myself. I DO have a problem with brave American soldiers dying for a lie (multiple lies, actually). And I DO have a problem with endangering the American people by committing ur forces where they aren't absolutely needed.

Which, if we are confronted with a situation which requires veteran forces we do not have available, is exactly what will happen.

The final falsehood you present unfortunately I am compelled to point it out...is this comment

I for one do feel safer knowing that there is one less source of WMD in the world for Al Quaieda to work from.

This, as you even acknowledged above, has turned out to be completely untrue (and never mind that Osama had been calling for fundamentalists to overthrow secular Saddam for years).

I guess that's why I DON'T feel safer. I've always been uncomfortable believing falsehoods, even if they tell me exactly what I want to hear (these are the most perniciosu kind of lies, which easily get around our skepticism/defenses)

[Bridget Burke]

62. Wrong, wrong, wrong....

1) There were no remaining WMD. None have been found. It was a big LIE.

2) There was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

3) Keep shuddering; there is real danger out there. We can't even present a deterrent at this point.

STOP using 9/11 as an excuse. If you really cared about what happened that day, you'd be wondering why the investigation has been frustrated by those who were in charge. Instead, you blindly swallow anything they offer. Do you really think they want to keep your children safe?

"Gotta' call 'em as you see 'em"--gosh, you really have that folksy style down pat. As a Texan, I'll offer these phrases: "Dumber than a box of rocks", "One taco shy of a combination plate"--I could go on.

[Tennessee_tarheel]

65. bridget & tom - still disagree :-)

I'll say again - no one with any credibility was making the case that Iraq did not have WMD, no one. The UNSCOM, who had been removed were there again looking - lets be honest even they reported the hoodwinking and shell games being played upon them - often unsuccessfully for sure. If they knew there were none why didn't they say so - loudly? I don't scour obscure websites everyday for my "news". I do read 2 newspapers each day and watch a variety of news shows. No one in a mainstream, everyday fashion made that argument. No Democrats, no foreign leaders, no pundits. So that is not a false premise.

I am not saying WMD were/are there or not I am saying that NO ONE with any credibility made that case before the war - no one. That was my premise for number one. You say the inspectors "knew" well why didn't they tell anyone? Why didn't the French use that as an argument (rather than the lame excuses they did use). Look I am not trying to excuse a war based on a lie. I just don't see the "lie". Mistaken information? Incorrect interpretation? Maybe. I just don't think the guy is evil and out to rule the world. He may however be wrong, there is a difference.

I never said that I thought Iraq HAD a connection to 9/11. They did have a common interest and (again see #1) means to cause great harm. I still say that after 9/11 I would be doing ALL I could to make sure something like that didn't occur again, and especially making sure that the avenues to even greater devastation was stopped. I am not disagreeing that more/different actions could or should have been taken, but he did what he did for reasons of conviction - not malice. I simply can't understand that line of reasoning with all the Democrats who voted for that as well. Were they part of the great conspiracy too? C'mon.

I didn't think Clinton would launch military strikes to distract from Monica and I don't think Bush would do that for polls or oil or whatever the conspiracy theorists have dreamed up today. I'm tellin' ya', the more of this "Bush = Evil" stuff we push - the more it turns off the electorate - see Dean. Poor Joe L., he's only one who seems to think Bush is wrong but not the devil himself.

Maybe we'll just ahve to agree to disagree? :-)

As for Elsewhere's Daughter, I can't even comprehend your message. Did you say anything except for what appears to be a slight about my vernacular?

[rman]

67. guilty until proven innocent?

"no one with any credibility was making the case that Iraq did not have WMD"

The point is that no-one presented a credible case that Iraq had WMD's (at that time).

There were cases presented alright, plenty in fact - but none of those were credible. These cases were based on intelligence info selected specifically for the purpose of finding a reason to invade Iraq, by some of the neocons in office who had a long time desire to invade Iraq - see PNAC, O'Neill's book, CIA whistleblowers etc.

And now you're essentially saying the war on Iraq is justified because no-one did defend Saddam against allegations that he had WMDs?

[tom_paine]

68. No agreement to disagree, you are still repeating falsehoods

And I'm sorry, but the one kind of premise I can't agree to disagree with is one based on such misleading statements.

NO one, you say?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3323633.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/05/sprj.irq.blix.report/

http://aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2003%20News%20archives/September/18%20n/New%20UN%20arms-probe%20boss%20echoes%20Blix%20Iraq%20had%20no%20WMD.htm

(this is a reprint of a Reuters article, lest you correctly question the shoddy source)

Now proof that you have embraced falsehoods. The simple truth is that Blix and others DID say it, and quite credibly.

I will be happy to "agree to disagree" with ANY point of view, so long as it's credibly backed up.

I apologize for being so direct, but none of your assertions meet that criteria.

[Tennessee_tarheel]

79. Bridget , tom, et.al. again ... no one

claimed that he did not have WMD

to quote the cnn story:

"But he also said that the former Iraqi regime was unable to account for chemical or biological weapons it claimed to have destroyed and that weapons inspectors were unable to clear up discrepancies before leaving Baghdad in advance of the invasion. "

His first report said that Iraq was NOT cooperating. The second, without citing any new found cooperation says that "we don't know"

Well ... duh!

Again he did not claim that there were no WMD - only that they could not prove that were not any or prove that there were any. Maybe there are, maybe there are not. Not good enough for some to trust (Bush, Joe L., me among others). The onus (explicitly spelled out in 3 UN rez) was on Saddam to PROVE HE DID NOT HAVE THEM. He did not do this, nor did Blix. And lets not forget Blix's history of political prevarications and/or being suckered. The inspectors found a lot of "cleaning agents" when they arrived at a few sites.

Blix thought there was enough of a reason to think that there might be WMD in 98 and again in 2002 and even in 2003. Saddam did not prove he had gotten rid of them. We might prove that for him - but I would have done the same:

Prove to me you do not have WMD. You won't do it? OK I'll see to it that you don't.

So no. No one really believed that Saddam did not have WMD, else they would have said so - NOT "maybe he does , maybe he doesn't but he won't cooperate with the inspectors to prove he is telling the truth"

And I'll ask again ...

Why did all those Dems go this way as well? They don't want to help GW do they? Maybe they have a little more insight and knowledge than we do? If that was such a sham you have to believe that 3/4 of the Dem party is in on the fix as well as the leaders of UK, Spain, Italy, etc.

My goodness this painful at times.

And Bridget - the "I" was referenced to the Bush decision - not a personal "I".

And to Tom - thanks for your service.

OK maybe we can really get a fight going: Panthers over the Patriots!

[Bridget Burke]

70. Then there's blood on your hands, too.

Many people knew the WMD excuse was a lie. Which two newspapers were you reading?

Referring to 9/11 in this context does infer a connection. "I still say that after 9/11 I would be doing ALL I could to make sure something like that didn't occur again, and especially making sure that the avenues to even greater devastation was stopped." What, exactly, have you done?

I don't know what made those Democrats who supported the war do it. At least some of them have had the decency to come out against it now.

I'm glad your children are safe. Obviously, they're too young to be drafted; you know that it's coming if Bush gets a second term.

What about the children of Iraq?

What about the American children who've lost a father or mother in this imperialistic adventure?

How nice to be above it all.

[Tennessee_tarheel]

81. nope

no blood here.

JC Press and Knoxville News. The first our local primarily an AP copy paper on the national & international news. The 2nd with more in house reporting and field ops. granted it's not the Times or Post but I check those on-line about twice a week as well.

I'm implying anything - after such devastation I would remove all threats as best I could -that does not mean I think Iraq was in on 9/11 but that I would keep them from being in on another one.

No I do not "know" that - do you? Are you clairvoyant?

It sad that many children died, perhaps many more will live now that Saddam is not killing them or torturing them? (yes I am returning the condescending &arrogant attitude for you)

Good people CAN disagree you know? Or do you?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

78. No one with credibility????

Are you f**king serious????

OUR OWN CIA DIDN'T BUY THAT ALL THE EVIDENCE WAS CONCLUSIVE!

At the most, people in the know such as the CIA, the IAEA, said they couldn't answer anything but with a weak "maybe". And I'm sorry, but "maybe" just doesn't cut it for invading a country.

Do your damn research. You can start here under foreign policy: www.doyouknow.org

[Lars39]

61. Your kids will be drafted to fight in a never-ending war,

a generational war. PNAC will keep no one safe.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

63. keep a citizenry in fear & they will follow you anywhere..ask the German

people they know exactly how it is done.

Bush and his mantra lies of "endless terror and perpetual war" and a big ol'boggieman has its stronghold on you....free yourself...don't be hobbled by these propagandized shakles.......don't be a BushCo pyramid builder ...again free yourself! stop are dragging around his massive stones and hauling them upon your children!....

SCACRIFICE OUR CHILDREN NO MORE ON THE ALTAR OF BUSH'S "CORPORATE OIL GOD"

[Hippo_Tron]

53. Preemptive war wasn't started with Bush...

It has been used many times before Bush. This situation isn't exactly black and white. Ever since the end of World War II we've abandoned isolationism and become the world's police. While lately, the costs of this seem to outweigh the benefits, we can't just all of a sudden decide to abandon this position. While I don't think action of any sort against Iraq (Clinton was doing a damn good job of this) was wrong, I do think that the Iraq war was pointless if for no other reason than it wasted money, resources, troops, human lives, allied etc. when we could've taken lesser actions against other nations in the area that are actually threats (ex: Iran).

[ninkasi]

54. I believe the Bush Doctrine of preemptive/preventative war

is a crime against the human race. Iraq had been seriously weakened by U.N. sanctions, and our bombing them. In addition, they were in the process of disarming, and were left greatly weakened.

Bush* is a sociopath, and letting him lead this country for another four years would be a tragedy.

[PretzelWarrior]

55. absolutely not! just like taking over Sutenland, Austria,

Invading Ethiopia, rampaging Manchuria, and other bloodlust wars were morally wrong and should be written in history as black marks on the track record of human civilization.

Bush is an evil person. He has evil designs on this earth. He is the personification of Satan the Devil himself. What we need is an exorcism. ASSSHHHHCROFFFTT???!!!! get in here!!! Bring your cooking oil with you!

It is a new P.C. rhetorically labyrinthine kind of imperialism where we first convince the masses those in the "new territories" are pure evil and threaten our existence. We will see it played out over and over if we allow it to stand as US citizens. If we stand by and let it happen, we are no better than the Germans who allowed and did not question the "final solution" for Jews in Europe during Hitler's Reich.

[Selwynn]

56. Utterly Opposed in every conceivable way

[David Zephyr]

57. No.

No.

[corporatewhore]

59. A big HELL NO!!!!!

[Cocoa]

64. you're diluting Bush's responsibility

the preventive war policy is Bush's radical policy, you're presenting it as shared among Bush, republicans and democrats.

[jokerman93]

66. Preemptive war?

If you resort to force, the need for force must be so imminently obvious that it doesn't require a vast marketing campaign and a U.N. magic show to convince people.

No. If our own position is morally right, which it is not at this point in history, we would always have diplomatic and/or other recourse.

My answer is use of preemtive force is a bullshit doctrine.

Besides, America has never engaged in a preemptive war. Iraq has been framed as a preemptive war and people debate the idea as if it has legitimacy, however, the Iraq debacle was really a vast premeditated mugging. Nothing more. Nothing else.

I'm against mugging weaker nations as well as preemptively attacking them based on unsubstantiated fears.

[Pegleg Thd]

69. I will put my opinion in a way even

a puklican can understand. If bushit is for it we are AGAINST it. It don't make a damned difference what it is.

[Skittles]

71. IT'S F***ING GARBAGE, THAT'S WHAT IT IS

AND YOU KNOW IT.

[IrateCitizen]

72. Would Jesus, Gandhi or MLK have endorsed it?

They wouldn't have, and I won't either.

Embrace of "preventative war" is, IMHO, a true sign of weakness. It is evident of a willingness to quickly resort to violence as a means to solve the problems we face in this world. The problem with this approach is, in the grand scheme of things, it only serves to create more violence.

The only way to truly address the problems we face as a global community is to adopt the strength of creative nonviolence. Not that I'm counting on it happening anytime soon, but I'm committed to doing my part to advance the hope that it DOES eventually happen.

You can bomb the world into pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace.

[Jacobin]

73. NO. I believe in the U.N.

As imperfect an institution as it may be, it has just proven itself absolutely correct in the IraqNam situation. We had NO reason to invade that country.

Follow the charter of the U.N. If there is a credible threat of imminent attack, that is a different matter. (not the BS smirky spouts to justify stealing oil)

[spanone]

75. totally 180 degrees opposed to this ideology

if you buy into the bush theory then you gotta give a thumbs up to the 9/11 attack. good pre-emptive strike. It's absolutely wrong. other than that i have no opinion.

[xchrom]

76. bush based his doctrine in the case of iraq

on the level of threat iraq posed.
he lied about that threat.
no, i don't support -- either preemptive or preventative war -- humans have a habit of getting it wrong too often -- remeber nazi germany fabricated a conflict with poland where dead ''german'' soldiers were supposedly found. humans will do just about any immoral and amoral thing you can think of when money, power and greed come into astral alignment.

[drscm]

77. I know that the Repugs are now in charge of defining terms,

but this was not a "Preventive" war.

It was a "Premeditated Act of Agression."