Only sour point of Kerry's performance

[wtmusic]

was his statement that he wouldn't rule out a "pre-emptive" attack.

OK, John. I'm gonna work my butt off to get you in the WH, and then we're gonna have this little talk...

[geek tragedy]

1. He can't rule anything out.

Doesn't mean he's going to invade Iran--just means he has to keep enemies guessing.

And he has to convince the voters that he's bad ass.

[wtmusic]

2. No

Pre-emption will be ruled out in the Kerry WH.

Not an option. If we're going to lead the world, that's the policy we're going to lead with (just like it says in the UN Charter we signed awhile back).

Otherwise, "pre-emption" works for North Korea too.

[geek tragedy]

5. He can rule it out internally, but he shouldn't say that.

Ambiguity is a powerful tool. It's the key to our policy re: Taiwan and China.

[bluestateguy]

3. He made sense

Any nation has the right to launch a pre-emptive attack if there is overwhelming evidence of an imminent threat.

Neither conditions even came close to being met in regards to Iraq last year.

Neo-con foreign policy says that pre-emptive attacks should be launched if there is even so much as a vague or possible long-term threat. And they think that diplomacy is basically for sissies.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

4. So How About You Tell Us About All the Parts You Loved?

I mean really.

DTH

PS: Pre-emptive vs. preventive is a big difference.

[wtmusic]

6. Already done it DTH

Please don't go into worship mode again. Not helpful.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

7. Where?

I'd like to see it. Honestly.

And again, pre-emptive means something very specific, and very accepted over time. If an enemy is massing on your borders, you've got the right to strike.

Bush's version of preventive war is an abomination.

DTH

[wtmusic]

12. Not according the UN Charter

You have to be under "armed attack" (Chapter 17, Art. 51). "Armed attack" is deliberately left vague, but an enemy massing on your border wouldn't cut it.

Excellent reference from the American Society of International Law:

http://www.asil.org/taskforce/oconnell.pdf

[DoveTurnedHawk]

15. So Where's Your Praise of Kerry's Debate Performance Again?

BTW, here's what a site like antiwar.com says about legitimate pre-emptive war vs. illegitimate preventive war:

http://www.antiwar.com/bock/b091002.html

Pre-emptive war has always been recognized as a legitimate casus belli. The difference is that there has to be a true threat.

DTH

[wtmusic]

16. Bock's piece is op-ed

and not based on any treaties signed between nations. There is no law involved, just opinions. Opinions are dangerous, especially involving international disputes.

My praise? Kerry's performance was awesome. He kicked ass. No doubt about it. If I didn't say it enough before, I say it now. :thumbsup:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

17. Good for You

But the classic standard of international law recognizes pre-emptive war as a legitimate casus belli, just as surely as blockade.

DTH

[wtmusic]

18. Got a reference for this "classic standard"? n/t

[DoveTurnedHawk]

19. Reams and Reams

From Cicero to St. Thomas Aquinas to Machiavelli. Here's a reasonably decent primer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive_war

It's much, much more involved than that, however. I can try to dig up my old texts, if you want.

No nation is willingly going to consign itself to oblivion or defeat when an attack is obvious. Hence pre-emptive warfare.

DTH

[wtmusic]

20. The problem is: your definition of "obvious" is not theirs

There is in fact no "classic standard" and terms have been used interchangeably to justify just about anything. That's the reason why the terms were (more) explicity laid out in the charter.

The difference is largely semantic, but it's not insignificant, otherwise we can toss international law out the window.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

21. Certainly the Meaning of "Obvious" Will Differ

History is generally the only judge of who was correct. Most often, that history is written by the victors.

None of which changes the fact that nations will act to preserve themselves, even if such preservation requires pre-emptive action. Other nations, who recognize the necessity of the concept for their own survival, will generally nod and agree that certain "obvious" actions were appropriate.

It's only when an attack is obviously without a legitimate casus belli or threat, when other nations begin to show concern that the attacking nation is a threat to other nations, and not just the nation attacked. And that is exactly why Bush's preventive war concept is so dangerous.

DTH

[Chomskyite]

8. He's been saying over and over again he wouldn't

Here's Bush's alleged fact-checker site pathetically trying to make the case that tonight's statement on pre-emption was a flip-flop. Doesn't look like it to me. Looks to me like Kerry's always acknowledged that you have to pre-empt if you see your country's going to be attacked. He just doesn't think Bush should be in charge of deciding.

http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=3699

Tonight's Flip:
In response to question #13 John Kerry said, "The President always has the right, and always has had the right for preemptive strike.” (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

Yesterday's Flop:
In 2003 Boston Globe Guest Commentary, Kerry Denounced "The Threat Of Military Preemption Against Terrorist Organizations." "It is troubling that this administration's approach to the menace of loose nuclear materials is long on rhetoric but short on execution. It relies unwisely on the threat of military preemption against terrorist organizations, which can be defeated if they are found but will not be deterred by our military might." (John Kerry, Op-Ed, "Moscow Treaty Is Full Of Holes, The Boston Globe, 3/5/03)

Kerry Criticizes President Bush's "Doctrine Of Preemption." GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: "(Off Camera) ... you would have your own doctrine of preemption, then?" SENATOR JOHN KERRY: "George, every president from the beginning, uh, of time, has had a sufficient doctrine of preemption. Throughout the Cold War, the entire first strike doctrine was based on a doctrine of preemption. But that's very different from the Bush doctrine of preemption. I don't subscribe to the George Bush doctrine as he has described it, which is very different. It's a preemptive war for the purpose of removing, simply removing the dictator." (ABC's "This Week," 2/22/04)
(Democrats, A One-Two Punch," The Times-Union, 2/28/04)

[WilliamPitt]

9. Pre-emption is the right of any nation

when facing a true and legitimate threat. Period.

Imagine the world today if Poland had enjoyed the capacity to strike at Germany in the face of the looming German invasion. That's a world I'd like to live in. There'd probably be a lot more Jews, Russians, a lot more Europeans in general, and a slew of Americans who would today have personal memories of parents and grandparents, instead of faded pictures of guys who died at Normandy and the Ardenne.

Repeat: when facing a true and legitimate threat.

[wtmusic]

13. Easy to buy your way out of that one

"Saddam was a true and legitimate threat", or so intelligence and our President tell us.

That standard won't cut it in my world.

[Cronus Protagonist]

10. That's been US policy all the way through the cold war

I don't think that's a new policy. MAD was based on either side was able to launch a preemptive strike, but at the risk of severe "blowback".

Surely you wouldn't want to have to stand idly by as some rogue nation arms itself up, points ballistic missiles at us or our allies, and not be able to take out some of the weapons before they're launched?

With a reasonable, educated president who deals in reality, not some political fourth reich, it's not a problem. It's not the policy, but the person weilding it that's the problem.

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[wtmusic]

14. Spot on

Absolutely, it's the person. But international law exists for a reason. If the UN can't stop someone from invading unilaterally they can at least show the rest of the world that there is a rule, and it's a rule that everyone has agreed to.

[JCMach1]

11. This was for the undecideds and it played WELL

:)

[jpgray]

22. Dean wouldn't either

Dean was better than Kerry in that he didn't believe Bush had made the case for preemptive war, but neither ruled out preemption. Dean even allowed unilateral preemptive war could be a necessity, but didn't think Iraq met the conditions and didn't think Bush made the case.