1st Strike:is Bush nuts or what?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Here is the article:



<a href="http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2002/06/01/strikes/index.html"; target="_blank">http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2002/06/01/strikes/index.html</a>;



How does this policy not make it more likely for terrorists to strike the US? What happens when the US attacks someone who is innocent? I guess it goes along with the first strike policy on nukes as well.This is madness-the whole world is goind mad.I feel that we're living in Dr. Strangeglove.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 13
    cdhostagecdhostage Posts: 1,038member
    Umm.... commiting violenece against citizens of another country is an act of war. Even if they're up to no good, you have to wait until they've done something wrong before you can nail them.



    Maybe you can raid the ship in international waters if they're carrying a nuke or ebola or something. But not while they're on some other country's land.



    That country would get mad.
  • Reply 2 of 13
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    I assume he means to strike with evidence in hand. I would imagine that it would be preferrable for the local government and authorities to take care of these people first. That's how it works in Pakistan and other such places right now.



    Damn, what a waste of a 1000th post!



    (thanks for pointing that out, sjpsc )



    [ 06-03-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
  • Reply 3 of 13
    rick1138rick1138 Posts: 938member
    Yeah,the government of Pakistan,known for level-headedness.
  • Reply 4 of 13
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    That speech has Iraq written all over it.
  • Reply 5 of 13
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Sort of makes you wonder if the government knows something big that we don't. Like Sadam getting his hands on a long range nuke missile. But even an idiot like that should know if he ever tried launching it, he would be signing the death warrent of his own nation... i hope? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
  • Reply 6 of 13
    noahjnoahj Posts: 4,502member
    Ok everyone, calm down a bit and use your heads. This was a speech, not a policy written in stone. Get a hold of the written policy if you want to know what the speech really means. Otherwise it is all interpretation and inference. Besides, you did not even hear the speech, only the reporters dessimination of it after the fact. What is to say that important parts were not left out? Lets try and practice calm shall we. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
  • Reply 7 of 13
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    [quote]Originally posted by Anders:

    <strong>That speech has Iraq written all over it.</strong><hr></blockquote>I agree completely. This was a brilliant political move.



    He's being criticized for his administration's screw-ups for 9/11. The war on terror had been a huge political plus, but is becoming a political minus. He's been on the defensive about how it could have been prevented.



    So he goes on the offensive and says "we're going to take it to 'em, rather than wait to catch them." No more FBI search warrants and all that.



    He's wanted to go after Iraq anyway. So this provides an opportunity to show he's doing something proactive in the war on terror.



    You can almost see the oval office meeting where they put it together.
  • Reply 8 of 13
    ferroferro Posts: 453member
    If we do end up attacking or doing something in an offensive to iraq I only hope that we use every resource we have (both known and secret) to completely smother them with technoligy, info and troops... and make an axample of them... ((edit - what I mean by that is that our willingness to throw everything we have at anyone who intends or conspires to aid those who would aid in the "use of" or use weapons of mass destruction themselves to ther knees quickly and without hesitation...))



    I personaly belive that the best defense is not a good offense or a good defense, but good prevention of the causes of the effects we see... At least to actively if not overtely do as much as we can to prevent war, offer incentives, make perverse offers of further trade for compliance and in a couple of years there will be a McDonalds on every block



    If we ignore what has happened in the past... If we neglect to offer at least an official apoligy or respectful understanding for the way things happened and can only support a "we are america, we are the greatest country on earth and that all that matters" attitude, then we can only plan on a perpetuating a war we may have started ourselves...



    IMHO...



    ((Personaly I would be over involved in the present nuclear threat in pakastan "right now" with a few hundred well-known officials and political leaders to publically do everything I can to stop this squable before it erupts in mass destruction, I would do everything to make it a Huge "global news issue" and show the world ---&gt;"thru example"&lt;--- how to peacabely bring about peace/solve problems without the "threat of" or use of force...))



    ------------------------------------



    © FERRO 2001-2002



    [ 06-03-2002: Message edited by: FERRO ]</p>
  • Reply 9 of 13
    [quote]Originally posted by cdhostage:

    Umm.... commiting violenece against citizens of another country is an act of war. Even if they're up to no good, you have to wait until they've done something wrong before you can nail them.

    <hr></blockquote>



    Sez who?
  • Reply 10 of 13
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Saudi Arabia needs a good beating a lot more than Iraq. Neither is our friend, but the real danger in the middle east comes from the Saudis.



    I'm naturally intrigued by the premise that the Bushes and the Bin Ladins are in business together. A bit of hyperbole penned by an Islamic Italian scholar (Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi, now in Canada) meant to draw attention to the connections between Texas and Saudi Oil Interests; not to claim that they sit in secret rooms together making devious schemes. Obviously, they hate each other, but considerable economic interest tends to keep up appearances.



    Lest anyone think that Mr. Palazzi is an anti-American, far from it. He has likened the PLO to the Mafia, Yasser Arafat to Slobodan Milosevic, is highly critical of Islamic theocracies, reads in the Qur'an the right of Isreal to exist peacefully, and has been denounced by the Canadian Islamic Congress.



    He seems to draw a pretty straight shot at the situation. Basically, terror originates and propogates with Saudi money. However, the US feels it cannot risk losing the one middle eastern nation that at least pretends to be friendly. Thusly, the US finds itself perpetually shooting 'at the feet' -- Afganisatn, the Taliban, Iraq* -- without ever aiming for the head -- The Saudi royals.



    *Iraq is a convoluted mess. Saddam is in many ways the antithesis of militant Islamic Theocracies; he's still insane, and needs to be done away with, but the Iraq problem has nothing to do with the Al Queda terror problem. You look to Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Afganistan, Iran, and Pakistan for that. Of these, only Pakistan is making any effort to control anti-US terrorism (in the border regions.)



    The problem with this whole area is not only that they hate us and the Jews, but they hate each other with almost as much determination. Hatred only modestly abated by their mutual dislike of the west. Tribalism has become modern war mongering.



    We have tried to wiegh matters with a Machiavellian scale. We still try: to choose sides, the most popular leader, the most convenient dictator (ie, Pakistan and before it Iraq) but despite our talents for treachery, we are dealing with any enemy so naturally gifted it makes of us mere understudies in treachery.



    Our strength, if we will have any, will not be from devious politics, but from over-whelming *and properly targeted* force.
  • Reply 11 of 13
    scott_h_phdscott_h_phd Posts: 448member
    Sigh. You'll be blasted as a racist for telling the truth.
  • Reply 12 of 13
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    We still try: to choose sides, the most popular leader, the most convenient dictator (ie, Pakistan and before it Iraq) but despite our talents for treachery, we are dealing with any enemy so naturally gifted it makes of us mere understudies in treachery.



    This is a great sentence! Thank you! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 13 of 13
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    The rest of the government would never let it get that far but.........I'd vote for nuts.



    And yes this is just like when you're in a sub and someone's fireing a torpedo at you. What do you do but, release the counter measures.



    [ 06-03-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Sign In or Register to comment.