Are all the candidates for President Nationalistic to the point of justifying pre-emptive war?
|
Are all the candidates for President Nationalistic to the point of justifying pre-emptive war?
Hmmm, interesting, just thinking of the frontrunners in both major parties, yes, they would use pre-emptive war. i.e. Obama, Hillary, Edwards;;;;Guiliani, Romney, McCain's campaign is failing.
That's what the most powerful country in the history of the world does, n'est pas?
I thought that America being a member of the UBN forbade that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Choux
The candidates are certainly saying that pre-emptive is an option that should not be taken off the table.
Of course Obama is talking about pre-emptive war on our allies, while at the same time completely taking our most powerful weapons off the table as an option, but that's a whole other topic.
Is it nationalism that is driving these statements? I don't know. Certainly for a few of them, it's about nationalism. But for at least a few of them, these words are simply what they think the country wants to hear, and they say it in order to get themselves elected.
Now... is nationalism a bad thing? I don't think so. Is a willingness to pre-emptively strike an enemy that is making moves to attack you a bad thing? I don't think so. Is a willingness to fight the enemies of your country with every tool at your disposal a bad thing? I don't think so. And is membership in the UN supposed to be a suicide pact that prevents you from taking actions that can ensure the safety of your citizenty? Again, I don't think so. Is getting international support for such a pre-emptive attack a good thing? Sure. Is it necessary or required? I don't think so.
So, yes, you basically have it right... with the exception of the fact that some of the candidates are simply parroting positions they don't really believe.
Elliot
Hello DC:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
Nope. Ron Paul doesn't. Ron Paul for pres!!
excon
I can't recall a President in the nuclear age who has come into office with the position that they would take preemption off the table. Seems that would be an irresponsible position to take. BTW ;preventive war would be a more accurate description.
NSC-68, Section IX.CQuote:
“The military advantages of landing the first blow become increasingly important with modern weapons, and this is a fact which requires us to be on the alert in order to strike with our full weight as soon as we are attacked, and, if possible, before the Soviet blow is actually delivered.”
Grenada, Panama, Kosovo are all recent examples of the Presidential use of preemption. The doctrine did not being with Bush nor will it end with him.
excon,
Yeah... Ron Paul for president. That way the enemy can attack us here in the USA before we ever have a chance to stop them elsewhere. Because waiting for the enemy to come here has been so successful for us in the past...
Elliot
Hello again, El:
El, El, El... Tsk, tsk. You assume because he doesn't want to BE the aggressor, that he wouldn't defend us. Nope. Wrong. Buzz! You don't understand libertarians. S'ok. Nobody else does either.
excon
I think we are talking about two different things, Tom. The talk now :eek: is with nukes.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
What we are seeing is the continuing ripple effect of the Nationalism that swept the country after the attacks of 9/11.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
Remember the mass hysteria that fostered that abomination 'The Patriot Act'?
Remember the 'If you're not with us then you must be against us' histrionics?
Yeah, that's why they never get elected. If they spent some time actually explaining their positions instead of leaving everyone confused about what they believe, they might actually win an election.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
However, in Paul's case, he's made it pretty clear that he favors what I call a "Citadel Defense" strategy: Bring all the troops home, set them on the borders, and take a defensive position that nobody can break through. Is this a misrepresentation of what he supports? Am I misunderstanding his position? I don't think so.
There are two basic flaws with such a strategy, however. Not surprising, since even while in the Air Force he was a doctor/flight surgeon, and not a fighter. (I in no way mean to say that his service to our country was anything less than patriotic. This is simply a statement regarding his actual strategic/tactical knowledge.) These flaws are insurmountable using the strategy that he has put forth.
They are:
1) No "citadel" can ever be strong enough to completely stop a determined attacker with modern weaponry. No wall is strong enough or high enough. No number of troops can be sufficient to cover every inch of the threat area. And there are some weapons that no wall can stop. The Citadel Defense strategy is, therefore, a weak position from which to defend the country.
2) Any Citadel Strategy, no matter how effective, takes the defenders out of the initiative and makes them completely defensive. It is a position from which we wait for the enemy to attack us, and are REACTIVE rather than PROACTIVE in preventing it. It gives the enemy the initiative and flexibility to attack us at a place and time of their choosing without having to commit any forces to self-defense.
By contrast a "forward deployment defensive strategy" opens up the initiative for us, gives us additional flexibility, and makes us proactive in our defensive strategy. It gives us the ability to attack the enemy and forces the enemy to commit at least a portion of its fighting force to defense rather than attack. It increases our defensive and offensive options and automatically takes a large portion of the enemy's fighting force out of the equation.
Simply put, Ron Paul's "citadel strategy" sounds good on paper... on second thought, it doesn't even sound good on paper. In the real world, where no plan survives contact with the enemy and thus flexibility to adapt to the situation as it happens is essential to an effective defensive strategy, the inflexibility of a citadel strategy is a killer. Literally.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Nahhh. The reason they don't win is because they don't have a Karl Rove. In fact, they'd be good governors. But, they're NOT good politicians. The fact is, if they got their message out, they'd win handsdown.
excon
PS> You don’t think Bush won (or Hillary is going to win) because he or she knows how to run things, do you? Bwa, ha ha ha ha.
Excon,
Nah... Bush won because he didn't say stupid things about how to defend the country... like Ron Paul has.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
YOU are an ardent Bush supporter still today - a firm believer in pre-emptive war who believes that Saddam was connected to 9/11, and who believes that we're winning in Iraq...
If YOU think it's stupid, then I embrace it wholeheartedly.
excon
excon,
Let's clarify my position.
I am an ardent supporter of Bush's foreign policy, which has succeeded in preventing another 9-11 or any othe terrorist attack in the USA for 2,163 days.
I am an ardent supporter of Bush's tax cuts, which took the country from a recession to the highest level of economic growth and stock investment returns, and the lowest level of unemployment we have seen in 60 years.
I am NOT a supporter of Bush's immigration policy, however.
And whether I believe Saddam was connected to 9-11 is irrelevant. Apparently Saddam thought he was connected to 9-11, because his own documentation makes the connection.
And, boy, won't you look as foolish as Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha when it turns out that we ARE winning in Iraq.
So, if you embrace it wholeheartedly, it must be stupid.
Elliot
I'm still waiting for Murtha to make a retraction for his vicious and slanderous assault on the innocent Marines of Haditha
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Hot Air Audio: Rep. Murtha's office hangs up when asked about the Haditha Marines
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:54 AM. |