Originally posted by Q5echo
please explain to us all how Operation Iraqi Freedom was not "pre-emptive" in nature.
I'm just going to point you to an entire book on the subject, as I think it does a fairly decent job of illuminating the distinction between prevention and preemption that you can't seem to grasp. It was one of the first books we read in my graduate Contemporary US Foreign Policy course.
quote:
Does the United States have the right to defend itself by striking first, or must it wait until an attack is in progress? Is the Bush Doctrine of aggressive preventive action a justified and legal recourse against threats posed by terrorists and rogue states? Tackling one of the most controversial policy issues of the post-September 11 world, Michael Doyle argues that neither the Bush Doctrine nor customary international law is capable of adequately responding to the pressing security threats of our times.
In Striking First, Doyle shows how the Bush Doctrine has consistently disregarded a vital distinction in international law between acts of preemption in the face of imminent threats and those of prevention in the face of the growing offensive capability of an enemy. Taking a close look at the Iraq war, the 1998 attack against al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, among other conflicts, he contends that international law must rely more completely on United Nations Charter procedures and develop better standards for dealing with serious threats. After explaining how the UN can again play an important role in enforcing international law and strengthening international guidelines for responding to threats, he describes the rare circumstances when unilateral action is indeed necessary. Based on the 2006 Tanner Lectures at Princeton University, Striking First includes responses by distinguished political theorists Richard Tuck and Jeffrey McMahan and international law scholar Harold Koh, yielding a lively debate that will redefine how--and for what reasons--tomorrow's wars are fought.
Even Karl Rove is on record saying McCain's lies go too far.
As the Obama campaign quickly responded:
"In case anyone was still wondering whether John McCain is running the sleaziest, most dishonest campaign in history, today Karl Rove -- the man who held the previous record -- said McCain's ads have gone too far."
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I'm just going to point you to an entire book on the subject, as I think it does a fairly decent job of illuminating the distinction between prevention and preemption that you can't seem to grasp. It was one of the first books we read in my graduate Contemporary US Foreign Policy course.
i'm a five year old, remember? i'm dumb and illiterate. i want YOU, a university educated intellectual, to explain to me in the most basic of terms how Operation Iraqi Freedom was not preemptive. pretty please with sugar on top.
Lebezniatnikov
*sigh*
Do you read what I type? As I posted yesterday:
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I don't think you understand what the Bush Doctrine is either. The Bush Doctrine is not the doctrine of pre-emption - the internationally recognized right of states to pre-emptively attack in the face of imminent threat. That doctrine is the very same that has been used by states for years.
The Bush Doctrine represented a radical extension of the normalized standard of pre-emption by expanding it to include "preventative" war - military action in the face of a "probable future threat" - this is what Colin Powell went in front of the UN to argue, and the main reason they threw it back in his face. There is no internationally-recognized right to attack a country based on a hypothetical future threat. The United States built a case not that Iraq represented a real or immediate threat, but that in the future - if they developed a weapons program - they COULD become a threat to American security.
This is why Bush remarked in September of 2002 that it is not ok to wait for a threat to emerge, because by then "it is already too late."
Any other interpretation of the Bush Doctrine is just wrong, so I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. In foreign policy circles, the 2002 National Security Strategy (issued by Condoleezza Rice in conjunction with the White House) is viewed as the document that outlined this idea into formal adopted US policy.
In other words, since you obviously need things spelled out for you, Operation Iraqi Freedom was not a matter of simply preempting an "imminent threat" - the argument used by Bush and by Powell at the United Nations was not that the United States faced an imminent threat, but that by acting preventatively in the present the US could prevent Iraq from becoming an imminent threat in the future.
Preemption DOES NOT EQUAL Prevention. Iraqi Freedom DOES EQUAL Prevention.
That should be sufficiently clear enough for a five year old to understand at this point, yes?
edit: Unless you're arguing that Iraq posed a real and immediate imminent threat to the national security of the United States in March of 2003 (which nobody - not even Bush or Powell - argued), then there's no basis for you to sit back and snark about Operation Iraqi Freedom being a run-of-the-mill preemptive strike.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
The Neocons' Manchurian Candidate?
14 Sep 2008 03:36 pm
They cannot win on the arguments; indeed, they have been proven so catastrophically wrong on the arguments that they have decided not even to fight this campaign on issues but on personalities. But they do care about power, and this Telegraph story suggests that Bill Kristol was a powerful motor behind the absurdity of Sarah Palin's candidacy:
quote:
Sources in the McCain camp, the Republican Party and Washington think tanks say Mrs Palin was identified as a potential future leader of the neoconservative cause in June 2007. That was when the annual summer cruise organised by the right-of-centre Weekly Standard magazine docked in Juneau, the Alaskan state capital, and the pundits on board took tea with Governor Palin...
Now many believe that the "neocons", whose standard bearer in government, Vice President Dick Cheney, lost out in Washington power struggles to the more moderate defence secretary Robert Gates and secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, last year are seeking to mould Mrs Palin to renew their influence.
A former Republican White House official, who now works at the American Enterprise Institute, a bastion of Washington neoconservatism, admitted: "She's bright and she's a blank page. She's going places and it's worth going there with her."
Asked if he sees her as a "project", the former official said: "Your word, not mine, but I wouldn't disagree with the sentiment."
In so many ways, Palin is the apotheosis of the neocon dream. She siphons the religious fanaticism of the base to support war on behalf of what the neocons believe is in Israel's and America's interests. The goal is war against Iran and Russia. And a further deepening of the occupation of Iraq.
Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
Americans don't care what Canadians think because they don't care what ANYONE thinks and it is a stupid way of looking at things. Since Canada is your biggest trading partner, maybe you should care what we think. Where do you think you get a lot of your natural gas, oil, timber, FRESH WATER and other natural resources from? Without Canadian trade, the USA would be screwed and vice versa. We have a mutally dependent economic relationship and it's too bad that a lot of Americans are so inward looking to ignore that reality. I can't count how many times I've been asked how "French" I am when I've been down in the US. The level of ignorance is absolutely shocking and we are your closest neighbours!
I was only joking about VA Beach. I'm there for a wedding next week for a guy I went to graduate school with. Interestingly, he came to Canada to get his Masters. But my point is that just because I have a lot of criticisms about the current American administration does not mean I HATE your country. I love a lot of things about Americans and American culture, but that doesn't get you a free pass around the world. People have legitimate beefs and I think it's in your best interest to start listening!
I don't disagree with what you're saying... and I realize and understand the importance of Canada as a mutual trading partner; that's not something I personally am unaware of. I'm just telling you the reality is that Americans in general don't care, for better or worse, what goes on north of the border. I'm not going to defend the ignorance, but I can kind of understand why people here don't pay attention. I guess because there are no issues or problems or complications with us and Canada, it's out of sight/out of mind.
And to kind of make the same point as you, if I had disagreements with Canadian politics, it certainly doesn't mean I have something against Canadian people. I don't like when people can't separate the two... and I've seen many times (when in other countries) people unable to separate Americans from American government and their policies, and it ing pisses me off. I think that speaks of their closed-mindedness when they say "I hate Americans" but don't really know any. I'm not looking for a free pass around the world, but it's a 2 way street for those people in other places to take media reports with a grain of salt and find out for themselves how normal American people really are, you know? Have fun in VA beach man:toocool:
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
In other words, since you obviously need things spelled out for you, Operation Iraqi Freedom was not a matter of simply preempting an "imminent threat" - the argument used by Bush and by Powell at the United Nations was not that the United States faced an imminent threat, but that by acting preventatively in the present the US could prevent Iraq from becoming an imminent threat in the future.
in your eagerness to characterize Operation Iraqi Freedom as an illegal act of aggression you've failed to consider what the UN unanimously agreed as to why Iraq needed to be disarmed..."immediately".
Saddam's decade long material breach of not just WMD resolutions but known missle and a prohibited conventional weapon violations.
Saddam's continued direct subsidizing of terror operations in Israel.
among a host of other things
Lebezniatnikov
Whoever said Iraqi Freedom was illegal? I simply said it went against international norms. Stop projecting arguments you want to fight on me.
And in any case, the UN Security Council did NOT sanction the use of military action (preventative war) in Iraq precisely because they didn't view Iraq as an imminent threat to world security. They wanted immediate action to be taken against a potential arms program in Iraq - in the form of more diplomacy, not military action.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Whoever said Iraqi Freedom was illegal?
:wtf:
quote:
I simply said it went against international norms. Stop projecting arguments you want to fight on me.
thats really what is considered the difference between the two, right? one is considered illegal according to current wisdom and one is not. thats how i understand it.
quote:
And in any case, the UN Security Council did NOT sanction the use of military action (preventative war) in Iraq precisely because they didn't view Iraq as an imminent threat to world security. They wanted immediate action to be taken against a potential arms program in Iraq - in the form of more diplomacy, not military action.
thats where we get into the inaction and utter fecklessness of UN policy as a whole and what have they become in the face of their own words.
DJ Shibby
The one thing I can respect McCain for is having the balls to make a bold-faced hypocrite out of every voter he gets.
That, and purposefully throwing the election. I wouldn't want to be president either, but I wouldn't turn down millions to run around pandering to the crazies. Or would I?
Q5echo
the FULL transcript from Sarah Palin's interview with Charles Gibson September 11, 2008.
the BOLD print is what was edited out for TV.
quote:
GIBSON: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say “I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?”
PALIN: I do, Charlie, and on January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, will be ready. I’m ready.
GIBSON: And you didn’t say to yourself, “Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I — will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?”
PALIN: I didn’t hesitate, no.
GIBSON: Didn’t that take some hubris?
PALIN: I — I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can’t blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can’t blink.
So I didn’t blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.
GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?
PALIN: But it is about reform of government and it’s about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that’s with the energy independence that I’ve been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.
GIBSON: I know. I’m just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.
PALIN: It is, but I want you to not lose sight of the fact that energy is a foundation of national security. It’s that important. It’s that significant.
GIBSON: Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?
PALIN: Canada, Mexico, and then, yes, that trip, that was the trip of a lifetime to visit our troops in Kuwait and stop and visit our injured soldiers in Germany. That was the trip of a lifetime and it changed my life.
GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?
PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.
GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.
PALIN: Right.
GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.
PALIN: Right, right.
GIBSON: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?
PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state … these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.
GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.
PALIN: Sure.
GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia.
The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…
GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.
And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?
PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.
Sarah Palin on Russia:
We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.
We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.
GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?
PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.
GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.
PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.
Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but…
GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.
But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.
We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.
GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.
PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.
And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.
It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.
His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.
Sarah Palin on Iran and Israel:
GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?
PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.
GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who’s right?
PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable.
GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?
PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.
GIBSON: But, Governor, we’ve threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn’t done any good. It hasn’t stemmed their nuclear program.
PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.
GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?
PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don’t think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.
GIBSON: So if we wouldn’t second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.
PALIN: I don’t think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.
GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.
PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.
GIBSON: We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?
PALIN: You know, there is a very small percentage of Islamic believers who are extreme and they are violent and they do not believe in American ideals, and they attacked us and now we are at a point here seven years later, on the anniversary, in this post-9/11 world, where we’re able to commit to never again. They see that the only option for them is to become a suicide bomber, to get caught up in this evil, in this terror. They need to be provided the hope that all Americans have instilled in us, because we’re a democratic, we are a free, and we are a free-thinking society.
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: I agree that a president’s job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.
I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.
GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?
PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we’re going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.
GIBSON: But, Governor, I’m asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.
PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.
GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?
PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.
Sarah Palin on God:
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.
That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It’s an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.
Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.
GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”
PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That, in my world view, is a grand — the grand plan.
GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?
PALIN: I don’t know if the task is from God, Charlie. What I know is that my son has made a decision. I am so proud of his independent and strong decision he has made, what he decided to do and serving for the right reasons and serving something greater than himself and not choosing a real easy path where he could be more comfortable and certainly safer.
it's disgusting what ABC did to her. anybody who thinks what they did wasn't wrong or represented even a modicum of journalistic integrity is a complete dumb and should choke themselves. anybody.
Lebezniatnikov
Actually, I think the parts that were cut make her sound even worse in my honest opinion. She fumbled that Bush Doctrine question even more than I thought, and several of her answers regarding Georgia sounded like Miss South Carolina.
