The Lefty Boom

LOL ... good, BFN. I figured somethin'like that was comin' just as soon as I saw Perc's question. Now, while I might quibble a bit over a particular here or there, the list could well be taken back another half century and more ... ya can't forget "The Halls of Montezuma" or "The Shores of Tripoli". Ol' Zach Taylor and Lt. Presley O'Bannon were real charcters, each in his own "Preventive War". It thoroughly escapes me how anyone can think pre-emptive attack is a new concept, or, for that matter, how anyone can imagine it is even particularly American in nature or practice.

um I'm thinking the first pre-emption was god with Noah and the great flood.

But, doesn't make it any less smelly and uncivilized!!! err, Cain and Able is a good starter!!!!

Canada, at Queenston, Ontario, 1812
Canada, burned York (Toronto), 1813, 1814, 1814
Canada, invaded the Niagara penninsula, 1813, 1814
Mexico, 1846--Matamoros, Monterey, Saltillo
Mexico, 1846--Vera Cruz, Puebla, Churobusco, Ciudad Mexico
Cuba, 1898
Puerto Rico, 1898
The Phillipines, 1898
Mexico, invaded and occupied Vera Cruz, 1913
Mexico, invaded the Chihuahuan desert, 1916
Nicaragua, invaded, 1932
The Dominican Republic, 1965

That's a short list, i'm sure i've left a lot out . . .

Hmmh, timber, and we Germans were the first to call them "Devil Dogs".

Oh yes, add Iraq to that list - 2003!

I forgot Inchon, Korea, 1871
Japan, 1853
Columbia, in the province of Panama, 1903

The most of these were not "preemptive wars"--pacem Timber . . .

Walter writes: "Most of the so-called 'lefties' here from USA in the center or right of the center..."

Exactly, Walter. For that reason I'll be very careful about joining a centrist love-fest. My condition: that the global center (which used to apply here) remains the true center! Otherwise, this global centrist is very happy to be an American "raging lefty!"

Whereas i think it grossly disingenuous to characterize American bullying throughout our history as "pre-emptive attack," a justification which has rarely applied, i found this last part interesting. Friederich Hohenzollern, who became known as Frederick the Great, articulated at length the necessity for a relatively poor, although militarily strong nation, such as Prussia, obliged by the nature of her indefensible frontiers, to practice pre-emptive war. His thesis was in a long treatise which he wrote (largely for his friend Voltaire) about the duties of the Prince, and he basically said a Prince owed a duty to his nation to make pre-emptive war to defend that nation from the inevitable destruction it must suffer if an enemy were allowed to invade before the nation went to war. This was conveniently articulated, because shortly thereafter, the Emperor Charles VI died, as did Frederick's father, and he waited less than two months before he invaded Silesia, thereby stealing from Maria Theresa the province which had produced more revenues for the Austrian Archduchies than all other provinces combined. How very expedient of him.

O'Bannon ... First to raise an American Flag in Battle on Foreign Soil

Just a little trivia, for any as might have interest.

What was that George Washington said about foreign wars? Some are certainly selective about what the forefathers advocated after putting them on a pedestal as godlike. Most of them drank enough not to be able to stay atop that pedestal.

Perception wrote:

You all might think about what really constitutes left of center or right and what then becomes extremism and then we must decide whether that extremism is dangerous or not . I have it pretty well established in my mind-----have you?

Sorry 'bout that -----I should have said: what are the outer limits of "Left" or Right as they go over the edge into extremism. And then is that extremism dangerous or not?

I have laid out my position relative to the above-----anyone else care to wade in where angels fear to tread. You"ve all taken your pot shots at me ---your turn in the barrel

As far as your list goes ---since we are all so concerned with the current situation let's stick with the Bush administration.

Going back beyond that is really thilly

It's awfully damned silly to make an unsupported and unsupportable contention, and then, when one is nailed for it, to claim that the past is not relevant . . .

One thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history.

Aw com'on Setanta you're just miffed if you can't dazzle us with your knowledge of history. Give me a chance.

G.W. Bush: We are ready for any unforeseen event which may or may not happen....

That's like the Friday sportcaster who says about the weekend games, "No upsets are expected."

Sorry, Perception....you already took all your toys away and went home one too many times. I'm not falling for it again.

BillW called it.

Btrflynet wrote:

perception wrote:
If they have progressed to the point where they are a threat this country then they have lost the right to be listened to.
Does this logic also hold true for countries who believe the US has progressed to the point where it is a threat to their country and need not be listened to?

What logic is there in creating a perception that has no factual basis. Take for example North Korea has somehow fashioned the perception(which is obviously politically motivated and created to appeal to other countries who wrongly perceive that the US is a threat) that we will use nuclear weapons to preemptively neutralize them. While we have not taken that option off the table they have once again and constantly miscalculate what Bush will do. They did not miscalculate what Clinton would do----which is nothing. Bush will never pre-emptively attack NK---because he knows that probably a million or more South Koreans will die in the first hour or so. He does not want that on his conscience. Short of us attacking them he knows that China holds the only leverage that anyone has over that maniac in NK.