Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

I think my argument here is to not advocate dropping bombs until we have established a more definite identification of what is going on first, but bombs should remain an option and a tool. We need to be educating the public in terrorist controlled areas, who the terrorists are, and who is supporting them. Remember, such people cannot operate without a cooperative culture behind them. My argument is sort of a form of what MM was pointing out. If we can truly establish that villages and areas are supporting terrorists, then perhaps we should consider educating those people as to our intentions, then perhaps the forced evacuation of those areas if the warnings don't work, followed by more severe actions, maybe a bomb to put an exclamation point to it all. I know this is a tough problem, but we cannot simply continue to allow such people to hide behind skirts and children, and in mosques, and take potshots at us, send children out with bombs strapped to their backs, and so on. I think we need to consider different and more effective tactics to combat this. And we need to keep pointing out who are really the bad people doing bad things.

I have not pinned down the exact strategies I advocate. I am simply pointing out that we need to put all options on the table and the terrrorists need to be aware of that simple fact to begin with. We need some new ideas and more effective tactics.

By the way, to wrap up old business here, cyclops, your apparent confirmation that Truman did the right thing by dropping the bombs apparently admits that winning wars is the best thing to do, not fight to a draw. Winning saves lives in the long run, and procures peace in the long run, at least for a few years or decades.

admits that winning wars is the best thing to do, not fight to a draw.

Winning saves lives in the long run

and procures peace in the long run, at least for a few years or decades.

[
You are completely incorrect. I never stated that Truman did the right thing by dropping the bombs, or that it justifies 'winning wars' at the cost of civilian casualties.

Cycloptichorn

okie wrote:

I think my argument here is to not advocate dropping bombs until we have established a more definite identification of what is going on first, but bombs should remain an option and a tool. We need to be educating the public in terrorist controlled areas, who the terrorists are, and who is supporting them. Remember, such people cannot operate without a cooperative culture behind them. My argument is sort of a form of what MM was pointing out. If we can truly establish that villages and areas are supporting terrorists, then perhaps we should consider educating those people as to our intentions, then perhaps the forced evacuation of those areas if the warnings don't work, followed by more severe actions, maybe a bomb to put an exclamation point to it all. I know this is a tough problem, but we cannot simply continue to allow such people to hide behind skirts and children, and in mosques, and take potshots at us, send children out with bombs strapped to their backs, and so on. I think we need to consider different and more effective tactics to combat this. And we need to keep pointing out who are really the bad people doing bad things.

I have not pinned down the exact strategies I advocate. I am simply pointing out that we need to put all options on the table and the terrrorists need to be aware of that simple fact to begin with. We need some new ideas and more effective tactics.

One of the (not so) new ideas then would be that the USA has to invade a couple of more countries - or how do you think such "education" can be done without the consent of the respective governments?

As you guys make fun of my argument, having the Bush Doctrine does not mean we should choose to attack Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or anywhere else. What it does do is give fair notice to terrorists and supporting nations as to the risks they might be placing themselves in. It also proclaims our right to defend ourselves in this new type of war, which is entirely reasonable and justified.

okie wrote:

As you guys make fun of my argument, having the Bush Doctrine does not mean we should choose to attack Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or anywhere else. What it does do is give fair notice to terrorists and supporting nations as to the risks they might be placing themselves in. It also proclaims our right to defend ourselves in this new type of war, which is entirely reasonable and justified.

Then maybe you could explain that a little bit more...

Do you mean that the Bush doctrine allows for pre-emptively attacking nations where terrorist can hide without too much interference from the government? Then you're obviously at the point where attacking Pakistan makes a lot of sense.

Or, do you mean that the Bush doctrine merely allows for pre-emptively attacking nations that actively support those terrorists or terrorist networks? In that case, I find it difficult to use the Bush doctrine as a reason for the invasion of Iraq.

Walter loves to jump in with his oddball points.

Or is that how they do things over there in the GDR?

[...............

It will be a breaking news for you, but the GDR existed from 1949 to 1990.

Remember the old defense doctrine of General Ailleret's "defense tous azimuts", later warmly embraced by General de Gaulle? If you do, hold onto your hat - we've come up with a new, improved version: "attaque tous azimuts".

Hope that was clear.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

[...............

It will be a breaking news for you, but the GDR existed from 1949 to 1990.

Ojection on both dates!

okie wrote:

As you guys make fun of my argument, having the Bush Doctrine does not mean we should choose to attack Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or anywhere else. What it does do is give fair notice to terrorists and supporting nations as to the risks they might be placing themselves in. It also proclaims our right to defend ourselves in this new type of war, which is entirely reasonable and justified.

Then maybe you could explain that a little bit more...

Do you mean that the Bush doctrine allows for pre-emptively attacking nations where terrorist can hide without too much interference from the government? Then you're obviously at the point where attacking Pakistan makes a lot of sense.

Or, do you mean that the Bush doctrine merely allows for pre-emptively attacking nations that actively support those terrorists or terrorist networks? In that case, I find it difficult to use the Bush doctrine as a reason for the invasion of Iraq.

Iraq was a mixed bag, from the threat of WMD, Hussein's longstanding standoff with the U.N., his killing of his own people, and his debatable under the table support of Al Qaida. We do know he supported terrorists, even if not Al Qaida, and we know Al Qaida found safe haven there, and may have trained there.

First of all, pre-emptive is being used wrongly by Bush opponents. Example, if a gang member gives a hit man a bomb and tells him to place the bomb in your car, wired to the ignition, to kill your family. After the bomb goes off and kills your family, if you go shoot the gang member, is that pre-emptive? I would say obviously no. Neutralizing governments of countries that support surrogates to fight their terrorist wars, wherein those surrogates have already initiated hostile action, would not be pre-emptive in my opinion.

In the case of Pakistan, this is not so easily applied, as elements of the political structure are supportive of us to one degree or another in hunting down terror networks in Pakistan. Depending upon our best military and political analysis, we have to try to determine what is our best course of action, based on what will work best. Currently, I think our best course is supporting the elements of the Pakistani government that can aid us and help us. If the Pakistanis become more overtly defiant toward us and more overtly sympathetic to terrorist, then our policy needs to be adjusted. We do have the right to make our Bush Doctrine clear to them, and if we find out that their government is completely supporting terrorists under the table, then we will have to adjust our policy. At present time, I do not believe the Bush Doctrine justifies attacking Pakistan as that would be ludicrous, but we might be justified in attacking enclaves or areas within Pakistan, hopefully with the assistance of the Pakistani central government.

I believe my opinion is consistent with what we are doing. Of course, detracting opinions here appeal to the extremes and try to twist the Bush Doctrine into something it is not, in terms of how it is best applied.

The Bush Doctrine argues for a policy of pre-emptive war in cases where the U.S. or its allies are threatened by terrorists or by rogue states that are engaged in the production of weapons of mass destruction. The policy of pre-emption represents a rejection of deterrence and containment as the principal foundations of U.S. foreign policy because, it is argued, terrorists cannot be deterred in the same way as states. According to the Bush Doctrine, grave threats require a military response regardless of other countries' views. The Bush doctrine includes making reasonable efforts to include other nations in military or diplomatic actions, however in the absence of coalition partners, unilateral military action is taken against perceived threats. The policy document states that "United States has, and intends to keep, military strength beyond challenge", indicating the US intends to take actions as necessary to continue its status as the world's sole military superpower.

Iraq was a mixed bag, from the threat of WMD, Hussein's longstanding standoff with the U.N., his killing of his own people, and his debatable under the table support of Al Qaida. We do know he supported terrorists, even if not Al Qaida, and we know Al Qaida found safe haven there, and may have trained there.