Energized Again

[shostakovich]

I may have to credit Bush with getting my emotions (which I usually disavow) active. Today I read that he is re-affirming his pre-emption doctrine. No surprise, but it got me into action again. I wrote a letter to Time. I hate to waste the bile if it's not published, so I had to share it.

BUSH DOCTRINE OF INSANITY

I read that Mr Bush has re-affirmed his concept of pre-emptive war. This may be his single most dangerous policy, among many, for the world. This "Bush Policy" is an open invitation for us to be attacked by any concerned nation or organization. We certainly talk threateningly, and have a huge arsenal of WMD.
We have learned that this president is not a good listener. Apparently, in some conversation with God, he fell asleep after "Do unto others", and missed the part that invites behavior in kind.

Shos


By the way, this might appear to be Bush-bashing, but it's not. This is common sense. Unfortunately, common sense and Bush-bashing have become irrevocably intertwined.

<small>[ 03-16-2006, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: shostakovich ]</small>

[OperaTenor]

<Ed: "OT, back away from the keyboard.......Don't do it, you'll regret it.........remember, you promised!.........."

"Must - not - type...............Must - show - self control................must - not - give - in - to - urge...................">

:restraint:

<small>[ 03-16-2006, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[Haggis@wk]

Shos,
It’s more of a tempest=teapot.

Since the 50’s the U.S. has refused to renounce the use of "pre-emptive attack” as an instrument of national policy. Mr. Bush has done nothing more than every president since Roosevelt.

As far as attacks, I would point out that since 9/11 we haven’t suffered another attack here at home. And I would point out that prior to that attack we’d done nothing as near as aggressive as President Bush to invite that attack as “punishment” for our actions outside the U.S.

You can’t have it both ways, either doing nothing before 9/10 led to 9/11 or everything we’ve done since has prevented another 9/11. Which theory do you subscribe to?

I’m sorry that you can’t see that fighting the enemy in the heart of their home is keeping them from fighting us in the heart of our home. It’s really very simple. If AQ can’t defeat us in the heart of what they feel is their home, then they will never be free again to make mischief against us here.

As for Iran, yeah, I’m officially scared of a country like them possessing nukes.

Here’s a trick questions.

If we went into Iraq based on information that they possess WMDs and then didn’t find them. What is your threshold for action against Iran?

It’s really not a trick question. I’m just curious what level of provocation from a nuk-cu-lar armed Iran would be sufficient to convince you that military action is required?

[Shapley]

Haggis,

I think the new threshold is that a threat has to be 'imminent'. I believe that is the complaint now, President Bush lied because he lead Congress to believe that a threat from Iraq was 'imminent'. Apparently, they claim they wouldn't have voted to give the President the authority to attack if they had known that the threat wasn't 'imminent'.

Of course, my view is that if you wait until the threat is 'imminent', you've waited too long.

V/R
Shapley

P.S., We Catholics have been given 'special dispensation' today. We can eat meat, even though it's Friday, since there would be a revolt if the Irish were denied their corned beef and cabbage today. So I think I can squeeze in a few comments on politics, even though I've given it up for Lent.

[piqaboo]

originally posted by haggis:
You can’t have it both ways, either doing nothing before 9/10 led to 9/11 or everything we’ve done since has prevented another 9/11.

Or there is no connection and 9/11/01 would have happened regardless, and nothing major would have happened since, regardless, because these things take time, money and opportunity to put into action. 'Cause we werent at war in 2000 and nothing happened then either.

Im not saying there is no connection but it is a viable alternative.

[Shapley]

Piq,

Nothing happened on U.S. soil in 2000, but the U.S.S. Cole was attacked in Yemen. I think that's pretty signifcant.

You say that these things take 'time, money, and opportunity'. A major part of the administrations policy has been to deny the terrorists access to all three.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

LALALALALALALALALA!

:ears covered/eyes closed:

I can't hear you!

PS. Shap, we're only halfway through Lent! Be strong, man, be strong!

<small>[ 03-17-2006, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[haggis]

This is from Clifford May. I wish I could say it as elequently as he, but nonethless he, in my opinion, gets it right.

"If we learned anything from 9/11 it's that doing nothing while tyrants and terrorists plot to kill Americans is not a viable policy.

But that was U.S. policy for more than 25 years. When Iranian revolutionaries seized our embassy yelling, “Death to America,” we said to ourselves: “They probably don't mean it.”

When, in 1983, the Iranian-backed terror group Hezbollah slaughtered hundreds of American troops in Lebanon, we said: “If we get out of their way, perhaps they'll settle down.”

After the first attack on the World Trade Center, in 1993, we did nothing to those who sent terrorists to our shores.

So before we decide that pre-emption has been a failure, let's acknowledge this: It is because the alternative failed that President Bush came to the conclusion that sometimes it is necessary to use force before attacks occur. It is not enough to attempt to punish our enemies after the blood has been cleaned from our streets.

Nor is deterrence a realistic policy. You can't deter someone who believes that murdering children will earn him a place in paradise.

It's easy to conclude we'd have been better off had we responded to Saddam Hussein's threats and defiance with continued inaction. But Iraq proves nothing. The battle isn't over. We may yet prevail. Or we may be defeated — as we were in Somalia and Vietnam and other conflicts whose outcomes strengthened our enemies' conviction that America lacks the will to resist.

It is disappointing that the CIA didn't accurately appraise Saddam's capabilities. But even Saddam's generals were shocked to find that no VX nerve gas would be available to them.

We also know that Saddam intended to restock his arsenals. And we know he supported and trained terrorists, at such facilities as Salman Pak — now closed for business thanks to U.S. military forces.

It's easy to say that if we had left Saddam alone, nothing bad would have happened. But how is that different from what was said for years about Osama bin Laden? We knew his intentions. We didn't take pre-emptive action. Don't you wish we had?

If Americans have learned anything, it should be this: When people say they intend to kill you, take them seriously."

[Shapley]

OT,

It's St. Patrick's day, so we Catholics have been given 'special dispensation' to engage in traditional Irish customs, such as eating corned beef and brawling.

V/R
Shapley

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Originally posted by Shapley:
It's St. Patrick's day, so we Catholics have been given 'special dispensation' to engage in traditional Irish customs, such as eating corned beef and brawling.

You forgot the drinking, and the poetry!

[Shapley]

Poetry? You mean limericks? I think the Church still frowns on those.

There are three kinds of limericks:
1. Those you can tell in front of the wife,
2. Those you can tell in front of the priest,
3. Real limericks.

V/R
O'Shapley

[shostakovich]

"Since the 50’s the U.S. has refused to renounce the use of "pre-emptive attack” as an instrument of national policy. Mr. Bush has done nothing more than every president since Roosevelt."
------------------------------------------------------
Pre-emptive attack is quite reasonable. Attacking Iraq was a total mis-use of it. My point, though, is that the principle is obvious to all. It's PUBLISHING it, up front, that is insanely stupid (approximately my assessment of the president).
----------------------------------------------------

"As far as attacks, I would point out that since 9/11 we haven’t suffered another attack here at home. And I would point out that prior to that attack we’d done nothing as near as aggressive as President Bush to invite that attack as “punishment” for our actions outside the U.S."
-----------------------------------------------------
Of course 9/11 was unjustified. The "Bush Policy" GIVES them a retroactive justification (in THEIR interpretation).

-----------------------------------------------------
"You can’t have it both ways, either doing nothing before 9/10 led to 9/11 or everything we’ve done since has prevented another 9/11. Which theory do you subscribe to?"

---------------------------------------------------
We didn't cause 9/11 by not being clever enough to avert it. I don't blame the victim. I think it was fitting to go after AQ, and I can't argue the war in Afghanistan. I have a problem with attacking IRAQ, monster Saddam notwithstanding.

---------------------------------------------------
"I’m sorry that you can’t see that fighting the enemy in the heart of their home is keeping them from fighting us in the heart of our home. It’s really very simple. If AQ can’t defeat us in the heart of what they feel is their home, then they will never be free again to make mischief against us here."

-----------------------------------------------------
I SEE, I SEE! But IRAQ was not the enemy. If hordes of AQ are there now, our presence precipitated it.

-------------------------------------------------------
"Here’s a trick question.

If we went into Iraq based on information that they possess WMDs and then didn’t find them. What is your threshold for action against Iran?"
--------------------------------------------------
I agree that Iran could be a bigger problem. More fundamentalism, more insanity. Far fewer Arabs, though --- a small minority. They are mostly Persian (identifying Arabs with the Arabic language and Persians with --- Pharsee, I think).

My threshhold for action against Iran is the same as the threshhold for Iraq. Saddam broke UN resolutions, not US resolutions. It was for the UN (whatever you think of them) to have organized the mission. Since they didn't, we should have persisted in convincing them. Unfortunately, the rest of the world, and half of this country, did not agree with idiot Bush. Rather than question himself, he plunged us into a war for personal reasons. He HAS abused his position. [And as long as he says "nucular" we can expect continued stubborn ignorance in other directions.]

So any pre-emptive action against Iran must come through the UN, which may be more open this time. Maybe not.

A big reservation is the result of the cold war. Having weapons on both sides prevented them from being used. It would have been suicidal. I'm a little more concerned about Iran, as suicide and martyrdom may be built into the leadership. I doubt it, even though underlings might be convinced of its value.

Besides, this nation is farthest removed from understanding Islam and the middle east. We are the worst judges. Europe, Africa, and Asia have far better qualifications. You happen to be one of the few Americans with an up-close view of Islam and Arabs. I respect that, but it can only reflect your personal experience, more valuable than most of ours, but not extendable to Muslims and Arabs in total.

------------------------------------------------------
WHEW! I appreciate your critique. It forces me to be clearer. I hope I managed to express myself better.
Shos


PS: The cold war broke the USSR economically. Bush's policies, war and otherwise, are breaking us. I refer, of course, to the growing debt, the up-front and the supplementary.

[OperaTenor]

"PS: The cold war broke the USSR economically. Bush's policies, war and otherwise, are breaking us. I refer, of course, to the growing debt, the up-front and the supplementary."

THAT'S IT!!!!

GWB's a commie infiltrator!

Leave it to Shos to figure it out...

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

I'm still reeling from Shos' suggestion that, say, France has a better handle on the Muslim problem than we do.

[shostakovich]

I said Europe. They, Asia, and Africa have largely transported Muslims. I'm assuming American Muslims are mostly home grown converts that have little connection to the middle east. It's only a guess, but it's what drove the comment.
Shos

PS: My recent sleepnessness, energy, and urge to vent may have been drug induced. I've been on Prednisone for a couple of weeks, and will be through with it in another week.

[analog]

That stuff made me feel like a wild man.
Don't overdo physically...

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

:yikes: Prednisone is awful. You have all my sympathy.

I've been given it a couple of times, but it makes me so jumpy and irritable that I can't even stand myself. It's kind of a last-resort eczema intervention.

The Muslims I know are mostly from families that were Muslim when they immigrated. The first-generation immigrants have the usual strong ties with their old countries, the first American-born generation are generally bilingual and pretty much bicultural, and the second American-born generation are Americans who happen to worship at a mosque.

[shostakovich]

Thanks for confirming the prednisone effect Analog and Selma.

AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

[Haggis@wk]

"Of course 9/11 was unjustified. The "Bush Policy" GIVES them a retroactive justification (in THEIR interpretation)"

Null argument, they already decided they had the justification before 9/11. You can't "double" justification.


"If hordes of AQ are there now, our presence precipitated it."

And that's a bad thing, how? They were going to be somewhere, and they are still dedicated in their desire to kill Americans. By taking the fight to them in their own backyard we've forced them to stay there and try to kill seasoned U.S. troops rather than unarmed Americans in malls.

They can't lose this fight in Iraq if they want to remain a player for the aid and sympathy of radical Islam. This is why they are throwing everything they can into the fight and they are losing. I much rather they be there than just about anywhere else in the world.

The cold war broke the USSR economically. Bush's policies, war and otherwise, are breaking us. I refer, of course, to the growing debt, the up-front and the supplementary. "

Of course you KNOW I can never let financial claims like that go unchallenged!!!

when Ronald Reagan left office in 1988 he was dunning us for 18.1% of GDP to pay for a federal government that spent 21.2% of GDP.

In 2004, the last year for which I could find numbers, George W. Bush had lowered our tax burden to 16.3% of GDP-- a level last reached in 1959--to pay for a government that spent 19.8 of GDP.

By that yardstick Mr. Reagan was the most liberal president since FDR during WWII and George W. Bush and Bill Clinton are the most conservative since Nixon!

Talk about strange bedfellows!!!

As always Shos, it's edifying to see viewpoints that I am not normally exposed to.

[shostakovich]

"Of course 9/11 was unjustified. The "Bush Policy" GIVES them a retroactive justification (in THEIR interpretation)"

Null argument, they already decided they had the justification before 9/11. You can't "double" justification.

------------------------------------------------------
My point was they get a justification UNDER THE BUSH POLICY.

----------------------------------------------------
After that I think we're even farther apart in our perspectives. The fact that W has lowered our tax burden IS the problem that will sink/is sinking us.

Thanks for your input.
Shos