Good luck with this one America, she seems real sharp on world affairs.Reciprocity wrote:
Palin doesn't know shit about foreign policy, current or otherwise, but she sure can dance like a politician.
They're better off looping the stock footage of her shootin that AR and gutting caribou.
Last edited by Braddock (2008-09-13 17:01:57)
The NSC documents that founded this new 'doctrine' were not based in the Middle-East or on the removal of Saddam. It's terrorism as a whole; an entirely global scope. It's kind of alarming when one of the world superpower's bases its foreign policy on a "We'll go anywhere and do anything we want so long as we perceive them to be threat" principle. I imagine in the future when you rely and fallback on this approach, it'll probably get you Yanks into more trouble than it's worth. Terrorism and perceived 'threats' to America aren't only found near the oil-fields of the Middle-East, and not everyone is equally as poorly-equipped and unsupported.usmarine wrote:
no stupid it was bush. all bush. god kerry.Kmarion wrote:
I'd imagine it was an expansion of Clinton policy. Clinton made it the official policy to remove Saddam. Or maybe even an expansion of the Carter doctrine. Carter was the President who made it official US Policy to intervene in the mideast with military force in order to ensure our oil supply.Uzique wrote:
No, no.
Preemptive strikes and attacks are actually legal and semi-justified.
The Bush Doctrine as laid out in the National Security Council documents states preventative warfare. That's a whole different ballgame.
so it was just bush you are saying yes?Uzique wrote:
The NSC documents that founded this new 'doctrine' were not based in the Middle-East or on the removal of Saddam. It's terrorism as a whole; an entirely global scope. It's kind of alarming when one of the world superpower's bases its foreign policy on a "We'll go anywhere and do anything we want so long as we perceive them to be threat" principle. I imagine in the future when you rely and fallback on this approach, it'll probably get you Yanks into more trouble than it's worth. Terrorism and perceived 'threats' to America aren't only found near the oil-fields of the Middle-East, and not everyone is equally as poorly-equipped and unsupported.usmarine wrote:
no stupid it was bush. all bush. god kerry.Kmarion wrote:
I'd imagine it was an expansion of Clinton policy. Clinton made it the official policy to remove Saddam. Or maybe even an expansion of the Carter doctrine. Carter was the President who made it official US Policy to intervene in the mideast with military force in order to ensure our oil supply.
Usmarine in all the threads you have responded to my posts, you've never actually made a decent point or forwarded a valid point of view. I hesitate to call you a troll but you're still pretty much a waste of scroll-space.
Last edited by usmarine (2008-09-13 17:04:28)
Talking to me?usmarine wrote:
So how exactly is it the gov's fault for your situation? i mean, what do you want from them? money? you want a handout or something?
Last edited by Mason4Assassin444 (2008-09-13 17:56:00)
Pretty much. I didn't know it was codified is some "NSC documents" as somebody was claiming..ATG wrote:
I agree, and it's not retarded. It's truth.War Man wrote:
The Bush Doctrine is a lie, say what you want but it is. It isn't all Bushes fault that the economy sucks. It is the major government spending from both parties that has made our economy bad.
I await somebody asking Obama if he agrees with the " Bush Doctrine " or preventive action.
If he is asked if he would attack so and so country if he knew an attack was imminent he would say yes and thus he believes in the " Bush Doctrine ".
And, btw, don't be morons. Look.
The " Bush Doctrine " is a term created by the media.
LinkLATimes wrote:
(...)
When Palin did not answer a follow-up, Gibson informed her that the Bush doctrine is "we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."
"Wrong," writes Krauthammer. "I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term" way back in 2001.
Krauthammer notes both in his Saturday column and on Fox News' "Special Report" Friday that over the years the Bush doctrine has actually had several different meanings and that Gibson's definition isn't even the latest.
The first was the Bush administration's unilateral withdrawal from the ABM treaty and Kyoto Protocol, which was followed by the post-9/11 "you're with us or you're with the terrorists," which was followed by the preemptive war in Iraq, which Gibson was thinking of.
The fourth incarnation of the Bush doctrine, Krauthammer explains, was the "freedom agenda" articulated in Bush's second inaugural address that "the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands."
Last edited by Vax (2008-09-13 18:59:46)
erm.... you know i am voting for obama right?Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Talking to me?usmarine wrote:
So how exactly is it the gov's fault for your situation? i mean, what do you want from them? money? you want a handout or something?
I want no handout. I want competence in control. You guys don't. You want a dream. A gunslinging John Wayne to come in and show everyone how America does it. I would argue Bush's foreign policy has had an affect on my life but that's a moot point here. You would argue every president for the last 200 years has had an affect on my life. .
In Obama I see the most intellectual intelligent articulate politican we've seen in a long while. One who can actually look at facts and think before making a decision. If he is a bust he is a bust. But dismissing him for a senator who's career is based off of "I was tortured" is irresponsible.
You guys are giving McCain the handout.
Just think though, if Obama gets the win, you republicans can blame all of the fuck-ups currently happening on him. Get Clinton off the hook since he is the scapegoat for all our woes at the moment. Financial crisis has nothing to do with the unnecessary war we're fighitng for the last 6 years eh?Clinton did it.
And as for what I want is for you guys to quit picking the cowboy as your President.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … inionsbox1ghettoperson wrote:
Article in the NY Times about it.
“At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of ‘anticipatory self-defense.’ ”
– New York Times, Sept. 12
Informed her? Rubbish.
The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.
During his interview/college boards with Sarah Palin, Charles Gibson demanded that Sarah Palin explain the Bush Doctrine. However, according to the man who coined the phrase, Gibson doesn’t know what it means, and ABC apparently didn’t bother doing any research on the topic before posing the question. Charles Krauthammer says Palin came a lot closer to the right answer than Gibson did.
America has always had as its foreign policy goal the spread of democracy, but its prioritization has varied widely over various executive administrations. I don’t think that the Bush administration invented it; they just put it at a higher priority in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, seeing democracy as a means to lessen extremism fueled by oppression. Even “anticipatory self-defense”, which Gibson snottily gave as his interpretation, didn’t originate with George W. Bush. We invaded Grenada and Panama without being attacked, for instance, and in both cases forms of anticipatory self-defense were used as justification. The blockade of Cuba during the 1962 missile crisis was clearly a form of anticipatory self-defense, since a blockade is by definition an act of war.
The one point that Bush invented was his definition of terrorist states and the US change in policy towards them. It was a definition borne of necessity, as non-state organizations had become a useful proxy for nations like Iran, Syria, Libya, and other dangerous states that wanted to wreak havoc without having their hands publicly dirtied. The Bush Doctrine removed that fig leaf and made clear that any nation connected with terrorist groups that attacked America or American interests would be considered to have joined in an act of war against the US and subject to immediate and overwhelming attack. In a way, it was a RICO Act for international relations.
That was the justification to invade Afghanistan and to threaten Pakistan with annihilation if they didn’t switch sides. It has been invoked on numerous occasions since, but so far no nation has been dumb enough to allow terrorists to stage attacks on America from their soil.
Rarely has a gotcha boomeranged so badly against the one who wielded it. Instead of having a moment of triumph, Gibson made himself look petty, snobbish, and badly informed. The question revealed a rube, all right, but not the one ABC expected.
The New York Times’ military correspondent, Michael Gordon, concurs — and notes that Gibson either didn’t know enough about the subject to define it in his question or intended it as a “gotcha” all along.
I wonder which meaning of the Bush doctrine Palin was explaining...Kmarion wrote:
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.
I know for a fact I heard that long before the current administration. .. That is not a "Bush Doctrine" exclusive neither.Reciprocity wrote:
Spreading democracy? That's the excuse addendum the administration used after those mobile chemlabs vaporized.
yeah, it's the standard American excuse for fucking up third world countries. I won't argue that. What set's Bush apart, for better or worse, is his stated willingness to premtinvely attack bad people, at least, weak bad people. And that is the "popular" bush doctrine.Kmarion wrote:
I know for a fact I heard that long before the current administration. .. That is not a "Bush Doctrine" exclusive neither.Reciprocity wrote:
Spreading democracy? That's the excuse addendum the administration used after those mobile chemlabs vaporized.
what?Reciprocity wrote:
attack bad people, at least, weak bad people. And that is the "popular" bush doctrine.
well having been in both i can tell you it was no walk in the park.nukchebi0 wrote:
The Taliban and Iraq constituted such difficult campaigns...
(Initial assault, obviously.)
Relatively, though. Its not like our military suffered significant casualties nor took a large amount of time to force surrender, and from the outside perspective of historians and observers, that is an easy campaign.usmarine wrote:
well having been in both i can tell you it was no walk in the park.nukchebi0 wrote:
The Taliban and Iraq constituted such difficult campaigns...
(Initial assault, obviously.)
yes according to blogs and youtube it may seem easynukchebi0 wrote:
that is an easy campaign.
We've also done that a few times before. Aside from the aforementioned Grenada, Panama, and Cuban incidents. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/ … inton.htmlReciprocity wrote:
yeah, it's the standard American excuse for fucking up third world countries. I won't argue that. What set's Bush apart, for better or worse, is his stated willingness to premtinvely attack bad people, at least, weak bad people. And that is the "popular" bush doctrine.Kmarion wrote:
I know for a fact I heard that long before the current administration. .. That is not a "Bush Doctrine" exclusive neither.Reciprocity wrote:
Spreading democracy? That's the excuse addendum the administration used after those mobile chemlabs vaporized.
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-09-13 23:11:09)
well of course. i will submit these wars are 10 times harder. why you ask? its simple. when an american fucks up, its all over the news and the US is bashed. when a hajji do it, they get praised and get money and support. its not easy to fight someone who does not care about civilian life when you have to or you might go to jail.nukchebi0 wrote:
I meant compared to World War II or Korea.