Bush's Doctrine of Pre-emptive Strike

Do you agree or disagree with Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive strike?

Vote and post an opinion.

Briana Dawson

I consider it illegal and immoral, not to mention hypocritical, arrogant, paranoid, and dangerous.

I voted no, but I will clarify.( I frankly don't trust Bush to babysit a cabbagepatch doll at this point)

A pre-emptive policy is fine, IF

The threat is real.

Someone needs to put this into some historical perspective for Idiot Son.

When John F. Kennedy went to the international body about the threat posed by the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis, he had the aerial photographs to prove it!!!

If your policy is going to be pre-emptive strikes, then you damn well better make sure that the threat is real and not something contrived out of your ass.

Garlic fries are crazy delicious.

No That's Mr. Pib and Red Vines.

Oh, and most importantly-JFK was a Democrat!!! Don't forget that! Make sure the threat is real and the president is a Democrat.

-Kiamat Dusk

No, Mr. Pibb and Red vines being crazy declicious is an observable and repeatable fact.


I'll stick with my opinion that garlic fries are also crazy delicious.

I protested Clinton's war in Kosovo just as fervently as Bush's war in Iraq.

I voted no of course cause if there ever is a "real" threat, then the American people (or anyone) would never hold a presidents feet to the fire over it after the fact. In other words, there is no need for a policy of preemptive War because in that one in a million time when it's actually necessary, people generally forgive the exception.

What shocks me (a lot!), is that this poll is as close as it is. Americans are crazy!

Did anyone notice that several DICTATORSHIPS and POLICE STATES that Bush is friendly with are *not* listed on the "List of 7 Despots" whereas several of those listed are DEMOCRATICALLY elected leaders?

Way to wag the Dog!

Isnt it sad that we cant live in peace al over the world?

/Tina

I do agree with a pre-emptive strike policy if it is gone about the right way. So I voted yes.

which of course is what I meant --and also why I voted no.

You people who support Bush are playing with some real dangerous matches at the risk of burning up the whole world.

I find you all to be traitors of not only the USA but of the world at large.

The only thing this country should be involved in now regarding the entire Bush Administration is the three "I"s.

IMPEACH
INDICT
IMPRISON

There's no "doctrine of pre-emptive strike" anyway; if anything it's just simply a "doctrine of strike". All it says is "we will attack you if we want to, whether you've done anything or not". Which is not actually new anyway, it's been US foreign policy for years. Bush certainly didn't come up with it.

Bush restated his "first strike war doctrine" on CNN.com this morning.

Briana Dawson

Anyone want to argue pragmatism? With a seriously overstretched military and a record national debt... yeah, we need yet a THIRD quagmire.

I support it, but only if the nation in question has lots of oil and there aren't too many white Christians living there. ::rolls eyes::

I live in a crap country, I know how these things go. If Iran is anything like Portugal, they'd sooner blow themselves up than get a workable ICBM going. So I'm with Kendra here. It's good to defend one's nation, but not from "perceived" or "potential" threats. It's generally understood that you can morally and ethically sacrifice a certain number of people to save a greater number of people, but there's no indication that this is the case here.

Ordinal has it right. "pre-emptive strike" is doublespeak for first strike. It's doubleplusgood! It's a justification for invading other countries for any vague reason the administration puts forward. It saddens me greatly that so many American's are so indoctrinated into this mentality of moral supriority and blind paranoid patriotism. That's radical fundamentalism of the most basic and dangerous kind. It's every bit as dangerous, ugly, and as much an affront to the rest of humanity as any religious radicalism. We're the ones casually throwing around names of which country we might invade next. That makes us the terrorists, and it sickens me to my core. If we do decide to strike again in the Middle East, I hope we turn the temple mount into a giant mile deep crater. Maybe then all the Abrahamic kool-aide drinkers will STFU and sit down.

What would Jesus do?

Bush is a Christian, right?

Is this what he would do with Jesus?



(can anyone photoshop me a picture of Jesus with an Image of Rambo or something cutting down some Muslims with a huge machine gun, like one ripped from a helicopter bay? I like God, Guns and Country, so a nice peace of artwork would be a good way to illustrate how happy I am with killing a new crop of Muslims for You)