Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Wiil George Invade Another Or Has He Learned?
Topic Started: Nov 9 2004, 10:25 AM (416 Views)
telcoman
Member Avatar
Member
Do you think the idea of "pre-emptive invasions" is here to stay?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Peralko
Member
Absolutely! Syria next!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brewster
Member Avatar
Winemaker Extraordinaire
You're not fooling me, Beddows! :no:

You're trying to suck George into attacking BC... :poke:

After a few weeks of Strong Beer, plentiful drugs, and explaining to all those American Soldiers what a BC Liberal is, they'll be too spaced out to attack ANYONE again! :floorrollin: :floorrollin: :floorrollin:
Posted Image My Favourite Campsite
Bow Valley Provincial Park, Kananaskis Country, Alberta
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jackd
Member Avatar
Member
Paul: There has never been any "pre-emptive invasions", you know that!
The invasion of Iraq was strickly a generous action to free the Iraqui people form the cruel grip of Saddam and force feed democratic values to these poor opressed people.
At least, that's the latest official reason for being in Iraq.
jackD
Walk in front of me, you lead me,
Walk behind me, I lead you
Walk beside me, you are a friend.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Actually, seriously, no. There's discussion at the end of one of these threads about how this neoconservative idea and its adherents have been all but silenced by the mistakes in judgment, expectations, planning, and execution in Washington. Bush has changed his tune so much--as Jack humously points out--from war to peace President, it's hard to see him flip flopping back. Polls still show half if not more in the US against even Iraq. A lot of trust has been lost by the facts of no active WMD and no operative terrorist ties and the fiction of the campaign. Who'd buy the faith-based intelligence now?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member
His words were "he will take the war to the terrorists and the countries that harbour them." Not a popular policy at present, at least not untile another twin towers type (or worse) insident.

Syria and Iran are middle-east powder kegs. Israel has to fear their actions (nothing new there); but until the policy of the U.S. towards Israel changes (as many countries and even U.S. citizens would not mind seeing) the U.S. will stand by Israel.

North Korea - well Russia, China and Japan have equal if not greater stakes in their doings.

Now is not the time to whimp out in this war on terror IMO. With what has happened in Iraq, I don't think GWB will be "over pre-emptive." But, the majority of the people (more women than men, and for a reason) elected him back in office. They expect him to do what is ever necessary to keep the U.S. as safe as possible. He said, "my job is to protect the American people." Said that before and after the election. And I believe he will do just that. He will be more attentive to what others think. But that being said, I think he will do what ever it takes against terrorism.
Banan
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
passinthru
Member Avatar
John - Gainesville, FL
Bush will begin to look more like a tyrant if he were to authorize another attack. While there is no single power strong enough to stand up against us if we took such an route, world opinion and support would completely disappear and Bush would begin to be compared to some very unsavory past leaders. imo
Faster horses, younger women, older whiskey, more money...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Banan says Bush says (said years ago?) "he will take the war to the terrorists and the countries that harbour them."

But that's just the point, urged on by neoconservatives, he invaded Iraq for that unfounded reason. American people will expect more next time.

The war on terror is not and never has been a war against nations.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
I hope not.
Having spent most of my life looking at the USSR as the evil empire (invading and impressing the communist way of life on people)
I don't like my country invading and impressing my way of life on someone else....even though I believe our way of life is superior to theirs.
You'd think, with our history with Cuba, the Phillipines, and Iran...that our leaders would have learned something...
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
corky52
Member
Jane,
The Cold War ended because the people wanted to be free and live better, like the example they had seen in the west. You can show people freedom and it's benefits, awful had to beat them into freedom. Americans are leaders not conquerers, something we're relearning at great expense. Sometimes it's hard to teach Texans things, very hard.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
telcoman
Member Avatar
Member
The terrorist connection is interesting & it brings up the basic difference between the invasion of Afghanistan & Iraq. I dont' think anyone considers Afghanistan as anything other than a defensive action due to its obvious connection to 911. There is also no possible ulterior motive, due to the fact Afghanistan is not a major oil producer. Iraq is a different case. The issue of terrorism only arose only after the original justification for invading, evaporated. I also get the impression that the Afghans generally view the US as liberators whereas the Iraqis view them as invaders. Whether or no this is because Saddam had more popular support than supposed, or simply the Iraqis do not like western soldiers on their soil, is hard to say. Replacing US troops with UN troops may not accomplish anything in this case. Possibly not even troops from other Arab countries as they may be viewed as having territorial design on Iraq. I dont' know what the answer is. Civil war seems inevitable once US troops withdraw, if they ever do. This may be a situation like Korea, where they stay permanently. I dont' think the Bush admin visualized that. It depends on how much they view the energy resources as vital. I still have the feeling that oil is the largest factor in this conflict, despite that fact that the Bush administration want us to compare it to the liberation of Holland in WW2.

Corky is also correct, you can't ram democracy down someones throat. This is why I think Iraq is destined for an Islamic Republic. Afghanistan, I'm not so sure, they are wary of that due to their experiences with the Taliban. The main problem there is fuedalism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member
corky52
Nov 9 2004, 08:49 PM
Jane,
The Cold War ended because the people wanted to be free and live better, like the example they had seen in the west.  You can show people freedom and it's benefits, awful had to beat them into freedom.  Americans are leaders not conquerers, something we're relearning at great expense.  Sometimes it's hard to teach Texans things, very hard.

I'm not sure, are you saying that the people of the USSR saw our freedom in the west and thus persuaded the Kremlin to cease and desist in the Cold War.

I was thinking that it was more the Reagan administration's military policies over an eight year period that the USSR tried to keep pace with and ultimately bankrupt themselves into submission. Of course this ran up our deficit tremendously (after bringing the high interest rates of the Carter years from 18% to 6%) from the military spending. But the cold war came to an end because of it without anyone attacking anyone and no one dying (that we knew of). And the large dificit run up by these policies bringing the cold war to an end without real war, it was erased with no problem during the Clinton years - some say because of the economic policies set up during the Reagan years. It can and probably will be done again. If it's not right away, as it (the deficit goes up) you can buy U.S. Treasury Bills, Notes or Bonds at the higher interest rates, spend the extra earned money (after taxes paid to the gov) and stimulate the economy and put people to work from your spending and taxes. See it's easy. :)

In Bush's case, our country was attacked. The Bush administration (IMO) doesn't mean to impose our way of life on others (other than to encourage "freedom" as the eastern block countries of the USSR realized after the breakup of the USSR). He (and Kerry) did say that he would go after the terrorists (offensively) AND the countries that harbor them. I'm not saying I want him to. I am saying that that is what he said.
Banan
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jrf
Member Avatar
Member
Quote:
 
Do you think the idea of "pre-emptive invasions" is here to stay?


Yes. I think its always been one of the tools available to us and always will be.

If there have ever been any mistakes, misuses or abuses of the tool its still gonna be in the box.

If we reach for the tool, its gonna draw a lot more scrutiny in the future. Kerry was wanting to increase our high demand forces like the special forces and such. Bush might do the same??? We'll probably "see" more clandestine operations or cooperations for awhile.

As far as that Iraqi democracy--that's just one of several things Bush threw at the wall to see what would stick.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
The Cold War ended under Nixon with detente. Reagan only tried to revive it but, alas, Russia was on its last economic leg and its people were turning against the government.

"Ultimately, the end of the Cold War came because of the revolution underway in the Soviet Union. But the pro-democratic policies of glasnost and perestroika that I unveiled in the mid-1980s did not appear out of thin air. They arose from Nikita Khrushchev's reforms of the '50s and '60s, and from Alexei Kosygin's reforms later on." Mikhail Gorbachev: 'Old thinking' breeds more crises

Don't worry, this gets back to the point--Gorbachev goes on to to say:

"We Russians obviously bear the most responsibility for the USSR's collapse, but America, too, should be called to account. When change came, instead of following a slow democratic process, Russia replaced its discredited communist model overnight with a Harvard-designed blueprint that was also unfit for the country. Eventually, the plan threw the country on its back."

Perfect example of a liberal, unconstrained vision.

The same one we are fighting for today, according to Bush: "President Bush, paying a bedside visit to soldiers wounded in Iraq, said Tuesday that U.S. troops leading the assault against insurgents in Fallujah were doing 'the hard work necessary for a free Iraq to emerge.'" (source)

Gorbachev concludes:

"Unfortunately, this type of old thinking breeds more crises than it can ever resolve. Indeed, unilateral policies can never succeed in a global world defined more and more by shared concerns rather than national interests."

World Turned Upside Down, old Gorby is more conservative and constrained than the leader of the free world.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
campingken
Member
According to Bush there are 3 "evil" countries and we have only "freed" one of them. I'm sure that Bush would like to invade Iran and North Korea but that would mean a draft. This would not sit to well with the "chickenhawk" philosphy of "wars are good and just so as long as OTHER people fight them."

Ken

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply