Some how its starting to remind me of the '80s.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/libra ... osti01.htm

I am blaming Keith!!

"We come in peace, shoot to kill."

If memory serves, didn't Bush say something similar in the early 2000s?

If you are referring to the 'Bush Doctrine' of preemptive war, I think the difference is that it does not specifically mention the use of nuclear weapons. (So far as I recall at any rate) I think a statement about preemptive use of force that might or might not include nukes is a far less frightening statement than a flat out statement about making preemptive nuclear strikes. I suppose the frightening thing is wondering what prompted the need to make a statement about the right to make a premptive nuke strike...

ah well, IMO, FWIW, YMMV, etc

Corwyn

No, what Bush said was that he was the President of the United States. He and he alone is charged with determining whether something is a threat, and if he deems it so, it is his responsibility to defend the nation against it.

It was said in justification of the invasion of Iraq. I remember it clearly.

I still blame Kieth. At this rate, I'll be dipping into my food storage years ahead of schedule.

Fair point, Corwyn. I hadn't looked up the quotes from Bush et. al., I was just going from memory. Having checked a few sources, I see you're spot on: while there was a recommendation for pre-emptive action, there was no specific reference to nukes.



I'm not sure which particular speech you're referring to, but there were definitely a few comments made by Bush and/or members of his administration that went further than that.

I, and most non-Americans, found the following statement (which was made well before the Iraq invasion) to be very chilling:

(emphasis mine)

From the first half of the statement, it certainly made it appear that anyone who didn't support US policy would be considered one of the "hostile" nations referred to in the second half.

I realise, of course, that this isn't what the USA in general had in mind, and that Bush was essentially reacting to 9/11, but I can tell you that from the perspective of non-American nations, it was very creepy.

Fair enough, but as you said, that was reactionary against a "specific" and "known" enemy, not preemptive. (The "specific" and "known" enemy being the unknown and hidden terrorist planning his next attack.)

I don't know. In my mind there is a big difference there, but that is just my opinion and interpretation. Bottom line, he's gone from our national leadership and can't come back.

Oh, look, after checking on the stuff in light of Corwyn's response, I agree. I guess I was pointing out that hawkish rhetoric from politicians is, as often as not, a means of placating their own people as it is an actual, real-life threat.

I mean, the current Russian administration isn't any more or less batshit insane than the Politburo, and they weren't stupid enough to actually run the risk of a nuclear war. Lots of posturing, lots of (as we Aussies call it) "argie-bargie", but little real threat.

I'm far more concerned about, say, the Taliban getting hold of Pakistan's nukes. The Russians don't want to die in a nuclear fireball any more than I do. The Taliban, on the other hand...well, the term "death cult" springs to mind...

Spot on; however, nearly all foreign policy actions for any state (hawkish, dovish, owl, whatever) are geared toward domestic policies and objectives.

Just as an example, North Korea. Much of what they do on the international stage doesn't make much sense until you factor in their domestic objectives. Then it makes perfect sense.

With the previous thoughts on the domestic intent of this decision acknowledged and concurred upon, I have to say that this is an excellent opportunity for the Pentagon to accelerate plans and stick the second generation missile shield right into Russia's eye.