View Full Version : First Strike Doctrine reaffirmed by GW

03-16-2006, 07:31 AM
With recent success in Iraq it's time to rally around the doctrine. Any takers?


03-16-2006, 07:39 AM
"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," Bush wrote. Good thing he wasn't President during the Cold War...

Chris Coose
03-16-2006, 07:41 AM
Jesus H. Christ!
Could you imagine he calls up Condi and says clear your book for a couple days we are going to Iran to talk face to face to these people?

But NOOOOOOOOOOOO! These are evil bastards and we must destroy them.


03-16-2006, 07:47 AM
Just checking. The ability to predict the future appears to be an important assumption for this doctrine to work. If you have that capability then calling others hindsighters and history-re-writers makes sense.

Chris Coose
03-16-2006, 07:50 AM
Here we go folks.
Condi, Bolton and dubbya in harmony.

"Just like September 11, only with nuclear weapons this time, that's the threat. I think that is the threat," Bolton told ABC News' Nightline program. CNN
I wished these looser diplomats were doing a job of diplomacy rather than selling another invasion.

03-16-2006, 07:57 AM
my understanding is that Iran has an experimental number of centrifuges, the number required to produce enough bomb material is a few years away.

Bolton has said that Iran HAS made enough material to make a bomb. Bolton is on record attempting to misrepresent Cubas bio-weapons programs and attempting to get the analyst who prevented him from saying that fired. Bolton wanted to say this at a speech to the American Enterprise Institute.

I don't doubt that a nuclear Iran is scary,,like a nuclear North Korea,,but just as the whole star wars ABM systems miss box cutters and cruise missles (this is the 21st century rpg) I wonder if we'll shoot ourselves in the foot by isolating ourselves without allies long before Irans projected nuclear weapons capability is an actual threat. The Soviet Union a recent example of self-induced decline.

03-16-2006, 08:17 AM
I woldn't worry about pissing off Iran with bully rethoric. It is not like they could help or hinder the US with some vital issue, like, say, Iraq...

Keith Wilson
03-16-2006, 09:53 AM
I wonder if we'll shoot ourselves in the foot by isolating ourselves without allies long before Iran's projected nuclear weapons capability is an actual threat. That would be bad. If we did something like ignoring the reast of the world's objections and unilaterally invading a country that was no threat to us, based on false accusations about chemical and biological weapons - yeah, that might be a problem.

Bruce Hooke
03-16-2006, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by George.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," Bush wrote. </font>[/QUOTE]Now, let's just imagine Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying that. What country might he reasonably think is a threat to his country and therefore deserving of a preemptive attack?

Edited to correct the President's name.

[ 03-16-2006, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: Bruce Hooke ]

Keith Wilson
03-16-2006, 10:13 AM
Mohammad Khatami was a fairly reasonable man, and is no longer president of Iran. His sucessor is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is much less reasonable.

Bruce Hooke
03-16-2006, 10:14 AM
You're right. Thanks for the correction...

03-16-2006, 11:45 AM
Yep. Both the US and Iran have replaced reasonable presidents with ones with scary rethoric and the certainty that God is on their side...

Keith Wilson
03-16-2006, 11:53 AM
Official German army belt buckle, WWI.


Official German army belt buckle, WWII.


[ 03-16-2006, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

Hal Forsen
03-16-2006, 12:08 PM

Pack up your troubles in your old kit bag....


03-16-2006, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by LeeG:
With recent success in Iraq ...Yes, the Iraq campaign has been very successful. Granted, not quite the resounding success of say, Napoleon's invasion of Russia, but a success all the same.

Osborne Russel
03-16-2006, 01:11 PM
In the strategy, President Bush says the national security policy is "idealistic" about some goals and how to reach them and "realistic" about others. Which are the nukyalar ones?

Osborne Russel
03-16-2006, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by George.:
Good thing he wasn't President during the Cold War...True, but the Cold War kept the lid on the reds. The American ones, I mean. MAD was a degree of sanity.

Now the reds seethe and itch with the desire to kick ass, as they put it. This opportunity may not last, better get cracking. Their thinking is, why not strike first? What was the point of the cold war if we have to go on waiting for vengeance even after we won?

03-16-2006, 02:59 PM
Speaking of Condi, she's in Oz, mentioning Iran in passing, but more concerned with poking China in the eye, as far as I can tell. Ther US, Japan, and Oz are to stand together and make China act like a responsible international citizen. Oh goody!

Paul G.
03-16-2006, 03:04 PM
How does pyrrhic sound?

Ian McColgin
03-16-2006, 04:06 PM
There was a time when nations devoted to aggression could benefit from first strike but that's not been true for the past century, at least not true for major wars. We did manage to beat up Grenada. Pretty much most other wars, including both world wars and many smaller wars were lost by the aggressors.

Most outsiders in civil wars also have come out the loosers.

In Iraq where we are the aggressor and we caused a civil war that we then join, twice loading the dice against ourselves.

In actual conflict, surprise strike is of course good at both strategic and tactical levels.

First strike is the morally represhensible national policy of the fearful incompetents.

Bob Cleek
03-16-2006, 04:17 PM
Why not leave Iran to the Israelis? They dealt with Saddam's nuclear reactor pretty effectively last time around. I'm sure they'd do the same with Iran, which also promises to "push them into the sea." It IS getting scarey. This administration is out of control, I'm afraid.

Wild Wassa
03-16-2006, 04:23 PM
What wars have actually been won since the Second World War that the US has been involved in?

You can't include the first Gulf War otherwise we wouldn't be in Iraq now. The Gulf War wasn't won, it remained unfinished. 'The Cold War' was only a political slogan.

The US must have beaten some small banana republics, like Hatti or Honduras? Has the US taken on any serious competitors since WW2 ... we have already seen the unbeatable North Koreans in action.

Torching Iran sounds like a real smart idea from a country that can't win wars.

[ 03-16-2006, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

03-16-2006, 04:27 PM
Gott Mit Uns
In God We Trust