• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

National Security Strategy Update Released

Disagreeable

Well-known member
This is crazy. If our leaders during the Cold War had subscribed to this "strategy", we'd probably all be dead or never born. Russia had the capability to nuke us; Iraq never did, nor does Iran.
 

Silver

Well-known member
What's your take on this, R2? Does it not seem to you that the worlds policeman is also becoming the worlds bully? I'm glad it's a bully I share a certain amount of ideology with, but a bully none the less, in my opinion.
The whole 'preemptive strike' philosophy is ominous at best to me.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Did you see that North Korea has announced they have weapons that will reach the US? They claim to have the capability for a pre-emptive strike, too. Has Bush driven us into another Cold War?
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Hi Silver - sorry, been offline. I had difficulties with the Iraq War because of "consistency". If we really believe ourselves the world's policemen, why Iraq and not Korea? Why abandon Rwanda? And so on. Personally I believe that we were able to bring down the USSR without war, we are to improve many situations in the world through diplomacy or economic pressure. I do not believe that invading Iraq was at that time done because it was a preemptive strike and would keep the terrorists fighting us over there. (Au contraire, it brought the terrorists to Iraq and strengthened them, at least temporarily.) I do think that there was an element of preemptive about it in that Saddam Hussain was funding Palestinian suicide bombers and had launched SCUDs against Israel, but the war in Iraq did not prevent a terrorist regime from being ELECTED democratically in the Palestine Authority so where does that leave us? It may have even accelerated Hamas' rise to power.

Similarly, I don't see that preemptive strikes against say China or Iran or N. Korea will be the best solution to ensuring our national security and combatting the risk these countries may pose the US and its allies.
I was there Reader. We didnt win the cold war with USSR by diplomacy or economic pressures unless you count the spending on weapons and such just breaking them.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
reader (the Second) said:
Hi Silver - sorry, been offline. I had difficulties with the Iraq War because of "consistency". If we really believe ourselves the world's policemen, why Iraq and not Korea? Why abandon Rwanda? And so on. Personally I believe that we were able to bring down the USSR without war, we are to improve many situations in the world through diplomacy or economic pressure. I do not believe that invading Iraq was at that time done because it was a preemptive strike and would keep the terrorists fighting us over there. (Au contraire, it brought the terrorists to Iraq and strengthened them, at least temporarily.) I do think that there was an element of preemptive about it in that Saddam Hussain was funding Palestinian suicide bombers and had launched SCUDs against Israel, but the war in Iraq did not prevent a terrorist regime from being ELECTED democratically in the Palestine Authority so where does that leave us? It may have even accelerated Hamas' rise to power.

Similarly, I don't see that preemptive strikes against say China or Iran or N. Korea will be the best solution to ensuring our national security and combatting the risk these countries may pose the US and its allies.
I was there Reader. We didnt win the cold war with USSR by diplomacy or economic pressures unless you count the spending on weapons and such just breaking them.

The fact remains: no preemptive strike.
 

Silver

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Hi Silver - sorry, been offline. I had difficulties with the Iraq War because of "consistency". If we really believe ourselves the world's policemen, why Iraq and not Korea? Why abandon Rwanda? And so on. Personally I believe that we were able to bring down the USSR without war, we are to improve many situations in the world through diplomacy or economic pressure. I do not believe that invading Iraq was at that time done because it was a preemptive strike and would keep the terrorists fighting us over there. (Au contraire, it brought the terrorists to Iraq and strengthened them, at least temporarily.) I do think that there was an element of preemptive about it in that Saddam Hussain was funding Palestinian suicide bombers and had launched SCUDs against Israel, but the war in Iraq did not prevent a terrorist regime from being ELECTED democratically in the Palestine Authority so where does that leave us? It may have even accelerated Hamas' rise to power.

Similarly, I don't see that preemptive strikes against say China or Iran or N. Korea will be the best solution to ensuring our national security and combatting the risk these countries may pose the US and its allies.

Reader, I couldn't possibly agree with you more, couldn't have said it better myself.
 

Latest posts

Top