Current Politics - The Bush Doctrine

[Neverplayd]

While it is obvious that there are people that don't support the Bush Doctrine and even more who are against the Iraq War, I haven't seen any other proposals on how to handle the Iraq War. So I decided to go ahead and make a topic debating whether you think Bush's foreign policy and him going to the Iraq War was legitimate.

For those who aren't too informed of the Bush Doctrine, it is based on one idea; to make sure that our enemy doesn't have the chance to attack us. It is composed of four elements.
1. Preemption: The idea that you must attack your enemy before they attack you.
2. Unilateralism: When we are not able to quickly assemble national support, we must attack alone.
3. Strength Beyond Challenge: The need for America to stay the sole superpower.
4. Spread of Democracy: The promotion of democracy and freedom to other countries around the world.

     Personally, I am opposed to some of the ideals. Preemption is useful if it is used correctly. However, many ideas that were good on paper, ended up failing due to the unrealistic requirements of human logic(ex. Communism, or possibly Democracy[read the Democracy Topic on this Thread]). Attacking someone before they attack us makes the other countries more vulnerable to our attacks. With the Bush Doctrine, all a country has to do is announce or be suspected of having a nuclear weapon and the United States will have full authority, by means of the Bush Doctrine, to send our troops out to demolish their nation. The United States shouldn't be fighting nuclear weapons with barbaric methods such as pre-emption. It would be more beneficial to put our attention to gathering intelligence, such as funding the CIA. And this transitions into my argument against the Iraq War. The war could have been prevented if we gathered more intelligence and realized that Hussein didn't have weapons. It would have saved us a lot of money, time, and from a war in general.
     We forget that other countries are people too. If all nations adopted the Bush Doctrine, it would be like a domino effect; where if Nation A suspects Nation B of attacking soon, they would attack that nation, and that nation would not only attack Nation A but they would probably feel that Nation A's ally, Nation C, was going to attack as well, so they would attack Nation C. Nation D, being an ally of Nation B would attack as well, and complete chaos would evolve. Theories aside though, it has been proven that there is not a lot of information is needed to use the rule of pre-emption. The United States had no actual evidence that Hussein had weapons, had no proof that Iraq would feel the need to use the weapons, and it was highly unlikely that Hussein had intentions of giving his weapons to terrorist organizations, especially Al Queda.
     Unilateralism is tied along with pre-emption. There are only a few reasons we would need to go to war alone. One would be the fact that the countries aren't making the decision to help us fast enough or the country has blatantly refused to help us with the war. Usually, allied countries refuse to go to war if they don't feel that there is enough proof that the war is necessary. Going to war alone is not only more difficult(we are only one nation after all), but also worsens our relations to other countries. Right now, our country is losing a great amount of support due to the war in Iraq. I'll admit, there are times that we need to go to war alone, specifically the war in Afghanistan, yet we shouldn't be making a habit of it.
     America feeling the need to stay on top is also a bad idea adopted into the heads of the majority of our American government. We are the lone superpower, and although we shouldn't openly give up our spot ahead from the other countries, pushing ourselves ahead of unfavorable programs like the nuclear weapons programs is ridiculous. America shouldn't be telling other countries to dismantle their nuclear weapons while we keep ours. We should instead dismantle our weapons and then encourage others to do the same. (Dismantling the nuclear weapons would also save us a lot of money, since it costs a lot to keep them stable.) America can stay "Beyond Challenge", but we shouldn't expect other countries to feel satisfied "Below Challenge".
     And the final segment of the Bush Doctrine, Spreading Democracy, is an idealist view that has always been a goal for American government. We shouldn't feel the need to change countries' forms of governments, especially if they don't want our form of government. Our government system isn't perfect and takes after part of the American culture; to force another country to take our form of government is imperialistic, and contradicts our beliefs that their people should have a say in their government. We'd also be taking part of their culture away, forcing part of our culture onto them, not to say the fact that we are spreading an imperfect government system to other countries which could possibly cripple them for a long period of time.
     I've explained some my reasons for going against the Iraq War, yet an important reason is that we can't attack a nation for one person alone. Like I said above, the other nations have people too, yet we don't seemed concerned for their welfare; this makes them unconcerned for ours. In general, the Bush Doctrine and Iraq War have all arisen from the idea that we our better than everyone else. Yet, this form of thought is only going to continue more war and in general won't help us. But now that I have written this mini-essay, I guess I should have your take on it.

Discussion Questions(These are the questions I answered in case your eyes started to boil from this large block of text):
1. Do you feel the Bush Doctrine is too extreme?
2. Do you think we should have gone to Iraq?
3. Do you feel we should stay in Iraq?

     To answer the last question, I don't know the specific reasons for us not being able to come back from Iraq (since I imagine there must be several), but I can imagine leaving from any war is difficult. So I'll assume that we should stay in Iraq and finish the war. However in the long run, Iraq, I feel, is a useless war; comparable to the Vietnam War. Finishing up the war won't accomplish much and it deters us from our main objective to stop terrorism.

 

[___]

I don't think preemption and democracy are compatible concepts, so the Bush doctrine falls on its face by simply contradicting itself.  Before I go farther into this let me explain that first statement.  In any true democracy, in the sense of "government by the people," the fundamental principle involved is that people have the immutable right and the ability to govern themselves, and are entitled to freedom from oppression by an abusive government.  Among the specific protections we have against governmental abuse: the right to a writ of habeas corpus; the presumption of innocence in legal proceedings; the right to due process; the right against unlawful search and seizure.  These rights are universal in democratic countries.
The principle of preemption presupposes that a person, group, or country can be declared a criminal before committing a specific crime; that he/they/it can be held accountable for a future act; that our government has the right to make decisions of this nature with no trial, no hearing, no legal process, and perhaps most egregiously no input from the public or their representatives (thanks to Mr. Bush's subversion of the congressional right to declare war according to the United States constitution).
I hold this to be contrary to the very fundamental principles of democracy, so it can have no part in any "doctrine" which also declares the necessity of spreading democracy.  One may counter that members of another country or a terrorist group that are not citizens of a democratic state do not have these rights; to this, I respectfully disagree.  I think that if a person believes all people are entitled to democracy and fundamental human rights that belief must by definition include people who do not live by those rights.

So to answer your question #1: I believe the Bush doctrine is invalid and sounds like political doubletalk fused with militaristic expansionism of the type practiced by fascist dictatorships; extremity isn't even an issue.

To #2: I think this has already been discussed enough, or is appropriate to its own thread.  Breifly, based on the evidence we were presented with at the time, if the proper legal and political processes were followed through, yes.  However precisely because they weren't followed the fact that the evidence presented was bullshit never came out; if it had and we had accurate information, we should not and would not have chosen to go.

To #3: Once again could be another thread.  Fundamentally I think a population who has not fought for their own freedom, paid the price and won the prize for themselves cannot have any hope of managing a free country; there is nothing we can do or could have done that would fix the problems over there.  We can't abandon them entirely at this point after wrecking the place and taking a situation from bad to worse, so the question of what to do at this point is incredibly problematic and complex whether you believe what we did in the first place was right.

To the whole discussion of staying world leaders: if we have any hope of leading the world, we have to abandon the concept of leadership by force.  To say we want to be the only superpower is to say we basically want to make fear our primary tactic in making sure the rest of the world goes along with what we want.  Want to talk about terrorism?  How does "we have so many advanced and powerful weapons if you raise your voice high enough to piss us off you have no hope of survival" sound.  If we want to be the world leader we were in the past we should get back to leading the world by example; being at the forefront of human rights, civil liberties, technological advancement, freedom of information, health, social services, economics, immigration.  Hell even being the leader of one of those categories might earn us a little respect; being the leaders in terms of ability to swiftly destroy other nations doesn't get respect, just a lot of fear and resentment (a.k.a. fool's respect).

 

[So fist]

For those who aren't too informed of the Bush Doctrine, it is based on one idea; to make sure that our enemy doesn't have the chance to attack us. It is composed of four elements.
1. Preemption: The idea that you must attack your enemy before they attack you.
2. Unilateralism: When we are not able to quickly assemble national support, we must attack alone.
3. Strength Beyond Challenge: The need for America to stay the sole superpower.
4. Spread of Democracy: The promotion of democracy and freedom to other countries around the world.

1. This is a gross misrepresentation of Bush's foreign policy practice, especially in regards to proliferation issues.  I will leave you with how GW handled the PDRK's actual construction of a nuclear device and the ongoing issue with Iran's enrichment of Uranium as evidence to the contrary.

2. First we aren't alone in Iraq, and second if a Nation sees itself in the certainty of clear and present danger it will act to defend itself UN or no UN.  Second, the UN is a joke.  See oil for food and the no evidence of genocide in Darfur report for more details.  I believe Syria is currently sitting on the Human Rights council over there.  Fox guarding the henhouse and all that.

3. We need to be strong enough to protect our own interests.  Many others Nations share in those interests as well.  Its not such a bad thing.

4. The birth of Democracy ain't always pretty.  Could've been worse, and it will get better over time.  It's not easy to undo twenty some odd years of brutality and oppression.  In the long run the end of terrorism would be the byproduct of a freer and more oportune society in the middle east which supplies so many of its recruits.

Theories aside though, it has been proven that there is not a lot of information is needed to use the rule of pre-emption. The United States had no actual evidence that Hussein had weapons, had no proof that Iraq would feel the need to use the weapons, and it was highly unlikely that Hussein had intentions of giving his weapons to terrorist organizations, especially Al Queda.

I think preemption was merely what Colin Powell believed was the strongest compellence to get the UN to sign off on it.  I think from the administration's perspective, including the outgoing Clinton one, was that Iraq was a sick man that would easily turn into another Afghanistan should it be allowed to do so after the fall of Saddam.  That's why Clinton OK'd the Iraqi Liberation Act to begin down the path of intervention to prevent that from happening.  911 served as a reminder of why that needed to happen.  Not because Saddam was responsible, but because terrorism is the result of foundational social and economic issues in the middle east.  Iraq was essentially chosen to be where to begin changing that foundation.  However none of that has any hope of getting a UN ok.  It would be an unheard of precedent for UN authorization of use of force.  The idea of the UN sanctioning regime change on the pretext of regional stability and human rights is too radical a doctrine to push on them.  No way would that be pallatable.  No one wants to open that pandora's box.  WMD's though is a more controlled pretext that the UN would likely find more palatable.  We know how that ended and given Oil for Food's revelation that is hardly a surprise.  The UN is an example of an institution that has become a mockery of its own principles.

I guarantee you we are staying in Iraq no matter who is President until the place is ready to walk on its own.  It is too important for our foreign policy interests both political and economic.  It is hardly Vietnam.  Post soviet yugoslavia may be more apropos, but they were worse off since they didn't have the benefit of any foreign aid and mediation to settle their differences.

 

[skirtboy]

First off, eliminating our nuclear inventory unilateraly would be a huge error in judgement. Without the ability to reliably intercept a ballistic reentry vehicle, the only way to ensure that the missiles in Russia, France, and China, as well as those undoubtably under development in India, North Korea, and probably Israel will never be used against us, or our allies, is to have sufficient strength to respond in kind. This is called "deterrence."  While there is currently no reason for any country which possesses nuclear tipped missiles to turn them against us, and those who do have a reason do not yet have the capability, it is unwise to assume that either situation will remain indefinitley. In any case, more money is spent on rifle cartridges in six months than is spent on the nulcear arsenal in a year (excluding ancilliary operations whose primary purpose is something else.)

With regard to the "Bush Doctrine," the core of the idea is that, as a soverign nation, the U.S. does not have to answer to any international body except in cases where specific treaties have been signed.

 

[Neverplayd]

@Nphyx: Yes, I guess the Iraq War is too large an issue to fit into this as a subtopic. Mostly, I am using Iraq as an example of the deficiencies of the Bush Doctrine.

@Sophist: Well, I'll agree that the UN is not a sufficient way for the nations to handle world affairs due to all the countries looking out for their own interests. It is against human nature for the countries to act more aggressively to issues that don't regard their own countries, so it would take a major world issue for the UN to act appropriately or with force. So, unfortunately, the UN won't be much of a help to current American issues like the Iraq War. However, that does not mean that we couldn't have searched for more evidence of nuclear weapons in Iraq. Iraq may have cut off UN inspections, however that doesn't mean that America couldn't have used intelligence gathering organizations, like the CIA, to look for evidence of WMDs in Iraq.

4. The birth of Democracy ain't always pretty.  Could've been worse, and it will get better over time.  It's not easy to undo twenty some odd years of brutality and oppression.  In the long run the end of terrorism would be the byproduct of a freer and more oportune society in the middle east which supplies so many of its recruits.

Yes, the spread of democracy is not pretty and is also an egocentric goal on America's part. Realistically, it is impossible to convert the whole world to one form of government. And even if we did, it does not automatically mean the end of terrorism. Even America has terrorism and it is a democratic nation. In fact, terrorism could be justified by terrorists as a freedom that the constitution grants. (There have been several people that justify radical acts by the first ammendment) Like I said, democracy is an imperfect system, and we shouldn't feel the need to force this system onto other governments without their consent. It would be smarter if we conversed with the nation's leaders, or took a better look at the people and the culture in those nations(for cases like Iraq, where the leader did not have the people's interests in mind), to find out their goals and then from there we make an informed decision of which form of government would be most beneficial to them. Sure, we could use this strategy to help ourselves a little, by adding forms of government that are a little more democratic than the previous one. However, having the goal to reform countries that despise our culture to completely democratic countries, is like a selfish way of helping other countries. There is no one-patch-fits-all government in the world, and when countries begin to think this way, it only results in a tension in foreign relations and more conflict.

@ skirtboy: Nuclear weapons shouldn't be thought of as defensive or even offensive weapons. Because if one nation were to begin using nuclear weapons, then it would be the start of a nuclear war, and very little or no nations would survive that. It is a good idea to start dismantling these weapons now before they become more of a threat as technology advancements make them more destructive and easier to use. It is obvious that America has a nuclear advantage, enough to destroy the world several times, but it is America's goal to be the strongest nation; not the only nation. I'm not saying that we should dismantle all our nuclear weapons at once, and I'm not saying that we should prohibit research of nuclear weapons. But, the production of these weapons is a threat to the entire world, including America. Us keeping our nuclear weapons only makes the other countries feel they need to keep theirs.

 

[skirtboy]

First, that is a gross oversimplification of the nuclear arms issue. It is entirely possible for a limited exchange of nuclear arms to result without a full dtrategic exchange. The idea that there's a finger on some button somewhere and if it gets pushed, the world dies is largely Cold War paranoia. Second, I did not advocate use of nuclear arms. Only two things can prevent the use of any weapon. Either there must be a significant chance that the weapon will fail to produce the desired effect, in this case meaning that the warhead will either be destroyed en route or simply fail to detonate, or there must be a very real chance that the same weapon will be turned on you and you will suffer equal devastation. Currently, in regard to atomic arms, Option #1 is not workable. The modern nuclear warhead is the most reliable weapon in a countries inventory, so the odds of it failing to detonate are very low. Further, the technology to intercept an ICBM or IRBM warhead does not currently exist. Therefore, only fear keeps those weapons in the silos. Take away the fear, and you take away the deterrent. The only way to eliminate nuclear arms is limiting proliferation and negotiations among nations already nuclear equipped.

 

[___]

It may be an inevitable fact that eventually every non-laughable group will have some sort of weapon of mass destruction and we will have to go back to using real techniques of diplomacy to avoid wars rather than playing porcupine as the big states have been (i.e. you can try to hurt me, but you're gonna get hurt in the process).  Yeah, that's a gross oversimplification, but the fact is that knowledge and information is rapidly becoming more available, and history has proved the fact that you can't put a cat back into a bag so to speak. 

Sooner or later we are going to have to start shaping policy around how to avoid a situation where a radical group has the desire to do something insanely destructive to a larger body, because we are not going to be in a world where we can realistically hope to prevent a radical group from gaining that capability much longer.  We can wait around till someone manages to prove this point to us by application and millions of people die, or we can try a strategy of "preemption" that doesn't involve schoolyard bullying and a lot of scary talk but rather some serious changes in how we operate and interact with the larger world.  As part of that, it might not seem so foolish after all to start saying, "Here, we are going to have no part in this, and mutually assured destruction is not an acceptable solution or deterrent." 

If someone drops a nuke on Manhattan tomorrow, whether or not we can turn their entire shitty little country into a field of radioactive glass in six hours Manhattan is not coming back; since increasingly we're under assault from small groups who do not give a damn how many shitty little countries we turn into fields of radioactive glass as long as we still have cities for them to blow up, our ability to deter is looking pretty limp.

Remarkably, even after completely ruining Iraq on social, political, and economic levels we seem to have MORE people in the world wishing us ill instead of less.

 

[skirtboy]

MAD is the only shield we have, ands will stop a reasonable head of government. It won't stop a terrorist, but very little will.

 

[Incognitus]

Isn't talking about "The Bush Doctrine" just the equivalent of putting a glossy spin of the behaviour of two-year-olds who will kick and stamp their feet and insistant that they'll do whatever they want?

The so-called "Bush Doctrine" just seems like something hashed up from bits and pieces to try and create a fluid whole and justifed what was a foregone conclusion.

 

[So fist]

Yes, the spread of democracy is not pretty and is also an egocentric goal on America's part.

Egocentric sure but who cares.  You will be hard pressed to find a viewpoint unaffected by individual or cultural ego.  Are you objective?  Al Queda's desire for a global Caliphate could also be described as egocentric.  As is almost any foreign policy interest the world over.  Ego, the conception and love of self is part of what gives us strength to survive.  Between worldwide democracy and global caliphate which would you prefer? 

Even America has terrorism and it is a democratic nation. In fact, terrorism could be justified by terrorists as a freedom that the constitution grants.

Yeah but our kooks are few and far between.  The Middle East has a veritable cottage industry going on there for the last thirty years.  And considering that the United States has more freedom and more equitable sharing of the prosperity, its no wonder why a freer nation has less people running out to blow themselves to pieces for god.  Let's not be obtuse about the reality before us.  Terrorism exists outside of the Middle East, but the Middle East produces well more than the average.

we shouldn't feel the need to force this system onto other governments without their consent.

The truth is as the old saw goes, "If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything."  Tolerance and understanding are fine traits, but so are principles.  Without them there is no boundaries for acceptable and unacceptable.  And when those boundaries are gone, you have something dirty and dangerous.

If you think the world is going to suddenly become a better place with a little peace, love, and understanding, you are naive.  Mohmar, Saddam, Omar, Ahmedinejad, and Kim Jong Il will laugh at you, and tell you to mind your own fucking business.  They don't want your understanding.  The terrorists even less so.  And they aren't going to change without at least a little prodding. 

It would be smarter if we conversed with the nation's leaders, or took a better look at the people and the culture in those nations(for cases like Iraq, where the leader did not have the people's interests in mind),

What part of abusive autocracy do you not get?  Picture yourself as an Iraqi under Saddam.  Are you going to talk to the nice American Diplomats or CIA agents over how to overthrow Saddam with a little bit of peace love and understanding?  Think of the perspective.  Yeah the Americans will tell you a bunch of nice things you want to hear, but the night you get home the Republican Guard is who will be knocking on your door.  If they even bother that is, and, if you watched any of the Regime crimes trials, you would know Saddam's prisons weren't nice places.  So, no I doubt you would get anywhere with that.  Otherwise that's what we'd always do.  Only the most incompetent of repressive regimes allow their people to provide intel and conspire with foreign powers on a regular basis.
Right now the Iraqis are deciding for themselves what there government should be.  Considering what you've written, I really don't see your beef with that. 

Isn't talking about "The Bush Doctrine" just the equivalent of putting a glossy spin of the behaviour of two-year-olds who will kick and stamp their feet and insistant that they'll do whatever they want?

The so-called "Bush Doctrine" just seems like something hashed up from bits and pieces to try and create a fluid whole and justifed what was a foregone conclusion.

OMGZ U SO PWNED GW BUSHITLER1111111!!!!!!!!   Take that Establishment!

Do you have anything useful to add than semi clever quips?  This is a symposium discussion.

 

[___]

However you like to define the "Bush doctrine" you must admit this administration is pretty much founded on deceiving the public to pursue clandestine goals.  I don't think we can even have a serious argument, at this point, about whether Bush & co. even thought they may, by a stretch, be right about any of the claims they used to justify the invasion of Iraq.  It hasn't even taken the end of the regime for the truth to practically bust through the gates like a flood.  Not only are they liars, they're incompetent ones.

Even if you want to justify the ends by the means and say that whatever the real reason for going over there, Saddam needed to be taken out, it's hard to make the claim that the disaster we've made of that country has been an improvement.  In terms of lives lost, in terms of health, safety, education, stability, economy, independence, freedom in a practical sense rather than political sense, we have done more harm in that country in half a decade than Saddam managed to do over the course of his entire regime.

Supposing for a moment that nobody besides Rumsfeld and his cronies really thought inserting Chalabi and the INC as a U.S. friendly puppet government was a great idea (or really at all viable), you still have to wonder at the fact that we just went over there to kick some ass and chew some gum with no fucking plan whatsoever about what we were going to do afterward.  I mean the fact that one of the generals in charge of military operations in Iraq was the first guy to come up with the idea to get a constitution and elections going over there (I can't recall which one it was), when our stated goal was to liberate and establish democracy.... I mean fuck, what the hell is that?  If our leadership had the honest goal of getting a democracy going over there why didn't they have even a rough roadmap for how they were going to set up the most basic of conventions absolutely necessary for a free state?

Fuck I could rant about this forever but my point is simple:  if you want to talk about principles, and throw out quotes like "if you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything" I believe you have a tough time coming out on the side of Bush.  I voted for him the first time, I abstained the second time, but I regret that first vote and I doubly regret not coming out on the side of the lesser douchebag the second time.  He has a demonstrable lack of integrity, competence, and respect for the United States constitution that goes far beyond mediocrity or any justification of the difficulty of the office and really crosses the line toward treason in my book.

Forget about peace, love and other naiveties for a bit and just focus on standing for the principles that our democracy is founded on, and the basic outrage of flat-out lying about something as big as going to war; without proper justification, what he has done amounts to abusing our military power to commit mass murder, and putting our own young men and women on the line to do it.  This is not something you have philosophical political debates about; this is something that should result in criminal prosecution.

(I did some studying about this last week after the thread sparked reinterest, and to keep my facts straight here and I've seriously gone in the last week from doubt and discontent to complete outrage.  The shit that has come out about what was going on behind the scenes in the early days of the war in the past couple years is disgusting in ways I can't even articulate.  I wish I had paid more attention earlier on, maybe in some small way I could have done something.)

(Oh yeah second edit, @Sophist: the profanity here isn't directed at you personally, I have the utmost respect for your ability to keep up an informed opinion; I am just really outraged in a way I don't normally get about things)

 

[Incognitus]

Isn't talking about "The Bush Doctrine" just the equivalent of putting a glossy spin of the behaviour of two-year-olds who will kick and stamp their feet and insistant that they'll do whatever they want?

The so-called "Bush Doctrine" just seems like something hashed up from bits and pieces to try and create a fluid whole and justifed what was a foregone conclusion.

OMGZ U SO PWNED GW BUSHITLER1111111!!!!!!!!  Take that Establishment!

Do you have anything useful to add than semi clever quips?  This is a symposium discussion.

What's to say? To call it a "Doctrine" gives it far too much credence. It clearly connotes something that just isn't there. Most of the other American Presidential "doctrines" at least had legs. There's nothing from the last seven years that raises this anywhere near the standard of the others.

I read the first couple of posts, particularly the first one, and I can't find anything were the so-called "Bush Doctrine" has been applied or used according to it's own terms.

 

[Incognitus]

It hasn't even taken the end of the regime for the truth to practically bust through the gates like a flood.  Not only are they liars, they're incompetent ones.

I disagree. If they were incompetent liars they would have been "caught sooner". If they were incompetent, they would not be about to walk away scott-free. Bush and his backers have succeeded in nearly every single goal they set out to achieve, and they have not and will not be help accountable for it.

That doesn't sound like incompetence to me - that sounds like a resounding success.

 

[Caesis]

I'm conservitive, I'mma get frekin bashed on here, but ah well.

1. They blew up a frekin important building.
2. They also tried to blow up the whitehouse
3. We get reports saying they are making nukes

WTH are we supposed to think? "Nah, the terrorists are jokin about the nuke thing :D OMG good one guyz! " Err- no. We blitz them with troops and blow apart their peice of crap military and make sure they can't use those nukes.

Secondly, they had the resources needed to make it. Give Iran and Iraq a few years, they'd have 10 ready-to-to WMDs. I was told this by a few US soldiers.

Bush doctorine or whatever, is not too extreme.
Heck yeah we shoulda gone there.
We should stay in Iraq til we finish the mess.

I don't support America's rampage for spreading democracy. They are just using it as this pitiful excuse:
"Well, we blew it up! Their government is gone. SAY! Why don't we build it like our country? Yes, we know this is your country. Yes, we know you don't want it. But we pretty much ruined your country, so we know better."
Iraq isn't a dog. Theres real people in it.

 

[Incognitus]

1. They blew up a frekin important building.
2. They also tried to blow up the whitehouse
3. We get reports saying they are making nukes

Could you just clarify a few things here:


By "they", do you mean Al-Qaeda, Iraq, or just Arabs or Muslims?
I thought it was supposed to be the Capitol Building: Somebody hasn't been reading their copy of the 9/11 Commission report throughly! /pedant
Do you mean the Yellow Cake documents? Or maybe Blair's "smoking gun" dossier? Did someone forget to tell Wolfowitz - one of the chief architects of the Iraq War - because he seems to think that "for bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on,"
I thought the main issue was supposed to be nasty diseases - the "bad chemistry and biology" - anyway.


You seem to have missed a large part of the last five years. I suggest you go back over it and do the recommended reading before the final exam.

 

[m_artist200]

1. Preemption: The idea that you must attack your enemy before they attack you.
2. Unilateralism: When we are not able to quickly assemble national support, we must attack alone.
3. Strength Beyond Challenge: The need for America to stay the sole superpower.
4. Spread of Democracy: The promotion of democracy and freedom to other countries around the world.

Yeah, 1 and 4 are kinda conflicting.  If you pre-emptiviely jump at another country based on its government, then enforce an occupation while "rebuilding" the country, the people tend to get a little upset.

And...yeah.  Rule of thumb?  You can't forcefully establish a democracy in a country with strong anti-american sentiments.  Otherwise, if a -legitamate- democracy is ever established, they'll elect someone who exploits/advocates said anti-American sentiments.  Which, in turn, leads to an unsanctioned/unrecognized government, which starts the whole process over again.  's What happend with Iran, after all.

Edit:

1. Do you feel the Bush Doctrine is too extreme?
2. Do you think we should have gone to Iraq?
3. Do you feel we should stay in Iraq?

1. Yes.  It fails to take into consideration even basic reactions that have been historically proven, like the one I just mentioned. 
2.  No, not really.  An Iraq-Al aquida connection is laughable.  Governments don't willing associate with known terrorist organizations because they've got this nasty tendacy of biting you in the backside.  If anything, Saddam actually made it -more- difficult for Al-Quida to operate in Iraq.  Taking him out was probably the worst thing we could've done to "fight terrorism", not only because it made it helluva lot easier to operate, but the over-the-years results of the attack promoted (and still promotes) anti-american sentiments in the general populance, which is what most terrorist organizations exploit when recruiting.
3. Yes and no.  Going in might have been a bad thing, but simply pulling out as things are now would be bad.  Not in a Vietnam-war sense, but it would promote conditions that would work against us in the future.
...

Also, fun fact; the Iraq invasion was predicted around the...1940's?  1960's?  The main motive in the prediction was...oil.  I'll see if i can find the quote again somewhere.  Its in the book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman", if your interested.  Its a good read.

 

[Caesis]

1. They blew up a frekin important building.
2. They also tried to blow up the whitehouse
3. We get reports saying they are making nukes

Could you just clarify a few things here:


By "they", do you mean Al-Qaeda, Iraq, or just Arabs or Muslims?
I thought it was supposed to be the Capitol Building: Somebody hasn't been reading their copy of the 9/11 Commission report throughly! /pedant
Do you mean the Yellow Cake documents? Or maybe Blair's "smoking gun" dossier? Did someone forget to tell Wolfowitz - one of the chief architects of the Iraq War - because he seems to think that "for bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on,"
I thought the main issue was supposed to be nasty diseases - the "bad chemistry and biology" - anyway.


You seem to have missed a large part of the last five years. I suggest you go back over it and do the recommended reading before the final exam.

I mean Al quida(sp) Who hired the hijackers.
Err, no, they targeted many buildings. Look it up, they were after the whitehouse, too.

And be more clear. From what I can see my information is accurate.

 

[Incognitus]

I mean Al quida(sp) Who hired the hijackers.
Err, no, they targeted many buildings. Look it up, they were after the whitehouse, too.

And be more clear. From what I can see my information is accurate.

Err, no. The "official investigation" concluded that the target of Flight 77 was the Capitol Building. Unless more happened on 9/11 that I missed, I'd say you were wrong.

So, what you're saying is... Al Qaeda... in Saddam's Iraq? Just to be more clear.

How would you like me to be more clear on this comment?

Do you mean the Yellow Cake documents? Or maybe Blair's "smoking gun" dossier? Did someone forget to tell Wolfowitz - one of the chief architects of the Iraq War - because he seems to think that "for bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on,"

?

Your information isn't accurate. You need to look a bit more.

 

[Caesis]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/ ... 41029.html
Proof Al quida and Bin Laden had large affiliation with the attacks.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/27/moussaoui/index.html
Moussaoui, member of al-quida states that his mission was to bomb the whitehouse.

Both of those siets are signifigantly important news sites. =p

 

[Incognitus]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/ ... 41029.html
Proof Al quida and Bin Laden had large affiliation with the attacks.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/27/moussaoui/index.html
Moussaoui, member of al-quida states that his mission was to bomb the whitehouse.

Both of those siets are signifigantly important news sites. =p

Let's see. First of all I was asking how Iraq factored into your equations - basically the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No such connection has been found - unless you're Billy Kristol who likes to grasp at straws.

I won't even go into the fact that Binladen "has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.â€