Posted on 04/14/2006 9:44:49 AM PDT by RWR8189
NEW YORK The recent publication of the second Bush administration statement on national strategy passed without the controversy that marked its predecessor in 2002 even though the new statement reiterates the commitment to a strategy of pre-emption in exactly the same words as the last.
When the doctrine of pre-emption was first put forward, it was attacked as being contrary to generally accepted principles of the international system, which had evolved over three centuries and were enshrined in the United Nations Charter in 1945.
The 2006 report was received with less hostility because other countries have had more experience now with the emerging new threats - and partly because a more conciliatory American diplomacy has left new scope for consultation.
There has evolved a reluctant recognition that pre-emption may be so built into modern weapons technology that some reconsideration of existing rules is overdue.
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
"The 2006 report was received with less hostility because other countries have had more experience now with the emerging new threats ..." Henry is dillusional if he thinks 'other countries' are more than clueless ... even riots over cartoons in Europe do not clue in the socialist europeans regarding the demonic nature of Islam because to acknowledge such would at once point to the opposite also and the socialist europeans aren't about to question their own assumed godhood.
IHT is excerpt only, that's why I excerpted it.
Not to mention its a product of Tribune Media Services, which is also excerpt only.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1111944/posts
The excerpt list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.