Replies

Your definition of preemptive war is false and deceptive having nothing to do with your "example."

OK -- I'll accept that. I want you to: 1) define "preemptive war" for me; and 2) describe what aspect of it is so "brilliant" on the part of Messrs. Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith.

GC cannot make the Chinese rockets work better nor can it provide ANYTHING of great significance to China.

Bullsh!t. Then why would the company need a waiver from the U.S. Department of Defense in order to sell its fiber-optic technology to China?

Ask yourself an honest question here: Would you be making these excuses for Bernard Schwartz if Loral had been selling fiber-optic technology to Red China in 1996 instead of guidance system technology?

I didn't think so.

Fiber optic technology is NOT missle guidance systems so stop trying to confuse the issue. Loral and Schwartz became public enemies for BRIBING the Abomination to RETROACTIVELY change the rules allowing Loral to give the technology to China. It had broken the law and then had the law changed to make it legal.

That is NOTHING like Global Crossing's activities. Motorola has probably done much more to assist the Chinese with communication technology than Global Crossing. Not to mention Hughes.

Preemptive war is a war fought against an enemy which is bent upon fighting you and which is funding enemies to fight you and which is training enemies to fight you and which would provide weaponry to fight you. It is a rare phenomenon not likely to be used much. After its application to Iraq our enemies get the picture and will not provoke us with terrorist puppets. Although I can't really claim this was preemptive considering the decade long state of warfare which existed between the UN and Iraq. Essentially it is based upon the recognition that the status of weaponry is now such that we will not wait until hit with another catastrophic attack such as the WTC or OKC before acting nor will we wait until the UN allows us.

Their brilliance comes from the unwavering patriotism shown by those men in pushing a policy which runs counter to the girly man philosophy which dominated the nineties. Our action in Afganistan made it clear that we will not allow a state to harbor these killers under the pretense that the state has nothing to do with their actions. This policy will hold such a state accountable and no longer will the terrorists scurry back to their bases and escape unscathed.

Those days are gone as long as we have courageous and far-sighted thinkers such as Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz, Perle etc who understand the nature of the new war and are not afraid to act for the National security interests of the United States no matter what the DNC or UN think about it.