Posted on 04/15/2006 10:25:17 PM PDT by FairOpinion
The doctrine of preemption, first articulated by President Bush at West Point in June 2002, was spelled out in the September 2002 National Security Strategy: "The greater the threat, the greater the risk of inaction — and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves."
Just a few weeks ago, the doctrine was reiterated in the latest National Security Strategy. According to this document, the U.S. may use force before it is attacked because the nation cannot afford to "stand idly by as grave dangers materialize." Yet it is the doctrine itself that is dangerous.
Second, the doctrine of preemption may lead to a less stable world in general — especially if our adversaries believe they are safe from preemptive action only if they possess nuclear weapons.
The U.S. should engage Iran diplomatically.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
The Democrats are DANGEROUS to our very lives.
Have these clowns been paying any attention to Irans military build up and their recent rhetoric?
This is a good place for this quote:
"The 1930's taught us a clear lesson: aggressive conduct, if allowed to go unchecked and unchallenged, ultimately leads to war. This nation is opposed to war. We are also true to our word. Our unswerving objective, therefore, must be to prevent the use of these missiles against this or any other country, and to secure their withdrawal or elimination from the Western Hemisphere.
Our policy has been one of patience and restraint, as befits a peaceful and powerful nation which leads a worldwide alliance. We have been determined not to be diverted from our central concerns by mere irritants and fanatics. But now further action is required, and it is under way; and these actions may only be the beginning. We will not prematurely or unnecessarily risk the costs of worldwide nuclear war in which even the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth; but neither will we shrink from that risk at any time it must be faced.
Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril. Nuclear weapons are so destructive and ballistic missiles are so swift, that any substantially increased possibility of their use or any sudden change in their deployment may well be regarded as a definite threat to peace."
---- John F. Kennedy, Oct. 22, 1962
Seems like JFK was adocating the doctrine of preemption.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkcubanmissilecrisis.html
They are so busy hating Bush, that they don't care about Iran's nuclear buildup. Will they take responsibility if Iran nukes Israel and us?
Iran Flaunts Low-Level Enrichment to Conceal High-Powered Weaponizaton Plant
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1615828/posts
===
The frightening truth of why Iran wants a bomb
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1615802/posts
I say we send the tramp to Tehran and let her negotiate.
I'm sure that she would be welcomed.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
I don't think they would try to use it on a U.S. city either. Regardless of the rhetoric against us, world opinion would against them and not even the U.N. would attempt to get in our way.
For these same reasons, and some of their other rhetoric, I wouldn't be surprised if Israel wasn't the target. There wouldn't be a whole lot of world support for Israel and I do believe the usual suspects would do everything they could to prevent us from responding.
Of course these folks don't seem to be the most rational around.
My personal opinion is that they will nuke something, to show they have the nukes and are willing to use it.
Then they will try to blackmail the world, by threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, nuke Israel, etc. unless the US does this, that, and the other thing. We can't submit to blackmail. Waiting to strike Iran just makes it all that much more dangerous.
In the meantime the left is ratcheting up the rhetoric, trying to undermine support for a preemptive strike against Iran.
That's a real risky proposition when you're counting on a mad man with a nuke to not do something stupid. They pop a nuke off anywhere and you're political toast.
What planet does she live on?
"What planet does she live on?"
Unfortunately, we in California are stuck with this Marxist dolt.
I'm sorry.
Let's face it folks...
The opposition have NO IDEAS, No plan of any kind, they are just going to obstruct, obsfuscate, and complain about anything we might do....
It's sad that we have a large group of AMERICANS betting that America will fail.......
In the world in which now live, Christians are labeled as a HATE GROUP, the Gay Lifestyle is presented as "Normal", Illegals demand RIGHTS, and the PRESIDENT is the hated enemy, NOT the terrorists killing thousands, who want to kill millions......
I fear it will take nothing less than the disapearance of a major American City in a radioactive cloud, and the millions of horrible deaths that will come with it, to change minds...
Now we are faced with having to deal with Iran ALONE...
Either we step up and do the right thing, or we face eventual capitulation....
Our founders would be rolling in thier graves at how easily America has been sold out....
"Is this how Democrasy dies? Not with a whimper, but to thunderous applause??"
Mohomoud Ahmadjihad: Diane Fienstein? Oh no! Oh, herro. Great to see you again, Diane!
Diane notso Feinstien: Mr. Ahmadjihad, I was supposed to be allowed to inspect your palace today, but your guards won't let me enter certain areas.
Mohomoud Ahmadjihad: Diane, Diane, Diane! We've been frew this a dozen times. I don't have any weapons of mass destwuction, OK Diane?
Diane notso Feinstien: Then let me look around, so I can ease the UN's collective mind. I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you. Let me in, or else.
Mohomoud Ahmadjihad: Or else what?
Diane notso Feinstien: Or else we will be very angry with you... and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.
Mohomoud Ahmadjihad: OK, Diane. I'll show you. Stand to your reft.
Diane notso Feinstien: [Moves to the left]
Mohomoud Ahmadjihad: A rittle more.
Diane notso Feinstien: [Moves to the left again]
Mohomoud Ahmadjihad: Good.
[Opens up trap, Hans falls in]
Long, long ago, in a land that seems FAR away, Deocrats were actually PRO-American.......
Your using logical thought..... How dare you...
Salano and the EU have already pre-emptively surrendered to Iran...
Any action to stop them will be taken by us, and alone again...
Let's face it..
The world, the Media, and our own left have absolutely NO INTEREST in stopping Iran. If we had never attacked Iraq, the left would be unleashing curdling screams begging for Saddam's blood....
If it's GOOD for America, and makes Bush look good in ANY way, it's bad for Democrats and the American left, even if it means our eventual defeat.....
"That's a real risky proposition when you're counting on a mad man with a nuke to not do something stupid."
What do you do when he has a whole bunch of them? Take him out along with his capabilities now before they grow. If he'll use one he'll use many.
LOL!
Unfrotunately, that's about the way it goes, except we aren't so lucky to have DiFi fall throuw a trap door.
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.