Kerry Backs Much of Pre-Emption Doctrine

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thanatoast, Jul 17, 2004.

  1. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #1
    So, is this Kerry just trying to sound tough for all the split voters who actually believe in this doctrine? Or does he really believe in it? If he actually plans to use pre-emption as a defining doctrine in his policy, what's the point of voting for him? Has Bush so changed the rules of the game that we can only operate foreign policy by way of open war?
     
  2. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #2
    This is Kerry stating what every President in history has said. Sure he is also trying to sound tough, but there is nothing to get excited about here. What Bush has stated in his doctrine of preemption is that there doesn't need to be a threat to this country or its allies in order to strike first. In the context of the post 9/11 world no one doubts the right, both morally and in international law, for the US to strike at al Qaeda. What Bush did, and Kerry does not support, is the use of force when there is not an imminent danger to the US. The reporter just doesn't understand the difference.
     
  3. Thanatoast thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #3
    Wouldn't this be an important distinction to make sure comes out in the story? Sloppy thinking (and in this case, sloppy reporting) gets us into too many troubles.
     
  4. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #4
    my guess is that kerry meant a strike against terrorist camps etc. and not a full scale invasion with his "preemption strike" was

    but i had to grin about your last sentence ;)
     
  5. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #5
    I agree with this interpretation. Still a breach of sovereignty, but no more "ownership", in Colin Powell's terms. That is more in the spirit of the UN Charter anyway.
     
  6. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #6
    If the rulers of a country are proven to be actively supporting a terrorist group which is known to be planning a strike, is invasion then warranted?

    ("Proven" and "known" are intended, here, to be reliable and absolute terms.)

    'Rat
     
  7. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #7
    I can't imagine a situation where you would gain from an invasion. A pre-emptive strike on a base is one thing, taking over a country is quite another. Anyway, you'd have to make a very good argument to convince the UNSC. There ARE provisions if the threat is clear enough. I think Bush should be pressed on the legality of what he did, not just the political wisdom. Looks like this is happening over here already:



    http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=542151
     
  8. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #8
    Would there have been near the disruptions of Al Qaida's affairs/capabilities had we not gone into Afghanistan and ended Taliban support for AQ?

    'Rat
     
  9. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #9
    That was with UN approval, wasn't it?
     
  10. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #10
    What if those words aren't proven to be as reliable as we think they are?

    Besides, haven't you always argued that intel gathering isn't an exact science? That's been your defense for Dubya Inc. many times.

    And this is like asking if you are in favor of the death penalty in cases where guilt is assured. It's a nice moral debating point with no basis in reality. It's analogous to my HS physics classes that would ask us to solve problems "in the absence of air resistance". Great practice on the theoretical aspects, but absolutely no use IRL.
     
  11. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #11
    The US had the right under international law to go into Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. This was upheld in UN Security Council resolutions (S/RES 1368 and 1373 both passed in Sept. 2001) and was also supported through the invocation of Article 5 of NATO.

    The invasion of Iraq has no such justification. Although the Bush administration likes to wave around the Security Council resolutions of a decade earlier, when it finds them convenient, there was no authorization for the US to invade and there was no evidence of an imminent threat to the US from Iraq. Made up and exaggerated threats do no qualify.
     
  12. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #12
    Just what I said, but a bit more long-winded... :rolleyes:
     
  13. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #13
    I specialize in long winded. ;)

    I thought I'd give the resolutions numbers and throw in my two cents.
     
  14. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #14
    Thanks. A few facts never go amiss. ;)
     
  15. GeeYouEye macrumors 68000

    GeeYouEye

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2001
    Location:
    State of Denial
    #15
    UNSC Resolution 1441 does not equate with "Security Council resolutions of a decade earlier".
     
  16. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #16
    No, it does not. The resolution , passed in 2002, is very important in that it gives Iraq one more chance to comply with previous resolutions and let UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq and demands Iraq provide the UN with complete accounting of its WMD weapons programs. It also specifically states that it (the Security Council) "[d]ecides to convene immediately ... in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security." It further warns of "serious consequences" if its demands are not met. No where does resolution 1441 give the US the right to invade.

    If I remember my recent history right, Iraq complied with this resolution (finally) and gave an accounting as well as let Hans Blix and his inspectors back into the country. At no time did the Security Council give Bush the legal right to invade. Which is the whole point of this discussion, long-winded as it may be. ;)
     
  17. tristan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Location:
    high-rise in beautiful bethesda
    #17
    Parties are almost identical on foreign policy

    This fits in with my theory that Democrats and Republicans are almost identical on foreign policy and only really differ on domestic issues.

    The stereotype is that Dems are more pacifist and Reps are aggressive, but:

    Kennedy invaded Cuba and sent the first troops to Vietnam
    LBJ stepped up the Vietnam war
    Nixon recognized Communist China
    Carter tried to free the hostages through military means
    Reagan made more arms reduction deals than anybody
    For all his talk, the only country Reagan invaded was Grenada
    Reagan, Bush, and Gorbachev were best buddies
    Bush gave MFN to China for years
    Clinton bombed Iraq and sent troops to Bosnia that are still there
    Kerry and most other democrats voted for just about everything Bush has done

    So I don't really think the parties are very different on foreign policy - When you're Commander in Chief, your decision making process is based on strategic interests and is pretty much independent of party. I believe that President Al Gore would have invaded Iraq based on best available (though ultimately sketchy) CIA intel, and would have gotten beaten up by the right for the decision - just like Blair's getting beaten up by the Tories.
     
  18. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #18
    I think a good argument can be made for your view that the GOP and the Democrats were very close in foreign policy before Bush. Although their have been times when there where very important differences in specific areas, such as McGovern vs. Nixon around the Vietnam War or Reagan vs. Mondale on negotiations with the Soviets or support and training of death squads, in a general view of the world that reflected itself in overall policy there was indeed a consensus since Truman's Containment days.

    Bush has changed all of that. His adoption of the neoconservative view of the world is a fundamental break with the consensus that had the US as the leader of a multinational commitment to, at least formally, support for international law and to oppose the preemptive use of force without the existence of an imminent threat. This is a move back to the days when the old colonial powers reserved for themselves the right to use their military power to reorder the world as they see fit. That is an important and real difference between Kerry and Bush.
     
  19. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #19
    An important distinction, yes -- but also a subtle one, and I'm afraid far too subtle to communicate effectively to voters. The message Bush will hammer home for the next few months will be blunt, if only half-true: "Kerry supported the war, now he opposes it." How does Kerry craft a response that doesn't sound to most people like he's shaving or hedging? I hope he can, but I honestly don't see how. Instead, I think he'll advance the vague argument, "Bush is reckless, I am not."
     
  20. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #20
    Kerry tries to do this when he talks about the use of force as a last resort not as a first response, and when he talks about our support for historical alliances. The reality is the perception of who is right will be decided by the events on the ground in Iraq. At this point that perception by voters doesn't look very promising for Bush.
     
  21. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #21
    Not really sure where if this thread is a good place for this quote, but I found it so priceless, I had to post it...
    Even with our currents administration's obvious reality-impairment and penchant for irony...this has got to be a classic.

    I can't really say much more, as I am somewhat dumbfounded by it's existence...except to say, if you agree that US intelligence has been excellent and National Security tight in the last 3 and-a-half years, vote Bush...if not Vote Kerry...(doesn't anyone read the paper any more?)
     
  22. Thanatoast thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #22
    "Bush lied and I believed him. Let's not make the same mistake twice"
    But voters tend to make big noise about foriegn policy, and then vote according to the domestic economy. So unless Iraq is truly fubared, it may not affect Bush's support enough to elect Kerry.
     
  23. Leo Hubbard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #23
     
  24. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #24
    No one said Kerry was perfect. Just better than Bush by a million miles.
     
  25. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #25
    That's a hell of a lot different from going to war on a false pretext.
     

Share This Page