posted on September 20, 2002 07:28:10 AM new
A senior White House official said Mr. Bush had edited this document heavily "because he thought there were sections where we sounded overbearing or arrogant." I think we should be scared....very scared.
How outrageous can it get....when you read the New York Times and have to check to make sure that it's not a spoof by the Onion. But this is the real Bush!
WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 — On Friday, the Bush administration will publish its first comprehensive rationale for shifting American military strategy toward pre-emptive action against hostile states and terrorist groups developing weapons of mass destruction. The strategy document will also state, for the first time, that the United States will never allow its military supremacy to be challenged the way it was during the cold war.
In the 33-page document, Mr. Bush also seeks to answer the critics of growing American muscle-flexing by insisting that the United States will exploit its military and economic power to encourage "free and open societies," rather than seek "unilateral advantage." It calls this union of values and national interests "a distinctly American internationalism."
The document, titled "The National Security Strategy of the United States," is one that every president is required to submit to Congress. It is the first comprehensive explanation of the administration's foreign policy, from defense strategy to global warming. A copy of the final draft was obtained by The New York Times.
It sketches out a far more muscular and sometimes aggressive approach to national security than any since the Reagan era. It includes the discounting of most nonproliferation treaties in favor of a doctrine of "counterproliferation," a reference to everything from missile defense to forcibly dismantling weapons or their components. It declares that the strategies of containment and deterrence — staples of American policy since the 1940's — are all but dead. There is no way in this changed world, the document states, to deter those who "hate the United States and everything for which it stands."
"America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones," the document states, sounding what amounts to a death knell for many of the key strategies of the cold war.
One of the most striking elements of the new strategy document is its insistence "that the president has no intention of allowing any foreign power to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago."
"Our forces will be strong enough," Mr. Bush's document states, "to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States." With Russia so financially hobbled that it can no longer come close to matching American military spending, the doctrine seemed aimed at rising powers like China, which is expanding its conventional and nuclear forces.
posted on September 20, 2002 07:33:48 AM new
I should include this...
The president put the final touches on the new strategy last weekend at Camp David after working on it for months with his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and with other members of the national security team. In its military hawkishness, its expressions of concern that Russian reforms could be undermined by the country's elite, and its focus on bolstering foreign aid — especially for literacy training and AIDS — it particularly bears the stamp of Ms. Rice's thinking.
A senior White House official said Mr. Bush had edited the document heavily "because he thought there were sections where we sounded overbearing or arrogant." But at the same time, the official said, it is important to foreclose the option that other nations could aspire to challenge the United States militarily, because "once you cut off the challenge of military competition, you open up the possibility of cooperation in a number of other areas."
Still, the administration's critics at home and abroad will almost certainly find ammunition in the document for their argument that Mr. Bush is only interested in a multilateral approach as long as it does not frustrate his will. At several points, the document states clearly that when important American interests are at stake there will be no compromise.
The document argues that while the United States will seek allies in the battle against terrorism, "we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively." That includes "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities" not to aid terrorists, the essence of the doctrine Mr. Bush declared on the night of Sept. 11, 2001.
..........
In fact, the new document — which Mr. Bush told his staff had to be written in plain English because "the boys in Lubbock ought to be able to read it" — celebrates his decision last year to abandon the ABM treaty because it impeded American efforts to build a missile defense system. It recites the dangers of nonproliferation agreements that have failed to prevent Iran, North Korea, Iraq and other countries from obtaining weapons of mass destruction, and says that the United States will never subject its citizens to the newly created International Criminal Court, "whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans."
The document makes no reference to the Kyoto accord, but sets an "overall objective" of cutting American greenhouse gas emissions "per unit of economic activity by 18 percent over the next 10 years." The administration says that is a reasonable goal given its view of the current state of environmental science. Its critics, however, point out that the objective is voluntary, and allows enormous room for American emissions to increase as the American economy expands.
posted on September 20, 2002 08:33:00 AM new
The proliferation of nuclear technology and capability is a direct threat to the United States, and other world nations.
If enemy nations are pursuing this technology, IMO that makes them a target. Clearly, we are offering Hussein the option to discontinue his efforts. The Congress and the United Nations (although grudgingly) are witness to that.
Our country is based on principles of freedom, but in this day and age we should recognize, that freedom does not extend to our enemies. With its oil and its conventional weapons, Iraq is powerful enough in its region. We should not acquiece to Iraq becoming a global nuclear power. That is where our good will must end.
I would suggest that when we finish with Iraq, the job will not be done. We still have Saudi Arabia to deal with. The Saudis must put aside terrorism and join the world community. At the point of a gun, if necessary. We are not doing the world any favors by allowing tyrants to arm themselves with WOMD.
posted on September 20, 2002 11:15:39 AM new
Who the heck are WE to say who can and cannot have certain "toys"? Gee, wouldn't it be a shame if the UN suddenly said that according to our acting so irresponsibly(and we have), we are to dismantle our WOMD or face attack by the ENTIRE WORLD!
.
A Man will spend $2.00 for a $1.00 item he needs.
A Woman will spend $1.00 for a $2.00 item she doesn't need.
posted on September 20, 2002 01:26:17 PM new
WE are who WE are and THEY are who THEY are and the difference works for me. I'm glad the President has stated we will no longer play the role of "Uncle Sap" and be an immobile target.
Every conflict we've ever been in we get the cr*p beat out of us in the beginning. The stakes get higher with each passing year. Before a group of these "misunderstood" individuals of "another culture" decide to attack an embassy or grab hostages, they should be filled with fear as to what our response will be. And it should be our policy to hold the governments where these people reside accountable. And WE will determine if said governments are doing enough to combat these individuals.
posted on September 20, 2002 01:28:29 PM new
I'm withholding my opinion on this one until we hear from the shrewd reasoning of Linda_K and DeSqurrel first.
posted on September 20, 2002 01:50:18 PM new
It's just another statement of the imperialistic plan to insure the permanence and prosperity of Our Beloved Oligarchy which has been clear from the beginning of the Bush ascendancy. In the unlikely event that anyone else in the world should benefit, that result will be purely incidental. In the more likely event that everyone else in the world will somehow suffer, that result will be unfortunate but unavoidable.
posted on September 20, 2002 02:10:56 PM new>WE are who WE are and THEY are who THEY are and the difference works for me
Arrogant attitutde, that is until you become "THEY"
It is not "poke me with a stick, lose an arm" It is take all your wood and burn it because you "might" poke me with a stick.
.
A Man will spend $2.00 for a $1.00 item he needs.
A Woman will spend $1.00 for a $2.00 item she doesn't need.
[ edited by mlecher on Sep 20, 2002 02:13 PM ]
posted on September 20, 2002 03:36:40 PM new
Right. If we took every drop of Oil from Iraq for ourselves, then what possible threat could Iraq and Saddam ever be to us? Therefore, it is in our best interests to go relive them of their Oil before it can be used against us.
In the meantime, there's this rice field in Thailand with plans to invade the USA . . .
To attack a country of people without provocation is immoral and barbaric. Now Bush wants imperialistic power to expand the war if he determines that it is necessary to Syria, Sudan and Iran. George Bush is dangerously out of control.
posted on September 20, 2002 08:11:31 PM new
This isn't about "toys" nor is it about "poking someone with a stick."
America's resolve lasted about two weeks after 9/11. Now we're back to our comfortable, fat little lives. To hell with the rest of the world. Do you think Syria's and Iraq's governments are so swell? Maybe you just don't give a damn for anything that happens beyond your front porch.
posted on September 20, 2002 09:38:38 PM new
>America's resolve lasted about two weeks after 9/11.
Actually, it took a few months to get straightened out. Seems as those of you, such as twinsoft, seem to have also forgotten about this Cheryl Again. A Chronology.
That, and other facts that have come to light, point out that it was our own government who caused Al-Queda to attack us, and our own government giving in to special interests that allowed airline security to be so lax in comparison with the rest of the airports in the world. Now that we are more sober, we realize that this matter is not black and white.
However, since we have to do more than just talk a lot and beat up nearly defenseless thrid owrld countires, we do need to go after countries that have suppoorted and do support Al-Queda now, such as, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and The Sudan. When we have control of Mecca and plant a nuclear weapon on the Stone and threaten that it will go when America gets attacked again, only then will we have peace.
posted on September 20, 2002 11:28:19 PM new
"George Bush is dangerously out of control."
LOL
With a new mandate from the UN, allies signing back on, a resolution due to be overwhelmingly approved by Congress, 65% public approval if Hussein does not allow unconditional inspections and a 70% approval rating, every president should be so out of control.
The real fear is: what if Hussein cooperates???? But I doubt if that will happen.
Borillar
As to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and The Sudan, Pakistan is cracking down and should be encouraged. The Sudan seems a prime target. The Saudis, on the other hand, should be told in no uncertain terms that they better start cracking heads or we'll get ourselves a different set of princes. Unless we commit to this totally, it's all just a waste of time.
posted on September 21, 2002 06:36:48 AM new
DeSquirrel
As usual, DeSquirrel, your comments are simply defensive and in this case inaccurate.
A new mandate from the UN??? What in the world are you talking about? Bush said,"The United Nations can have a role, but if it makes the wrong decision it will be "irrelevant."
As a matter of fact, he does NOT have the approval of the UN...Where are you reading your news? Russia, France and China are not in support of Bush.
Furthermore, Bush has stated that he will not be controlled by Congress or by the United Nations. Bush is OUT OF CONTROL.
posted on September 21, 2002 06:50:35 AM new
Bush always states that he has no quarrel with the people of Iraq yet he has no concern for their fate. This war will have no effect on terrorism except to escalate it. The worst weapon of mass destruction is hate and this president is in the business of promoting hate. An attack on Iraq will have nothing to do with stopping terrorism. It will have nothing to do with the liberation of the Iraqi people. And you are in the dark if you believe that it has anything to do with weapons of mass destruction.
This is a war to gain political power and control oil in the entire mid-east.
posted on September 21, 2002 07:32:44 AM new
"A new mandate from the UN??? "
New inspections are set up and to be enforced by the security council.
"The United Nations can have a role, but if it makes the wrong decision it will be "irrelevant."
Exactly. What is the point of passing a resolution if you don't enforce it.
"Where are you reading your news? Russia, France and China are not in support of Bush."
All the majors are reporting Russia & France will agree and China will abstain rather than vote againt the US if Iraq again pulls its' shennanigans with inspections.
"Bush has stated that he will not be controlled by Congress or by the United Nations"
Congress is overwhelmingly in support and the UN is irrelevant and in control of nothing.
posted on September 21, 2002 07:56:31 AM new
Bush quote
<<"The United Nations can have a role, but if it makes the wrong decision it will be "irrelevant.">>
DeSquirrel...By that remark, Bush was stating that unless the UN supports his decision to attack Iraq that he will simply ignore it because it's wrong from his viewpoint.
Let's don't rush to judgement about who will give their support to George Bush.
posted on September 21, 2002 09:43:46 AM new
The U.N. can kiss my hiney. It's run by the Arab states. The U.N. is dumping money into Palestinian refugee camps, knowing full well that money is going to support terrorism. Bush is right on the mark.
posted on September 21, 2002 03:56:19 PM new
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do Evil in return.
W.H. AUDEN, "September 1, 1939
If you care about truth, and not just what you've been told all your life, then you may come to believe, as we have, that one of the greatest injustices the world has ever known has been done to the Palestinian people.
Objections to Israel and its policies do not reflect anti-Jewish beliefs. Palestine is simply a matter of freedom lost and justice denied.
The latest murder, which killed six or seven civilians, took place on Allenby St., the most crowded shopping district in Tel Aviv. The efforts of the bus driver to prevent the terrorist from boarding saved scores of innocent lives.
Oh, it's justice denied all right. At least we agree on that much.
Norman Solomon has shown that U.S. news services repeatedly refer to massive Israeli Army invasion of Palestine and destruction of whole neighborhoods, with thousands of men, women and children killed and injured in the rubble, as Israeli "retaliation" for individual Palestinian suicide bombers Israeli cafes and other public places that has killed dozens.
But only once did Solomon find our news services use the word "retaliation" to explain Palestinian suicide bombers for Israel's massive invasion of Palestine, its seizing the best land, water and electrical sources within Palestine, building of Jewish settlements on Palestinian property and protecting them with deadly military force with a network of Israeli Army roads covering Palestine that, along with long and repeated day-long curfews of Palestinian cities, has paralyzed the Muslim society, machine gunned its ambulances and caused malnutrition among some Palestinian children.
Neither does it seem to have occurred to Sharon and his supporters that the more the Israelis imposed killings and destruction on Palestinians, the more Palestinian youths have blown themselves in Tel Aviv cafes in what is clearly retaliation for what Israel has done to their homeland. The one-sided response of the White House and most of the major news media has put cruel pressure on all Americans who are Muslims or are of Arab or other Middle Eastern origin.
That kind of imbalance and diminution of full and precise information in basic reporting in the main body of American news media has increased the probability of American hysteria and panic. The same is not true in Europe and elsewhere because both the news and official statements of European leaders have been more balanced and less high-pitched in denunciations of one side.
But the ultimate sign of hysterical response, of course, is in President Bush's preparation to commit the United States to war against Iraq. This is not a public riot, but it does reflect the Allport-Postman thesis: by his constant support of Prime Minister Sharon's destruction and killings in Palestine as necessary Israeli "defense," thus encouraging international violence in that part of the Middle East, he has raised public tensions sufficiently to offer an outlet in a war (or, Sharon-like, a "defense" against Sadam Hussein and the country of Iraq.
This does not mean that Sadam Hussein is a saint any more than Yassir Arafat is a saint. But it does mean that the White House and the nature of American basic news sources on the Middle East have raised public tensions while fundamental credible and precise information is lacking or what little there exists in the main media is smothered in the public rhetoric of threats and war from leadership in Washington.
posted on September 22, 2002 12:01:56 AM new
Speaking of bad math ... thousands vs. dozens?
You can quote your biased sources, and I can quote mine. But it seems to me, the real question is, "Does the Palestinian suffering justify use of terrorism?"
Is there any justification at all in raising children to become "martyrs" to the Palestinian cause? Is it just possible that these children being conditioned to blow themselves up are victims of their own corrupt political system?
It makes about as much sense as Islamic Jihad justifying the attacks on New York. You are well-meaning, but you have been duped by the rhetoric which states that terrorism is a political tool, a means to achieve a political end.
Are the Palestinians closer today to statehood than they were two years ago? No. Thousands of young men have died. Their political infrastructure and economy are in shambles. Even assuming that Israelis are the aggressors (which they are not), Intefadeh has failed to liberate the Palestinian people.
posted on September 22, 2002 12:22:59 AM new
Helen, I think that DeSquirrel is listening to the FoxNews channel too much! I inadvertently tuned in there today thinking I had CNN on and I was wondering what all of the Pro-Bush/Rah!-Rah!-Rah! that was going on for with CNN? Eventually, station identification came about and then I realized that I was listening to the direct voice of the Republicans! Yech! I have to tell you, that FoxNews is not only biased as hell, but is gleefully disseminating disinformation in dump-truck loads! I heard so much garbage and flag waving and Bush-Is-God-On-Earth crap that I thought that I was in the Twilight Zone for a few minutes! I imagine that DeSquirrel sits glued to that channel all day long and forms his opinions about everything. That he doesn't see what is wrong with "The United Nations can have a role, but if it makes the wrong decision it will be "irrelevant." has to say something about his comprehension factor. Don't be distraught by the nonsense.
posted on September 22, 2002 12:30:14 AM new
OK, twinsoft, I give up! I'm firmly in your corner now. OK, lesse what we do first? OK, we convince Bush to NOT go after Saddam until he's leveled the Palestinian refugee camps and most of all, the Palestinians living around Israel. Let's drive those Palestinians back to Saudi Arabia with a hail of bullets followed up by bulldozers lined up a mile wide and scrap the earth of their entire foul, Palestinian stench - right? I'm serious! If we kill or drive out all of the Palestinians within a 100-mile radius of Israel and prevent their return (shot-on-sight) in the No-Palestinian Zone, then the Arabs won't have anything to complain about, will they? They won't be attacking Israel, because they aren't within walking distance of bombers or artillery shells.
Only AFTER we've applied the "Palestinian Solution" should we then go after Saddam and any other crybaby Islamic state -- right?
For every Israeli killed, 500 Palistinians should suffer!
posted on September 22, 2002 01:07:52 AM new
As usual Borillar, you always have to resort to invention. Don't really ever catch Fox, but then again, ALL of the news channels seem to have the same assessment, so I don't know what the ratings winner is on planet Borillar. And as usual, you don't respond to anything specific, but blather on about Republicans, or Bush, or Bush & the Republicans. I know you get on your knees praying for a "Dewey defeats Truman" scenario, but Gallup, etc, does not "create" findings.
As to my opinion of the UN, it is still a useless, ineffectual, modern day League of Nations because it has a lot of rules and no enforcement. It is a creation of the US and is so enamored, it would collapse of its' own weight if the US scaled back contributions to its' "fair share".
posted on September 22, 2002 01:20:24 AM new
Borillar, I'm not sure. Should we give the Palestinians back the land they lost in 1967, based solely on their promise that they won't do it again? Not much of an incentive. Oh, but then I forgot to factor in the fact that their kids are strapping themselves with explosives and blowing up our citizens. Well, that's a real incentive. And it sure demonstrates their committment to peace.
The problem in dealing with knee-jerk extreme leftists such as yourselves is that there's no thinking going on. Israel is an ally of the United States, therefore Israel is bad. The lights are on but there's nobody home. Just take a look at a freaking map and you can see why 1967 borders are indefensible. While Israeli courts are defending the rights of terrorists, Palestinians are dragging so-called Israeli collaborators into the streets and shooting them. (Oh, but I forgot, that's "okay" because Palestinians are oppressed.)
Saddam Hussein? Oh yeah, I remember. The guy who started lobbing scud missles at Tel Aviv during the Gulf War. (Still don't remember what Israel did exactly to provoke him.) Hey, isn't he that crazy nut who's paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers? Well, he's had 10 years to think about what he did (and develop WOMD). He's changed. He says he's changed, anyway. Let's believe him.
Your Palestinian solution? You're not far off the mark. Problem is, Israeli settlements (the religious right) are too spread out, and Israeli economy is based on cheap Palestinian labor. Israel is paying the price for those mistakes. Israel should establish its own defensible borders, declare a state of war with "Palestine," establish a no-man's land and defend itself using whatever means necessary.
I've got no respect for religious zealots on either side of the argument.
posted on September 22, 2002 10:33:46 AM new
>As to my opinion of the UN, it is still a useless, ineffectual, modern day League of Nations because it has a lot of rules and no enforcement.
That is due to a complete misunderstanding of what the United Nations is all about. The UN is a place to find DIPLOMATIC SOLUTIONS, not millitary! They do get together to help one another out. It is a place to make deals between countries. It's purpose is to put countries together in peace and mutual friendship, not go blasting one another!
That is where Bush sounds so completely stupid trying to make his case before them. The White House knows that Talking Big to a load of diplomats is just so much Hot Air to them! Why do you think that there was so much media coverage of the event, so much praise for the nighborhood bully telling off the other kids on the playground? Image.
And it all relies upon the ignorance of people like you, DeSquirrel. The ignorance of the UN's mission, the ignorance of what Bush's blather and threats mean to to the UN diplomats, the ridiculous image of Bush lambasting foreign countries for having non-Democratic elections. The list is endless. And it all relies upon people not having any idea what the truth is.
