Preventive War

User Forum Topic
Submitted by 4plexowner on January 6, 2007 - 2:28pm

There seem to be a lot of people on Piggington's that support Bush and what he is up to.

Here are some quotes for you to consider:

You cannot prevent and prepare for war at the same time. ~Albert Einstein

Preventive war is like committing suicide for fear of death. ~Bismarck

Submitted by TheBreeze on January 6, 2007 - 3:29pm.

Here's another relevant quote:

"You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." ~George Bush

It looks like Bush knows his base pretty well. ;-)

Submitted by bgates on January 6, 2007 - 5:09pm.

Breeze, that line is almost as funny as the fact that you think finding it on a website, without citation, means it must be true. That website knows its market pretty well - suckers who will believe anything that speaks badly of Bush. It's not like the man lacks documented verbal screwups, yet you can't manage to find anything real to support what I'll generously call your 'point'?

4plex, we were prepared for war in Kuwait from 1991 to 2003, and no war came. We were unprepared in 1990, and guess what?

Suppose we made an immediate, credible commitment to abjure preparation for war, and withdrew all American forces to the US. Would that make war more or less likely in Korea? Or Taiwan? Israel made a preemptive strike against Iraq's nuclear capability over 20 years ago. Would they have been safer leaving Saddam alone?

Submitted by TheBreeze on January 6, 2007 - 5:43pm.

Gates, I agree that Bush has many, many, many, many, many documented screwups. And yet ... there are those that still support him. Why is that?

Oh yeah, another quote for you: "Nobody died when Clinton lied."

Submitted by CardiffBaseball on January 6, 2007 - 6:11pm.

Preventative War - Israel's coming strategic nuclear attack on Iran.

At least according Drudge's link to the London Times.

Submitted by bgates on January 6, 2007 - 7:01pm.

Breeze, the way you repeat words is very,very,very convincing.

I still support Bush, with respect to the subject of this thread, because he's better than the alternatives. We're at war with religious totalitarians who are happy to die while murdering people who won't submit to them, and much of the country would rather talk about some long-ago sex scandal with an intern than figure out what to do about the threats facing America today.

We are in Iraq, but many of Iraq's problems are imported from Iran. We should be putting consistent pressure on Iran over offenses like the shipments of new Iranian arms into the country and the financial aid given to Shia and Sunni militias. We should support Iranian reform movements because it's the right thing to do and to put pressure on that regime. And we should make Iran and Syria pay a penalty for letting fighters enter Iraq from their soil. No need for an invasion, but the Air Force and Navy could certainly get involved - may as well shoot at them, they're shooting at us.

Or maybe you're right, and there would be no war if only Clinton was still president. Maybe our enemies were satisfied with the attempt to destroy the WTC in 1993, the bombing of the army barracks in 1996, and the American embassies in 1998, and the warship in 2000, and they were about to stop. Maybe Saddam was finally convinced to disarm by Clinton's 1998 bombing campaign (he must have still had WMD capability then, otherwise Clinton would have 'lied', right?) Maybe Saddam became a changed man after that. I don't think so.

Anyway, Clinton couldn't have served a third term; the alternative to Bush was the lying unilateralist warmonger who said this:

Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint.

Look up who said that one.

Submitted by jg on January 6, 2007 - 7:09pm.

Yeh, what bg said!

How's life in Orlando, bg? Hope that you're squirreling away those dollars that you don't have to pay in income taxes!

Where's JES to pile on, here?

Submitted by deadzone on January 6, 2007 - 7:31pm.

Who gives a crap what Clinton said about Iraq, he did not direct a botched, poorly planned occupation of Iraq. You can thank W. for that brilliant move.

Submitted by bgates on January 6, 2007 - 7:40pm.

Hey, jg. Orlando is not San Diego. I'd be willing to pay some income tax to deal with some of the traffic and crime problems. The worst part, though, has been the football. The week the Chargers had their 42 point come from behind win against Cincinnati, I got Miami-Buffalo. I hope I can still see three games with the old home town team between now and the end of the season.

Actually, I got to hear some commentary on the Bengals game. I flipped to C-SPAN at halftime, and John Kerry was saying how Schottenheimer was a failure, he hadn't made a workable game plan, the Chargers had destroyed their standing in the league and should fly back to San Diego immediately rather than face further humiliation in the second half, etc. I switched back when he started complaining about how soccer's a better game anyway but Americans are too stupid to appreciate it.

Submitted by bgates on January 6, 2007 - 7:57pm.

OK, deadzone.

Thanks for trying to forestall a fullscale civilizational war with Islam by setting up the first representative government in the history of the Arab world, Mr President!

Thanks for the reminder, deadzone. I should do that more often.

Submitted by jg on January 6, 2007 - 7:58pm.

Ha, ha, ha about Kerry/Schottenheimer/Chargers.

Things will get better for the Dolphins when Ricky 'Ganja Man' Williams gets back; I read today that he's begun the process to get reinstated.

Traffic is getting lighter here with the illegals heading back south due to slowdown in work. But, I'm guessing that crime here will be taking a turn for the worse.

High prices, high taxes, and high crime; jeez. I'm clicking my heels now, hoping for Texas. Ouch, my wife just gave me a sharp elbow to the ribs.

Submitted by bgates on January 6, 2007 - 8:09pm.

You know what Nick Saban said about Ricky Williams, jg - 'He may have tried marijuana, but at least he never liberated anyone from a totalitarian dictatorship.'

That's what theBreeze calls a 'quote'.

Submitted by deadzone on January 6, 2007 - 8:23pm.

Kind of silly how the NFL kicks out Ricky Williams for smoking weed while everyone in the league is taking steroids, growth hormones, etc.

Submitted by PerryChase on January 6, 2007 - 8:47pm.

That's exactly why I have no sympathy for the athletes who suffer chronic diseases begining middle age. They did it to themselves now let them deal with it.

Kinda like the war. I'm so digusted with Bush that I don't even care anymore. He dug his own hole, now let him extricate himself out. He won't listen to reason so the opposition should just sit tight and let him stumble flat on his face. Failure will be his legacy.

Submitted by jg on January 6, 2007 - 9:26pm.

Heartless, Perry.

Do you feel sorry for Romo, the Dallas quarterback, who just blew it on the hold for the game winning field goal, in the first round of the playoffs?

What a shocking finish!

Submitted by sdrealtor on January 6, 2007 - 10:19pm.


Submitted by greekfire on January 7, 2007 - 12:08am.

Concerning Romo, what goes up must come down. I can't believe he got selected to the Pro Bowl after only 6 games of experience. Now that I think of it, did you see the replay of the ball that was snapped? It looked like it was rubbed down with olive oil, KY, or another lubricant of some sort. No wonder he muffed it. Either way, I don't care as long as my Patriots beat the Jets tomorrow. You know Drew Bledsoe is smiling to himself after Romo's performance tonight.

Submitted by greekfire on January 7, 2007 - 9:39am.


Submitted by zk on January 8, 2007 - 3:40pm.


"Thanks for trying to forestall a fullscale civilizational war with Islam by setting up the first representative government in the history of the Arab world, Mr President!"

Setting up a representative government? Where? When? Surely you don't mean Iraq. That country's government can't even protect its people, let alone represent them.

"trying to forestall a fullscale civilizational war with Islam."

By invading the least Islamic nation in the middle east and turning it into the middle east nation with the most violent Islamic strife? By angering most of the muslims in the world by attacking Iraq? By creating an outlaw land that is a perfect place to recruit, train, develop and turn loose on the world islamic terrorists? Sounds to me like he vastly increased the potential for fullscale civilizational war with Islam.

Submitted by pencilneck on January 8, 2007 - 4:46pm.

Mission accomplished.

Submitted by sdnativeson on January 8, 2007 - 4:52pm.

I have no love for Bush and I disagree with
a fair amount of his ideas. At least he seems to have a
fixed set of beliefs.I have less for B. Clinton
whom, to me, is a traitor to our country and deserves the
sentence that comes with it.
So, Einstein said some stupid things,
Bismarck, well a Prussian diplomat...
to a Prussian he was a man without balls and
ultimately destroyed his country.
The strong have no need of diplomacy they have
the might and the will to bend things to their will,
for the moment at least.
It is a matter of benevolence for the strong to
entertain diplomatic overture and when done it's
not for benevolent reasons there is an ulterior motive.
No one forsaw the current situation in Iraq.
Being American we tried to give them a chance
of self-government and create a republic.
We should have just installed an American friendly
ruler then turned our attention to Iran then the
Saudis. Run away from Iraq, make it another Vietnam and southeast Asia, this time however the war spills onto our continent.

Submitted by JJGittes on January 8, 2007 - 5:05pm.

Regarding Clinton, I guess my question is: What did he do to piss off all those islamists? I mean, really, during his reign we had the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole, the bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and then the majority of the planning and preparation for 9-11. Clinton's response during his presidency was limp at best, and to treat it all like a law enforcement issue. Yet, even though he was nice and civilized, they still escalated. Again, for the life of me, I just can't figure out what he did to make the hate us sooo much...? Under the reasoning of the Left, thyey should have reciprocated with civility and kindness...right?

Submitted by surveyor on January 8, 2007 - 5:13pm.

It's not about Clinton.

They hated us a long time ago, before Clinton, before the U.S. even existed.

Submitted by zk on January 8, 2007 - 5:43pm.

"B. Clinton whom, to me, is a traitor to our country."

You're certainly entitled to that opinion, but stated with no reasons or substantiation, it's meaningless.

"No one forsaw the current situation in Iraq."

That's not true. The following quote is from George Bush (the smart one), 1998:

"Extending the war into Iraq would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Exceeding the U.N.'s mandate would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

Submitted by deadzone on January 8, 2007 - 7:26pm.

What makes Clinton a traitor? That is a jackass comment.

The Islamic hatred of the US was started with the creation of the state of Israel. The US, thanks to the powerful and wealthy Jewish lobby has backed Israel since the beginning, providing enourmous financial backing and military weaponry. That is the reason we are hated by the Islamic fundamentalists, and that is why they practice terrorism agains US interests. To argue anything else is pure ingorance (most Americans are clueless to this obvious fact).

Neither Bush nor Clinton had anything to do with causing the Islamic hatred of the US. However, Bush's disastrous invasion of Iraq is a completely different issue. Whether you agree with the original reasoning or not, there is no debate that the occupation was poorly planned and has beeen an utter disaster.

Submitted by PerryChase on January 8, 2007 - 8:06pm.

Not only are progressives criticizing Bush but even conservatives such as Republican Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon have spoken up. This is not a partisan issue.

Listen for youself. War is "criminal," "dereliction."

deadzone, I'm not clueless :) You pretty much summarized the root cause of why the Arabs hate us. Taking their oil for industrial development in the West while they lived in poverty is another reason (think Colonial oppression by the French and Brits then America's support for the dictators).

Submitted by bgates on January 8, 2007 - 7:55pm.

zk - 'least Islamic nation in the Middle East'? The one whose dictator thought it wise to add 'allahu akbar' to the flag? The one where Ayatollah Sistani has so much clout? Lebanon is 30% Christian, Turkey has a 70 year history of secular rule, and from many reports Iranians have grown disenchanted with their theocracy, so I think you're overstating your argument there.

Most of the violent Islamic strife is one Muslim faction vs another. To the extent Muslim savagery turns inward, it turns away from us. Islamic aggression against the US has been growing for 30 years. How would you suggest stopping it?

Submitted by bgates on January 8, 2007 - 8:27pm.

deadzone, what's your solution? Cut off support to a long term ally, watch as they're slaughtered, and hope we're not next?

Is Israel the cause of Islamist violence in Somalia, Kashmir, Thailand, and the Philippines, besides everywhere else in the world?

Perry, Gordon said in those same comments that if we are there, we should try to win. Do you agree with him (and McCain and Lieberman - you're right, this isn't a partisan issue)? If you "just don't care anymore," why do you keep posting about it? Do you imagine that Islamist violence is Bush's problem alone? I have bad news for you - it predates him, and it will outlast him, which means pretending it will vanish in 2008 is a guaranteed loser of an idea.

Surely you know that the oil isn't 'taken', it's bought - and if we didn't buy it, what kind of shape would the Arab world be in? Why are you so invested in justifying the motives of people who want to kill you?

Submitted by JJGittes on January 8, 2007 - 8:40pm.

bgates, you forgot that little bit of nastiness in Bali too. Ah, but no doubt that was the fault of the evil Jews, and/or the USA by way of the oil we steal at $50-70 a barrel. Finally, it's all clear to me now and I can get back to the doom and gloom of San Diego's RE market.

Submitted by bgates on January 8, 2007 - 8:59pm.

JJ, Bali was in 2002, right? So I assumed it was a reaction to the Iraq invasion, like the siege of Vienna in 1683 and the sack of Constantinople.

Submitted by zk on January 8, 2007 - 9:51pm.

Having a dictator wanting to add allahu akbar to the flag is a symbolic gesture that really means nothing. Ayatollah Sistani's clout was not huge before we invaded, and grew enormously after we invaded. Turkey...well, if you count that as part of the middle east, you might be right about that one. Lebanon may be 30% christian, but that number doesn't, in my opinion, mean that Lebanon's contribution to islamic strife was less than pre-invasion Iraq's. And while Iranians my have grown disenchanted with their theocracy, their theocracy is still powerful and dangerous. So despite your reasonable counterpoints, I don't think I'm overstating my case. But even if I am, even if Iraq wasn't strictly the very least islamic country in the middle east, my point remains valid: islam plays a much greater role there now than it did before we invaded, and we have increased the danger that Iraq's muslims present by many times.

"Most of the violent Islamic strife is one Muslim faction vs another. To the extent Muslim savagery turns inward, it turns away from us. Islamic aggression against the US has been growing for 30 years."

"Thanks for trying to forestall a fullscale civilizational war with Islam by setting up the first representative government in the history of the Arab world, Mr President!"

It seems to me there are some contradictions between those two statements. Islamic aggression against the US has been growing for 30 years, and you want to thank the president for making them angrier at us than ever while accomplishing nothing? And if most violent islamic strife is one muslim faction vs another, then why are you worried about a fullscale civilizational war with islam? Won't they just be fighting each other? And seriously, do you think we're farther away from fullscale civilizational war with islam now than we were before we invaded Iraq?

How would I suggest stopping it? All I, personally, can do is vote for somebody who will attempt to go forward in the middle east using foresight, reason, deep thought, rigorous planning and preparation, and intelligence. Sort of the opposite of how bush did it. I don't know who that will be yet in the presidential race in 2008. But I like Barack Obama. I've always liked McCain, but he's a bit too loyal to bush for my taste. Hillary is a loser. Ditto Kerry. I don't know much about Guliani yet.

Anyway, to really answer your question about how to stop it, I don't know. Although I'm pretty sure that if I had access to all the information and advice that bush has access to (not that he ever appears to listen to any advice), I'd probably have a few ideas. As it is, my ideas would be to focus our resouces on Al Qaeda. Oh, the money and lives we've wasted on Iraq that we could've spent wisely on Al Qaeda. I know, that's in the past. But it's in the future, too, at least with bush as president it is. What we're doing in Iraq right now isn't working. Whether a troop surge will work remains to be seen. But doesn't there have to be a point at which you say, "anything short of all-out, American-led martial law will not work to stop the violence. So let's either implement that law at the expense of reimplementing the draft and spending trillions more, or let's leave Iraq to the Iraqis and let them sink or swim." I mean, is another 30,000 troops enough? I don't know. Like I said, I only have limited information. Is it possible for a nation with the culture of Iraq's to have a functioning, stable representative government? I doubt it. But again, I don't have enough information to really make that call. My fear is that the man who does have the information is the same man that has consistently made the wrong decisions where Iraq is concerned.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.