 pkronfield says: The only difference is that now we have cowards running our country. Last week Russia reiterated their right for not only preemptive strikes, but nuclear preemptive strikes, to defend the country. Tell me this trojan horse president is not an enemy of the state. Russia and Iran and North Korea don't think Obama has the cojones to write a strongly worded letter - let alone actually attack them with military force. Pfffft, Obama isn't even willing to go ahead with preemptive defense. The only war he seems to have any willingness to fight is the war against FOX news and anyone else who dares to use their right to free speech to question this administration. "more complex". Yep, she got that right. And how has this happened?? And yes n2...he seems really good at waging war against his own Country by undermining it's national security, it's military, it's economy, it's position among nations, it's dollar, etc. He coos over our enemies and plays basketball while delaying a decision on Afghanistan. Now go read this article explaining the difference between Bush's Preventive War doctrine and actual "pre-emptive" war. Preemption, that is, initiating a first strike against another nation that appears to be preparing an imminent attack or is already in the process of launching one is not particularly controversial. It’s self-defense. And every nation has the right to it. Supporters of preventive war, on the other hand, argue for strategically attacking nations which may, someday, pose a military threat. Preventive war cannot, therefore, be distinguished from a war of aggression, a violati[b]... You are incorrect in associating the Bush doctrine with what your reference defines as preventive war. The Bush doctrine specifically addresses "gathering threats" and "imminent danger". Ths falls under the concept of preemption. Bush was correct in picking the battle ground for the war on militant muslims - Iraq. He was correct in preempting war by attacking regimes that harbor or support the enemy - al Qaeda. Hence, no attacks on the homeland for 8 years. Oh, you mean Iraqa? And the "imminent threat" of WMD? That stands as evidence to the contrary of your argument of justifiable pre-emption. There have been no attacks in 8 years because there is no credible threat or "sleeper cells" wanting to "kill Americans every day", for it is impossible that they would lack means to do so, despite a few airport screenings. But it makes for good propaganda, but only the naive will believe it. I also do not live in a "homeland" (or Fatherland)....a very propaganda-wrapped term to justify Homeland Security government, a police state more akin to fascism. Now that is a real threat to the real freedoms of Americans more than any terrorist. Indeed there was a gathering threat comprising WMD in Iraq. Virtually all of Congress believed this. Even before Bush, Slick Willie made speeches about the WMD threat in Iraq. Saddam Hussein gave no indication these beliefs were untrue - in fact he did everything in his power to keep this viewpoint active. But why bother "talking to idiots" such as the liberal blueridge who gets "homeland" confused with "Vaterland" and thinks referring to our homeland is Nazi. Idiot: The land you call your home is your homeland. So I have no patience for idiots on my clipmarks page. |
View the Top Clips from October 15, 2009
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|||||||||||
