Bush to Outline Doctrine of Striking Foes First

New York Times ^ | 9/19/02 | DAVID E. SANGER

[Stavka2]

Don't forget that Bush gave the Taliban $40 million in aid for lowering Opium production, right after taking office.

[Stavka2]

The Bush strategy urges other nations to adopt Mr. Bush's own economic philosophy, starting with low marginal tax rates.

Oh, like the 13% flat tax rate that is yet to even be looked at seriously in America?

[Right_in_Virginia]

"The new strategy departs significantly from the last one published by President Clinton, at the end of 1999."

Good news.

[lwoodham]

Damned bold, this president, and I like it. I like it a lot.

[Savage Beast]

"United States will exploit its military and economic power to encourage 'free and open societies'"

What about the Islamic theocracies?

[gPal]

the thought of our being policemen to the world is both exciting and at the same time scary...the scary part first...just one example...china leaves no doubt(even our cia can see that they are going to take taiwan within weeks or months...a sure thing...what do we do?...according to this piece we pre-emptively attack...we do and I believe we are at war immediately with china...probably n. korea as well as india or pakistan...and most likely other countries that i'm not smart enough to list...what is the minimum downside...china and maybe no. korea...launch nukes on 36k troops in so. korea...california to alaska at least...maximum downside...same scenario as above but russia decides to throw their nukes at us while we are trying to deal with china et. al...resulting in ww3, MILLIONS of USamericans DEAD and armageddon...please take the minimum downside china scenario and show me how wrong and dumb i am...this is pretty serious and scary stuff...my mind finds it incomprehensible...

[MrConfettiMan]

Ping for your perusal.

[MrConfettiMan]

china leaves no doubt(even our cia can see that they are going to take taiwan within weeks or months...a sure thing...

Care to back up your assertion with some facts? One would think if China had any serious interest in invading Taiwan they would have done so when Slick Willie was in the White House. After all, there's no better guarantee of getting the United States to look the other way than having the president on your payroll.

[Savage Beast]

Our best security, and the best security for liberty, justice, and the entire world, is our formidable power, especially military power. Hostile nations would not dare release World War III. Even the mad bolsheviks of the Soviet Union understood this and ultimately behaved sensibly. If the U.S. were weak and vulnerable, hostile nations and sundry madmen would tear us to shreds. As long as we are strong and resolute, the world is safe.

This is one reason why "Liberalism" is so dangerous. It weakens the U.S. and the U.S. resolve and tempts America's enemies to action that they would otherwise never dare to take. September 11 was one example.

[Savage Beast]

There is a very important caveat:

The best of government is a necessary evil that inforces its authority by violence.

The federal government and the state governments are not the United States; they are its servants and the servants of the American people. They are very dangerous, and they must be held in check and their power limited.

This formidable power can be turned against U.S. citizens and used against them just as it can be used against foreign enemies. It can be used for evil purposes just as it can be used to protect liberty, justice, and the rights of people.

The power, scope, and influence of the federal AND THE STATE governments must not be increased!

This is a second reason why "Liberalism" is dangerous. It serves to INCREASE the power, scope, and reach of government!!!

[gPal]

you are definitely right about our need to be militarily formidable, as well as strong and resolute while keeping liberals under control...the chances of a nuclear attack are probably low right now but what if circumstance change...example: china decides we are vulnerable because of being stretched so damn thin with a war in iraq as well as afghanistan and decide to take taiwan...the enormous difference in nukes might not deter them and even though we have 1000s of deliverable nukes to their 10s at most, they proved in the 60s that losing millions is no big deal...why would losing millions again stop them from killing millions of USamericans to take taiwan but, considering our reaction to losing "just" thousands in wtc attack are we willing to lose millions now?...in this way our strength and formidability just won't be enough...

[Miss Marple]

The entire report is on the White House web site, in pdf format, so that the boys from Lubbock and all the rest of us should be able to read it! LOL!

I actually would like to get a hard copy for myself. It is quite good.

[1Old Pro]

rationale for shifting American military strategy toward pre-emptive action against hostile states and terrorist groups developing weapons of mass destruction.

Odd, here I am thinking that we were attacked on September 11, 2001 and we were responding to that attack.

[gPal]

my remarks are only a hypothetical scenario...i don't know if china is going to move on taiwan...but "what if they did", under normal circumstances, as savage beast pointed out, as long as we are percieved as being much stronger than china or russia et al, there is little chance of our being attacked...what worries me is that if we move on iraq, which must be done,...we may be vulnerable... just one possibility... china decides while we are fighting two wars to move on taiwan...we could easily be attacked if we get involved militarily...lots of ifs and just a scenario

[rdb3]

Odd, here I am thinking that we were attacked on September 11, 2001 and we were responding to that attack.

What's odd about it? We are responding to the 9/11 attacks. But what's wrong with being able to smoke rogue terrorist states first?

[1Old Pro]

. But what's wrong with being able to smoke rogue terrorist states first?

I already heard Bush say we would go after all terrorist states and anyone who harbored or helped terrorists. We don't need any new stinkin proclaimations. We need to go and smoke'm.

[rdb3]

We don't need any new stinkin proclaimations. We need to go and smoke'm.

Can't argue with you there!

[Doctor Stochastic]

Perhaps the crucification of Christians will begin soon?

[ladtx]

The doctrine also describes at great length the administration's commitment to bolstering American foreign aid by 50 percent in the next few years in "countries whose governments rule justly, invest in their people and encourage economic freedom."

Then at the same time we should--

"Describe at great length the administration's commitment to cutting American foreign aid by 50 percent in the next few years in "countries whose governments do not rule justly, invest in their people and encourage economic freedom."

[Stavka2]

Why? The US military is barely able to do one major war at a time, so wait until Iraq and take Taiwan, that simple. This, dispite having a budget larger then the next 15 nations combined. Ever wonder where $340 billion of your dollars are going, surely not to feed those US military families sitting on welfare. How many fat cat companies are sucking down your money on failed or over budget over dead line projects like F22 or the Crusader, when other nations are already developing such technologies for cheaper.