Skip to comments.
First Pre-emptive War
Posted on 03/17/2003 11:21:30 AM PST by apeman81
Susan Page in an article for USA TODAY writes "It would be the first preventive war in U.S. history, the first time the nation has attacked without being struck first. An aide says Bush sees himself as redefining the U.S. role at a moment the ''tectonic plates'' of the world order are shifting -- as they did in 1776 and 1914 and at other big moments in history."
I wish to strongly object to the ridiculous assertion that this is the first pre-emptive" action taken by the Unitede States. Putting aside the argument that this war is to be fought to force Saddam to disarm, as the ceasefire and subsequent resolutions ordered, what everyone seems to overlook is John F. Kennedys October Missile Crisis.
Unless we are to believe that JFK, on behalf of the US, was bluffing, and he would not have backed up his play with action, then his ordering of a blockade of Cuba, an act of war, was indeed a previous, pre-emptive confrontation. The only difference between that situation and current crisis is that Hussein is not backing down, and we must back up our threats with action.
Dont allow this assertion go unchallenged
TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: preemptivewar
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81 next last
1
posted on
03/17/2003 11:21:30 AM PST
by
apeman81
To: apeman81
I'll be sure and correct her on my next coast-to-coast, 5-network speech.
2
posted on
03/17/2003 11:23:44 AM PST
by
Cyber Liberty
(© 2003, Ravin' Lunatic since 4/98)
To: apeman81
Barbary Pirates.
3
posted on
03/17/2003 11:23:52 AM PST
by
Ingtar
To: apeman81
We must also remind people that we are still at war with them...we have just had a 12 year semi-cease fire.
4
posted on
03/17/2003 11:23:59 AM PST
by
NELSON111
To: apeman81
Kissinger: "The word pre-emptive is being used improperly in this case".
5
posted on
03/17/2003 11:24:33 AM PST
by
Sacajaweau
(Hillary: Constitutional Scholar! NOT)
To: apeman81
Evidently this person doesn't have a memory span of more than 18 months. HELLO! 09/11 babe! Hussein pays PLO Homicide Bomber's families. Get it babe? He supports terrorists. Al Qaida and the Taliban are terrorists. They are known to operate in Iraq.
Get - a - life!
6
posted on
03/17/2003 11:25:18 AM PST
by
DoughtyOne
(Don't just sit there, use the links on the Graphic Teaser.)
To: apeman81
The XYZ war and the war against the Barbary Pirates were the ancestors of this action.
7
posted on
03/17/2003 11:25:41 AM PST
by
Grampa Dave
(Stamp out Freepathons! Stop being a Freep Loader! Become a monthly donor!)
To: Cyber Liberty
Would you? Thanks!!!
Whew! That's a load of my mind.
8
posted on
03/17/2003 11:26:36 AM PST
by
apeman81
To: Cyber Liberty
Would you? Thanks!!!
Whew! That's a load off my mind.
9
posted on
03/17/2003 11:26:41 AM PST
by
apeman81
To: apeman81
what about T. Jefferson attacking the Barbary States?
To: apeman81
We WERE ATTACKED. Think September 11.
11
posted on
03/17/2003 11:26:51 AM PST
by
Grim
To: DoughtyOne
You need to understand that Susan Paige has the critical thinking skills of the average invertebrate.
12
posted on
03/17/2003 11:27:17 AM PST
by
Bigg Red
(Defend America against her most powerful enemy -- the Democrats.)
To: apeman81
the first time the nation has attacked without being struck first. Sure. Sept. 11 never happened. Saddam never tried to kill Bush I.
13
posted on
03/17/2003 11:27:20 AM PST
by
Tribune7
To: apeman81
A bigger difference is that Kennedy made it clear that the repercussions would be unacceptable. President Bush tried to do the same thing but France/Germany/Russia diluted it and gave Sadaam the perception of wriggle room. If they had allowed the UN to stand united and firm, there is a good chance that Iraq (perhaps not Sadaam) would have found a way to prevent an all out war.
14
posted on
03/17/2003 11:27:22 AM PST
by
trebb
To: apeman81
what everyone seems to overlook is John F. Kennedys October Missile Crisis. Me too. Good point. This action is even less of a preemptive action since it's really a continuation of the 1991 war.
To: apeman81
Serbia comes to mind. 75 days of bombing.
16
posted on
03/17/2003 11:27:51 AM PST
by
js1138
To: Grampa Dave
The following wars were not preceded with a clear attack on US interests. Spanish American War, Mexican War, War of 1812 and World War I. The war against Iraq was, however preceded by the antrax attaxks on the USA and of course the 1993 bombing. Both of the above attacks may be reasonably imputed to an Iraqi source.
17
posted on
03/17/2003 11:28:14 AM PST
by
harpseal
(Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
To: apeman81
I do not recall we invaded any country while Kennedy was president.
18
posted on
03/17/2003 11:28:24 AM PST
by
cynicom
To: apeman81
the first time the nation has attacked without being struck firstWhere was Susan Page on Sept. 11, 2001? That was an attack agains US. Does she not understand the terms, "aiding and abetting?" Hussein foments terrorism. He supports the actions of our enemies. He plans to use his WMD against US. In what world is Page living?
19
posted on
03/17/2003 11:28:26 AM PST
by
Jemian
(Ignorance is Blix)
To: apeman81
Technically Iraq did strike first - when they invaded Kuwait in 1990. The United States went to war in 1991 and liberated Kuwait. In addition, they granted Iraq a cease-fire which was contingent upon a host of conditions which Iraq has failed to live up to. As a result, the cease-fire will soon be voided and the war will be resumed to its conclusion.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson