McSame us pro preemptive war.

Superfreak said:
On that I agree. But there is a vast difference in "hashing out where someone stands" on the use of a preemptive war and someone else trying to get a candidate to take it off the table completely. One is trying to determine the candidates position, the other is trying to play a little partisan bullshit game that has no merit.
Click to expand...


I agree and would prefer a different framing of the issue. The Iraq War was not a preemptive war. It was not a war to preempt an imminent attack on the United States and shouldn't be framed as such. The Bush doctrine is one of preventive war. Wars not to respond to the threat of an imminent attack, but to prevent the requirement of a preemptive war, to strike before the imminent threat even materializes. It's a minor distinction but one that is significant.

Everyone (and yes I mean everyone, internationally and domestically) recognizes the right of a sovereign nation to take measures to thwart an imminent attack on that nation. It is a fundamental rule of international law that nations need not suffer a first strike before it can respond. Here's Ted Kennedy on this very issue, from his floor speech during the Iraq AUMF debate:

Traditionally, “pre-emptive” action refers to times when states react to an imminent threat of attack. For example, when Egyptian and Syrian forces mobilized on Israel’s borders in 1967, the threat was obvious and immediate, and Israel felt justified in pre-emptively attacking those forces. The global community is generally tolerant of such actions, since no nation should have to suffer a certain first strike before it has the legitimacy to respond.

By contrast, “preventive” military action refers to strikes that target a country before it has developed a capability that could someday become threatening. Preventive attacks have generally been condemned. For example, the 1941 sneak attack on Pearl Harbor was regarded as a preventive strike by Japan, because the Japanese were seeking to block a planned military buildup by the United States in the Pacific.
Click to expand...

Hence, standing alone it was a poor question from which to draw solid conclusions. However, given McCain's steadfast support for the Iraq War, both leading into it and since, and his support, dating back prior to Iraq, for what he terms "rogue state rollback" I think it is safe to conclude that McCain supports preventive war in addition to preemptive war.
 
""Bring Them On." -- says Bush of Iraq attacks (7/2/03)"

I always forgot about this one. It is the most despicable moment of a despicable career from a despicable man. In a sentence of 3 short words, he reveals his immaturity, incompetence, arrogance, detachment from reality, inability to lead & his real feelings about "the troops."
 
Dungheap said:
I agree and would prefer a different framing of the issue. The Iraq War was not a preemptive war. It was not a war to preempt an imminent attack on the United States and shouldn't be framed as such. The Bush doctrine is one of preventive war. Wars not to respond to the threat of an imminent attack, but to prevent the requirement of a preemptive war, to strike before the imminent threat even materializes. It's a minor distinction but one that is significant.

Everyone (and yes I mean everyone, internationally and domestically) recognizes the right of a sovereign nation to take measures to thwart an imminent attack on that nation. It is a fundamental rule of international law that nations need not suffer a first strike before it can respond. Here's Ted Kennedy on this very issue, from his floor speech during the Iraq AUMF debate:



Hence, standing alone it was a poor question from which to draw solid conclusions. However, given McCain's steadfast support for the Iraq War, both leading into it and since, and his support, dating back prior to Iraq, for what he terms "rogue state rollback" I think it is safe to conclude that McCain supports preventive war in addition to preemptive war.
Click to expand...


From what I recall of the "rogue state rollback" there was no talk from McCain about sending in US troops. I thought it was primarily border them up, sanction the crap out of them and arm/train their citizens to overthrow their government.

I know that is cutting hairs a bit, but it is different from Bush's cluster bang.
 
Onceler said:
""Bring Them On." -- says Bush of Iraq attacks (7/2/03)"

I always forgot about this one. It is the most despicable moment of a despicable career from a despicable man. In a sentence of 3 short words, he reveals his immaturity, incompetence, arrogance, detachment from reality, inability to lead & his real feelings about "the troops."
Click to expand...

I agree, it pretty much sums up this guys presidency...
 
"He's had contacts with Al Qaida. Imagine the scenario where an Al Qaida-type organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a place to be trained to use the weapons. Saddam Hussein could use surrogates to come and attack people he hates." - Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002)

(Imagine... Just imagine, you can see it in your minds eye, cant you. NOW LETS PRETEND ITS TRUE.... okay?)
 
Superfreak said:
From what I recall of the "rogue state rollback" there was no talk from McCain about sending in US troops. I thought it was primarily border them up, sanction the crap out of them and arm/train their citizens to overthrow their government.

I know that is cutting hairs a bit, but it is different from Bush's cluster bang.
Click to expand...


From his "Rogue State Rollback" op-ed in the Weekly Standard (home to many a neo-con and PNACers):

Both the president and secretary of state publicly ruled out the use of force, although force could eventually prove to be the only means to prevent North Korea from acquiring a nuclear arsenal--a dangerously shortsighted precedent that even the Clinton administration did not publicly suggest. The administration's public rejection of North Korean demands for new negotiations gave way to public offers of direct talks, then one day later to a public offer to discuss formally assuring North Korea that the United States would never be the first to use force on the peninsula. This rapid deterioration of our resolve is as reckless as it is disingenuous.

North Korea and Iraq present different faces of the same danger. Today, North Korea poses a greater danger than Iraq, and confronting it presents a more difficult challenge. That is all the more reason to take whatever action necessary to prevent Saddam Hussein from becoming a threat of equal magnitude and just as difficult to confront.

[snip]

The use of military force to defend vital American security interests must always be a last resort, as it is in this crisis. But if we fail to achieve the international cooperation necessary to end this threat, then the countries in the region should know with certainty that while they may risk their own populations, the United States will do whatever it must to guarantee the security of the American people. And spare us the usual lectures about American unilateralism. We would prefer the company of North Korea's neighbors, but we will make do without it if we must.
Click to expand...


It seems pretty clear that, while he would prefer sanctions, he supports the use of military force to prevent other countries from becoming threats, imminent or otherwise. Further, considering he supported going to war to deal with Iraq, a lesser threat than North Korea, and that he states that military force is always a last resort, it seems clear that he supports war to prevent countries from approaching becoming imminent threats and thus supports -- even more so that the Bush administration -- the Bush doctrine of preventive war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top