America's Debate > Why would we want a "War President?"

Help - Search - Members - Calendar

Full Version: Why would we want a "War President?"

America's Debate > Archive > In the News Archive > [A] War on Terrorism

Google

Sponsored Links

Curmudgeon

Oct 24 2004, 09:40 PM

Fahrenheit 911 was playing, and I was reading...

QUOTE(Washington Post)

His other concern was one that he did not express to his war cabinet but that he said later was part of his own thinking. He knew that around the table were a number of advisers-Powell, Cheney and Wolfowitz-who had been with his father during the Gulf War deliberations. "And one of the things I wasn't going to allow to happen is, that we weren't going to let their previous experience in this theater dictate a rational course for the new war," the president said. (September 15, 2001)(SOURCE)

when I overheard in the background…

QUOTE(George Orwell)

It’s not a matter of whether the war is not real or if it is. Victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle, the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects, and its object is not the victory over Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.
1984

What I thought I was hearing…

QUOTE

Consider this reply by Donald Rumsfeld, who shortly after 9/11 was asked how we might know when we had won the “war on terrorism.”

“Now what is victory? I say that victory is persuading the American people and the rest of the world that this is not a quick matter that’s going to be over in a month or a year or even five years. It is something that we need to do so that we can continue to live in a world with powerful weapons and with people who are willing to use those powerful weapons.
And we can do that as a country.
And that would be a victory in my view." (September 12, 2001)
Source: The Bush Dyslexicon preface

As I was searching for the Rumsfeld quotation, I got sidetracked by something alternatively referred to on the web as The Wolfowitz Doctrine and the Bush Doctrine:

QUOTE

As the New York Times explained it, the Wolfowitz Doctrine argues that America's political and military mission should be to "ensure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge. With its focus on this concept of benevolent domination by one power, the Pentagon document articulates the clearest rejection to date of collective internationalism." Its core thesis, described by Ben Wattenberg in the April 12, Washington Times, is "to guard against the emergence of hostile regional superpowers, for example, Iraq or China. America is No. 1. We stand for something decent and important. That's good for us and good for the world. That's the way we want to keep it."
Answering the 'Wolfowitz (Bush) Doctrine' on American Empire

The interesting thing to note about this doctrine is that the discussion was pre-9/11. The source for the above quotation, for instance is dated 8/24/01.

Questions for debate:
Why would we want to continue to live in a world with powerful weapons, and with people who are willing to use those powerful weapons?

This administration has claimed repeatedly that "everything changed on 9/11." If plans were made to go to war with Iraq as early as the 2000 Republican Convention, what changed? Was it merely public perception of the president?

This President claims to be a "war president." Why should we choose a continued path to war?

Google

Sponsored Links

CruisingRam

Oct 25 2004, 01:05 AM

Why would we want to continue to live in a world with powerful weapons, and with people who are willing to use those powerful weapons?

Well, that is just the nature of human beings- we are a violent species, and big chunks of our world population likes to have power- and to keep this power, they are willing to kill- just human nature.

This administration has claimed repeatedly that "everything changed on 9/11." If plans were made to go to war with Iraq as early as the 2000 Republican Convention, what changed? Was it merely public perception of the president?

The interesting thing is, I think the world did indeed change post 9/11- and we could have, as a nation, used this for truly using this as a positive agent for change, but instead, GW squandered this- and I think this is the most unforgivable sin he has commited. GW chose to go to war with Iraq instead of say, using the money to lift Afghanistan out of poverty. I recall the GDP of Afghanistan being something like 14 billion total including the drug trade. Imagine if we had spent, say, 50 billion in that country rebuilding the economy instead of wasting it in Iraq?

Usually I don't hate a politician due to the fact that I don't know them personally- but GW is an exception in this area for me- I truly hate and despise this man for using 9/11 to fulfill a vendetta instead of using it for good.

I think his PNAC prior to 9/11 just illustrates how truly evil this regime really is.

This President claims to be a "war president." Why should we choose a continued path to war?

It is the wag the dog principle- the very fact that the GW regime has any competition during a war is a symptom of how bad a president he truly he is.

Vampiel

Oct 25 2004, 03:27 AM

QUOTE

Answering the 'Wolfowitz (Bush) Doctrine' on American Empire

Let's make something clear here. You are automatically assuming that the Wolfowitz Doctrine is "The Bush Doctrine" when that is simply not true. Your entire premis is flawed. If Bush really believed Wolfowitz's erroneous rants at world domination then we would be at war with China or Russia.

Personally I believe Wolfowitz should be fired and given a job better suited for him at McDonalds.

The Bush doctrine is a modern day mirror of the Truman doctrine against Communism.

The Truman Doctrine, authored by George F. Kennan, was:

QUOTE

a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies . . . by the adroit and vigilant application of counterforce at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points.

The Truman Doctrine was officially announced by Truman in 1947 with the pronouncement:

QUOTE

"it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure."

The "Cold War" was far from entirely cold, and 100,000 American soldiers died fighting it. It lasted until the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact fell apart in 1989.

Elioit A. Cohen, a leading military strategist, says that we are in nothing less than World War IV, and this war involves:

QUOTE

...a mixture of violent and nonviolent efforts; that it will require mobilization of skill, expertise, and resources, if not of vast numbers of soldiers; that it may go on for a long time; and that it has ideological roots.

According to Norman Podhoretz:

QUOTE

If the Truman Doctrine unfolded gradually, revealing its entire meaning only in stages, the Bush Doctrine was pretty fully enunciated in a single speech, delivered to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.

It was then clarified and elaborated in three subsequent statements: Bush’s first State of the Union address on January 29, 2002; his speech to the graduating class of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point on June 1, 2002; and the remarks on the Middle East he delivered three weeks later, on June 24. This difference aside, his contemporaries were at least as startled as Truman’s had been, both by the substance of the new doctrine and by the transformation it bespoke in its author.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm

Norman Podhoretz lays out the Bush doctrine by providing a set of speeches made by Bush :

QUOTE

of the "global terrorist network" that had attacked us on our own soil, he [Bush] said:

"We have seen their kind before. They’re the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies."

"Great harm has been done to us...We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment."

"The advance of human freedom, the great achievement of our time and the great hope of every time, now depends on us. Our nation, this generation, will lift the dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."

"I will not forget the wound to our country and those who inflicted it. I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people. The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them."

"For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability and much oppression, so I have changed this policy."

"Some who call themselves realists question whether the spread of democracy in the Middle East should be any concern of ours. But the realists in this case have lost contact with a fundamental reality: America has always been less secure when freedom is in retreat; America is always more secure when freedom is on the march."

"This conflict will take many turns, with setbacks on the course to victory. Through it all, our confidence comes from one unshakable belief: We believe in Ronald Reagan’s words that 'the future belongs to the free.'"

You cannot attack terrorism as a whole just as we could not attack the USSR due to MAD. What you can do is attack strategic countries to lay out the battlefield in which will allow the enemy ideals to crumble in on themselves instead of expanding.

Ted

Oct 26 2004, 08:25 PM

Why would we want to continue to live in a world with powerful weapons, and with people who are willing to use those powerful weapons?

We wouldn’t but we must. As you can see the number of countries with the desire to acquire WMD is increasing. We were naive with respect to North Korea – now Iran is racing to get in the nuclear club.

This administration has claimed repeatedly that "everything changed on 9/11." If plans were made to go to war with Iraq as early as the 2000 Republican Convention, what changed? Was it merely public perception of the president?

Show us proof the that “plans were made” . I have never seen more than speculation. Although dealing with Iraq SHOULD have been a priority for any president. Clinton said he had massive WMD bombed and bailed out. As we suspected the UN was paid off and Saddam was just to dangerous to leave in power after 9/11.

This President claims to be a "war president." Why should we choose a continued path to war?

We did not start this war as you may have noticed but sure as hell we are going to “end” the lives of the scum that started it. Count on it.

AuthorMusician

Oct 26 2004, 09:06 PM

QUOTE

Why would we want to continue to live in a world with powerful weapons, and with people who are willing to use those powerful weapons?

Some factions of the US are willing to use powerful weapons, but that's not really an answer. It comes down to having no choice.

Just for grins, I viewed the old movie, Back to the Future. As people who have seen this one will remember, Lybian terrorists wanted the Doc to build them a bomb using plutonium that the terrorists had stolen. So 19 years ago, we as a nation were fully aware that a band of terrorists could nuke a US city.

The Cold War started before I was born. The dangers of being nuked did not go away with the end of the Cold War, and in fact have gotten worse. After 9/11, we went back to the future in a big way, yet nothing has really changed except that more stray nukes are running around out there.

Or so we are told. You'd think someone somewhere would have been nuked by now.

QUOTE

This administration has claimed repeatedly that "everything changed on 9/11." If plans were made to go to war with Iraq as early as the 2000 Republican Convention, what changed? Was it merely public perception of the president?

What changed after 9/11, and while the buildup to Iraq liberation was going on, is that enough of the US public swallowed hook, line and sinker the notion that Iraq was a terrorist threat. Enough of us bought into the war to liberate Iraq, and as things turned out, most of the reasons for going to war were wrong. As a result, the trust of the US population for Bush took a major hit. I think we're about back to normal now -- don't believe a word said. It is all manipulation.

QUOTE

This President claims to be a "war president." Why should we choose a continued path to war?

Because we are easy? No, I don't think we are easy any longer. We were fooled once, and shame on us. Don't try to fool us again. At least not until some other opportunity arises to pull the wool over our eyes.

I can't help but think the reactions to Vietnam kept a couple of generations out of full-scale war, but as time went on, the reluctance to engage in major operations was dropped. Now, as those who once opposed war in most of its forms seem to have dropped off the face of the planet, we have war again.

And I expect the same cycle to continue, where waging full-scale war will be a difficult thing to do for a couple of generations.

Basically, I'm saying there is no reason why we should choose a continued path to war, yet it seems many do. Things may be moving too quickly?

Google