Hi GV & Thread, Bush may win the battle, but we could lose the war:
"Pentagon warns reporters; B-2 bombers get orders"
cnn.com
Unfortunately for us, Bush doesn't seem to understand international politics. He's risking our long-term future safety by not being appropriately strategic when taking care of the Iraq issue. (Strategic as in, the USA could have used Intelligence instead to handle this matter with Iraq.)
A country that maintains a "not attack first" policy, best maintains future long-term security & safety for itself.
The worse thing the USA can do to itself, is to do a so-called "pre-emptive strike". This risks our future safety.
While Bush calls it a pre-emptive strike, the international countries perceive it as dangerous, threatening, and uncontrolled.
As other countries' GDP's grow, they may have increasingly more power, say 30 years from now. By violating a basic international policy (of not doing a pre-emptive strike), it almost guarantees a future power may justifiably argue they can do a (so-called) pre-emptive strike onto us. At a minimum, it encourages an increase in arms race.
He may win Iraq, but he may lose our future security. Scary.
" North Korea raised further tension after reports on Friday it was preparing to start reprocessing plutonium and test a ballistic missile."
Well, duh.
A very normal reaction to Bush.
Bush may call it "pre-emptive", but the international community views it as, "attack first."
And it doesn't matter if the international community is wrong or right, our future security is more dependent on international perception.
Clinton had the skillset to wipe out an Arabic pharmaceutical company, and yet still maintain the respect of the Arabic people.
He is using up a huge, huge chip with the international community on Iraq and borrowing on the future ability for the USA to call on the international community for assistance to secure our safety in the future - on matters that need attending.
Not a strategically low-cost method to deal with this.
Regards,
Amy J |
