Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mephisto who wrote (4757)	9/29/2002 4:32:32 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

Bush Jumps the Gun With Preemptive Strikes by Robert Scheer latimes.com Like an emperor's, his doctrine is an explosive mix of arrogance and fear. President Bush's recently announced strategic global doctrine, which for the first time justifies a preemptive U.S. strike against any regime thought to possess weapons of mass destruction, makes a mockery of the war on terrorism. A preemptive strike against Home Depot, where box cutters can be bought for a few bucks, would seem more relevant to disarming future terrorists. After all, those tools were deadly enough when used to commandeer the four airplanes that caused the destruction of Sept. 11. And the big-box store sells fertilizer, too, and we all know now how deadly that stuff can be. Convenient oversights like this are all part of that sleight of hand this administration specializes in to pursue its aims. Whether it's a giant tax cut or the dethroning of Saddam Hussein, Bush can always find a rationale in the day's headlines for what he wanted to do all along. Just in time, Bush's formal National Security Strategy released last week attempts to justify such "anticipatory" military attacks by the U.S. to "forestall or prevent hostile acts by our adversaries" even if "uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack." The doctrine also says we will not tolerate any nation that seeks military parity with the U.S. This posture will only encourage aggression by other nations such as India, which has every reason to be panicked about the nuclear arsenal, unstable government and aggressive rhetoric of its neighbor Pakistan. Instead of saber-rattling, Bush should welcome the return of U.N. disarmament inspectors to Iraq. Bush's haste to make war on Iraq is understandable only as a ploy to avoid dealing with the struggling U.S. economy, a still-shadowy Al Qaeda leadership that has not been brought to heel yet and the alarming disintegration of the Mideast peace process. There simply is no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the tragedy that has so traumatized this nation. Why then a sudden policy shift threatening preemptive strikes against any nation producing weapons of mass destruction when advanced weaponry played no role in our troubles? Weapons of mass destruction are certainly a threat to the world. But for all the talk of smallpox, the apparently homebred anthrax attacks and Hussein's own use of nerve gas on Kurdish children, the true weapons of mass destruction that threaten human existence are nuclear. Yet the U.S. is still opposed to the abolishment of nuclear weapons, and this administration has even beefed up efforts to refine and develop our massive H-bomb arsenal. At a time when an alarming number of nations have nuclear weapons--and Iraq's wobbly nuke program is not yet on that list--it ill behooves the one nation that has dropped nuclear bombs on civilians to continue to treat them as acceptable military weapons. The Bush administration's continued emphasis on developing a Star Wars missile defense system basically endorses a nuclear war-fighting strategy. Instead of renouncing nuclear weapons as inherently barbaric, as we have done with chemical and biological weapons, this administration is making a shambles of the antiballistic missile and other arms control treaties so we can make better nukes. If there is an area in which Bush is truly untutored, it is not on the subject of grammar but rather on the historical risk of moral hubris. Consequently, his administration's answer to all criticisms of his aggressive unilateralism is that the U.S. is unique, empowered to engage in "a unique American internationalism"--formerly known as imperialism. The man seems simply incapable of countenancing the notion that this nation can ever do wrong. This was the assumption of imperial emperors throughout history who took it for granted they were improving the lot of their colonies. We have only to look at the untenable map of the Mideast, imposed by France and Britain, to see that this was patently untrue. Good intentions are often the most damaging. And history teaches us to beware the firepower of the angels of death, for they are never restrained by uncertainty of purpose. In this way, the Bush doctrine is a supremely dangerous cocktail, an explosive blend of the arrogance of our uniquely powerful post-Cold War military strength laced with a mind-numbing fear of box-cutter-wielding maniacs.

To: Mephisto who wrote (4757)	10/6/2002 12:51:42 AM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

Don't Give Bush War Powers October 3, 2002 latimes.com E-mail story COMMENTARY By PAUL FINDLEY, Paul Findley, a Republican, represented Illinois in the House of Representatives from 1961 to 1983. He was a major author of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. My former colleagues in Congress are grappling with President Bush's request for congressional authority to use "all means necessary," including force, against Iraq and "to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism." It is unlikely that Congress will ever face a request of higher risk to the well-being of the American people, as well as to all of humankind. In brief, the president asks Congress to support his decision to establish war-making as a presidential policy tool rather than an instrument of last resort. Until now, declaring war has been accepted as the exclusive domain of Congress, the people's branch of government. The president's new security document shifts basic policy from deterrence to dominance of adversaries and arrogates enormous new authority to the president. To fulfill this self-appointed duty to police the world, our government declares that it must maintain absolute military supremacy worldwide and take all necessary action to assure that adversarial nations do not increase their military power. In a notable bit of arrogance, the plan even assumes U.S. responsibility to advise other nations, starting with China, on proper budget outlays for military purposes. The plan relegates the United Nations and all other international institutions to supporting roles: If they take the lead that the United States directs, fine. If not, they become irrelevant. Is the attempt at worldwide rule prudent for any nation, even one as large, militarily strong and democratically based as the United States? Should the president abandon this country's long-standing, principled opposition to preemptive acts of war? If we do strike, in violation of international law, other states will reasonably conclude that such strikes are acceptable military conduct. In that case, the world may sink to the law of the jungle. Even if Congress concludes that preemptive acts of war can be justified, other questions remain. Should advance congressional approval be required in each case? If so, can Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq be considered a sufficient threat to U.S. security to qualify for preemptive assault? Any resolution must be drafted so carefully that it cannot be construed as a declaration of war, which would automatically convey dictatorial powers to the president. As a member of Congress in 1848, Abraham Lincoln cited war-making as the "most oppressive of all kingly oppressions," and he also declared that the Constitution was constructed in such a way "that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us." Congress must deny the president's request for fast approval of a preemptive strike against Iraq. The issues involved are too monumental for a quick decision. But as an interim response, Congress could enact a concurrent resolution listing the circumstances in which the president may constitutionally order acts of war: to comply with a treaty obligation or to repel a military attack against the territory of the United States, its possessions, military services engaged in peaceful maneuvers or shipping; to participate in humanitarian rescue operations; or in response to a declaration of war or other authority approved by a majority of the members of each house of Congress. latimes.com