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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (109711)	8/3/2003 8:19:59 PM
From: Elsewhere	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The doctrine of coercive pre-emption In a speech at West Point last June, in a more formal statement of national security strategy submitted to Congress in September, and in a White House document published in December, President George W. Bush has proclaimed what appears to be a new security doctrine. Reduced to its essentials, the doctrine suggests that the United States will henceforth attack adversaries to prevent them not only from using but also from acquiring the technologies associated with weapons of mass destruction. The links to the original documents mentioned by Steinbruner: Graduation Speech at West Point Academy (June 1, 2002) whitehouse.gov National Security Strategy (September 17, 2002) whitehouse.gov National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction (December 2002) whitehouse.gov

To: GST who wrote (109711)	8/3/2003 9:16:24 PM
From: Sig	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<Confusing ends and means: The doctrine of coercive pre-emption John Steinbruner. Arms Control Today. Washington: Jan/Feb 2003. Vol. 33, Iss. 1; pg. 3, 3 pgs >> Well there you go p'tnr, John S has painted a complete picture worthy of discussion and put it in frame. The details will be filled in as time moves along and the Bush Doctrine is better developed and the world considers how to deal with Terrorists in the future. Until this Administration came along there has been endless discussion and damn little action or even much consideration of an effective means of dealing with terrorists in foreign countries- In dealing between East and West for example. Taking action, as GWB certainly did , has got peoples attention, forced the UN to review its mandates, decide what it would do/should do if Paris or Berlin or Ridyah had been struck by Terrorists instead NYC and knowing a similar strike was fully planned and ready to be implemented. Good things will come of it in time. Old style warfare is out, the US has now fought 3 Wars with less than 200 soldiers per war killed in combat. High technology, improved ten time over each ten years, did not even need to loft a nuke. Uncontrolled, disassembled terrorist organizations with bombs and WMD's are the big theat. Bali has felt it, Saudi Arabia has felt it, the US has felt it. What Western country feels they are immune. ? Israel and Palestine are not countries of preference today. Chemical weapons have been banned for years by the Geneva Convention. Yet Saddam had huge supplies and used them. Now they are gone, we dont know where yet, but the trail is hot and getting a lot hotter by the day. Very unsettling to all, finding that traditional defenses with thousands of tanks and million man armies are obsolete But Israel proved that a long time ago in the 6 day war. Six days to defeat 3 attacking countries using mostly US armaments . What lies ahead is somewhat unknown and any plans made must be changed as the conditions change. The Administration is unwilling to make all plans public, since doing so would permit the enemy to adjust and thwart those plans. If you cant trust George, trust the system that put him in office and will remove him if required . If that was no good either, then trust our history of great progress, of human rights, of never being invaded by a foreign army. Sig

To: GST who wrote (109711)	8/3/2003 10:15:23 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Perhaps I missed the portion where anyone from the Bush Administration clearly states the Bush Doctrine to be precisely as you stated it...... "The Bush Administration declared a new doctrine of unilateral pre-emptive war -- regime change. Unilateral US invasion of sovereign nations in the absence of a threat --" I don't see any Bush Admin official stating anything close to that, nor any documents penned by them that establishes the doctrine you described. Please show me where I missed it. Perhaps I was right & it is you who is wrong about the precise nature of this doctrine?