Well.
If this doesn't make your eyes water in masochistic delight, I don't know what will...
From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4812562.stm
"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self-defence, we do not rule out use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack,"
How cool is that?
If that isn't declaring the end of humanity (which I pray and hope for every single hour of every single day of my adult life), I don't know what is!
I mean, obviously if the US can follow such a policy, then so can any other nation or group? Agreed? What's good for one dog is just as good for another, say...
Now, if we check the list of countries the US has attacked overtly or covertly the last...say...50 years:
Philipines
Puerto Rico
Korea
Iran
Vietnam
Guatemala
Egypt
Lebanon
Panama
Cuba
Indonesia
Dominican Republic
Cambodia
Oman
Laos
Chile
Angola
Libya
El Salvador
Nicaragua
Grenada
Honduras
Bolivia
Iraq
Somalia
Bosnia
Afghanistan
Colombia
Pakistan
From: http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
We can safely assume that at some place, some time the US will probably attack any other country for any other reason, pre-emptive or not.
Or any other country may well, at some place and some time attack any other country for whatever reason (although mostly it's got something to do with land, resources and money).
So, I'm glad with the US's continuing stance on world issues. Any country can justify a pre-emptive strike on any other country (but especially the US) because at some time and some place that other country (but specifically the US) will probably attack them any way!
HELL YEAH!!!
Let the shoot-out begin!
Originally posted by shavixmirI agree but I think that we should all give up notions especially the US, that any strategy forms part of their response to any relationships they have internationally.
Well.
If this doesn't make your eyes water in masochistic delight, I don't know what will...
From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4812562.stm
[b]"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self-defence, we do not rule out use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's ...[text shortened]... he US) will probably attack them any way!
HELL YEAH!!!
Let the shoot-out begin!
It might be more appropriate to call it US national security overreaction.
Mostly the fact I think, that the layers of checks and balances that help stave off despotism within the american system, mean that any crucial decision making can get compromised by endless committees and lobbying. America has also historically been coy about its size, importance and influence in world affairs such that it had to be dragged in kicking and screaming into ww1,ww2 and being unofficial world cop and economic redevelopement officer ever since.
Will the reality that they have had little or no control on how things have slowly spiraled out of wack make it any easier, if/when the shed hits the fin, probably not, but american foreign policy is a combination of two time honoured maxims, one of them being murphy's law.
'If anything can go wrong it probably will if it hasn't done so already'
The other is a management critique called the Peter Principle.
"In any large bureacratic or corporate structure you will tend to rise to your level of incompetence and stay there"
The downside of this principle is that worldwide we now have hundreds and thousands of upperlevel management who may not really have a clue as to what they really should be doing, but because of seniority and experience they are now stuck in jobs out of their depth for which they were promoted to, because of brilliance in a layer where they actually did know what they were doing.
Applied laterally to the US's hegemonic position it seems that as far as the world goes and all the disgruntled countries on your list, america will always represent that wonderful Johnny Mathis classic.
everybody..."Guess it's over, call it a day
Sorry that it had to end this way
No reason to pretend
We knew it had to end some day, this way.....
Too much, too little, too late to lie again with you
Too much, too little, too late to try again with you
We’re in the middle of ending something that we knew
It's over Oh, it was over
Too much, too little, too late to ever try again
Too much, too little, too late, let's end it being friends
Too much, too little, too late, we knew it had to end
It's over Oh, it was over
I was going to begin a thread with the very same quote.
It's scandalous, but you have to give them credit for at least being honest about it now. None of this 'clear and present danger' stuff - Iran MIGHT want to attack the US one day, IF it had the ability and desire to develop nuclear weapons. Never mind that it has abided by its NPT commitments (unlike the US).
there is one particular pattern that emerges when sifting through america's national security programs of the past and present. there are many incidents where a dubious or outright fake incident is used to fire up the people for war.
the alamo - the american army was in postion to aid the texans at the alamo but didn't. after the alamo was taken, then it was used as an excuse to go to war with the mexicans netting america the entire western half of the country.
the spanish-american war. the battlecry this time was "remember the main!" as it turns out, the main did not blow up from spanish sabatoge, but rather through a coal-bunker incident or something. it was the newspapers that called for war on the pretense of the main having been attacked, and they got it.
WWI - america only involved itself upon the sinking of the lusitania. the lusitania was carrying war materials - unknown to it's passengers - and taken slowly through waters that were known to be heavilty infested with u-boats. even then, public opinion was not strong enough for war so we used a intercepted radio transcript of a german officer musing on what they could do IF america joined the war as proof that germany was going to attack us.
WWII - there is ample and growing evidence that america had warning through radio intercepts that the japanese were going to attack pearl harbor. fdr even had extra red cross supplies sent to the island days in advance. all of america's aircraft carriers left the islands days before...
vietnam - the gulf of tonkin incidents were used to gather support for the war and it turns out that the events were totally false. no vietnamese gunboats fired on u.s. ships.
there are declassified u.s. documents from the 60's - 70's that talk about the cia's plan to sabotage american shipping or aircraft and blame it on cuba, if necessary. i forget the name of the operation but it's details were things like using modified u.s. military aircraft painted up all commie-like to harass american airliners in the air. it was all from the same operation that planned the bay of pigs invasion.
the first gulf war - kuwait was originally part of iraq. the british portioned off a particularly oil-rich section and called it kuwait. kuwait was run by an oppressive fuedal monarchy, no rarity in those parts. the u.s. used all sorts of false stories to whip up support for the war. stories that allegedly came from witnesses to iraqi atrocities but were really kuwaiti royals lying to get american support.
911 - need i say more? the admin. claims that no one could have predicted it and it turns out that it was predicted and hard copies exist of the memos or briefing or whatever that show that the govt. knew it was possible and perhaps immanent. best thing that could have happened to the bush admin., of course thay squandered it by being too greedy.
so it seems that if you want to know america's national security strategy, it is to compromise security at will to manipulate people to go along with the plans of those in power.
Originally posted by shavixmir[/b]Why don't you go back in history a few years more. The list becomes even more impressive: France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany ...... oops, forgot Japan.
Well.
If this doesn't make your eyes water in masochistic delight, I don't know what will...
From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4812562.stm
[b]"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self-defence, we do not r
Let the shoot-out begin!
Edit: .... and Luxemburg ....