BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Bush: Preemptive Strike Policy

  
 
Matthew Fluxington
12:26 / 20.09.02
Here is the full text of the Bush administration's new security policy. Essentially, our policy is that anyone who stands in the way of the United States global economic and military supremacy will be attacked. The slippery slope begins here.

Anyway, I think she's right about this.

This is far too depressing for me to weigh in on just now. What do you think?


(links require NY Times registration)
 
 
Ethan Hawke
13:12 / 20.09.02
This month's Harper's Magazine has an interesting article about the evolution of this security policy, known to those in the know as simply "The Plan." It was first drafted during the first Bush administration by Cheney, Powell, Wolfowitz and others, as a response to the collapse of the Soviet Union. To quote Powell in the early 90s "We want to be the biggest bully on the block." (the myth of Powell as a counterbalance to Cheney and the hawks is really overblown). The "Plan" called for U.S. forces to be based in more places around the globe, and engage in conflict that would threaten American hegemony. Harpers' notes that the initial "Plan" was revealed by Bush pere on the same day Saddam invaded Kuwait. The plan met with a cold reception by both conservative and liberal elements in the government at the time, and Cheney tried to distance himself from it. Apparently, though, he "kept hope alive" and here we are, in a receptive climate to the "plan".
 
 
nutella23
16:08 / 20.09.02
It seems that regardless of what happens now with UN weapons inspectors, whether or not they find anything, are hampered in their efforts or are left alone by the Iraqi govt. officials, it doesn't matter. Nor does the support of the UN security council or general assembly seem to count for much either in this regard. Bush wants a pre-emptive strike, period. And while I still support Saddam's removal, the US doing it alone, and pre-emptively, is not the way to proceed. I still feel that if the UN were unanimous in its opposition to Iraq, then a better resolution could be achieved. This "war, no matter what" attitude is not only frightening, it angers me as well.

Reason being: the Bush administration is very clearly violating the Constituiton, the War Powers Act, and international law. If a superpower cannot be expected to abide by said international law as mandated by the UN, then why should anyone else be expected to? We are opening the door for a lot of dangerous activity here, and in light of the on-going global economic problems, this needs to be addressed now.

I agree, its very depressing. The fuse on the MidEast powderkeg has been lit and its no longer a matter of "if" but "when". Our grab for dominating the world's strategic petroleum reserves is now unhinging world stability, and I think other countries recognize this and are getting fearful and angry as well. The repercussions of this policy are going to be enormous and horrible.

On a side note: the other day at work, I was taking a break outside and looked up in time to see a pair of those new B1 bombers flying overhead, and at the same time I heard a radio from a passing car playing that Pink Floyd song, "Goodbye Blue Sky" from "The Wall"...one of those coincedences that stands your hair on end. It did for me at any rate.
 
  
Add Your Reply