Bush et. al have set a dangerous new precedent for US

[Proud Liberal Dem]

After witnessing the invasion of Iraq and the (initial) reasoning supplied to support it (WMDs) and now witnessing the debate about whether or not Bush will launch an invasion of or (at least) an air bombing campaign on Iran if they refuse to "come clean" about or give up their alleged nuclear ambitions, I have become very concerned about this new precedent that Bush et. al have set for our country (that some Democrats also seem to endorse) that basically establishes an unequivocal and unchallengable right for us to attack and/or invade any countries (ones we don't like anyway) SOLELY on the basis of their efforts to develop or acquire any kind of WMDs. While we were somehow able to tolerate the SIGNIFICANTLY larger threat of nuclear annihilation by the Soviet Union for nearly 50 years (with the exception of allowing Cuba to have Soviet nukes right in our own backyard), Bush et. al seem obsessed with preventing certain countries from ever obtaining WMD through the use of military force even as they see perfectly fit to continue to enhance our own WMD capabilities and looking the other way when other countries like Pakistan whom are marginal(if questionable) "allies" develop, acquire, and sometimes even SELL them. I don't believe that more countries having WMDs (particularly nukes) is necessarily a good thing by any means. I actually believe that EVERYBODY should renounce the further creation and development thereof and move towards full destruction of WMDs worldwide (us included). However, I just don't believe that it is justifiable nor desirable to attack or invade countries simply on the basis that they have or intend to obtain WMDs. What does everybody else think?

[MadMaddie]

1. I agree with you....

What is interesting is the countries that this administration is choosing to go after...

Iraq, Iran, Syria...they don't go after other countries that have no oil interests or political interest. Africa is not on the map at all...

They won't attack North Korea...(you notice the rhetoric has been very quiet about North Korea...China is involved and the US is not)

What they knowingly or unknowingly have done....they have revitalized Russia and they have made China even more powerful...this administration has Russia and China looking like the level headed Super Power....

If we do not stop this Adminstration and it's disasterous policies...the US will pay for it 20 years from now.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. The Oil!

The fact that the only part of Iraq that our military forces ever successfully secured during our invasion were the oil fields tells us everything we should ever need to know about why Bush REALLY invaded Iraq. It is simply amazing why so many people fail to realize this despite all of the evidence, although, of course, the Bush (mis-)administration, GOP, MSM, and even some Democrats have done a good job of making everybody whom believes that we went to war with Iraq (and may yet go to war with Iran and Syria) for any other reason than WMD(!), "links" with Al-Queda(!), "liberation of the Iraqi people"(!), etc. seem like just a bunch of nutty "conspiracy theorists."

[stillcool]

3. sometimes I wonder if any thing is new...

even the propaganda and bogus congressional hearings have the same old, same old tone. I am convinced that the founding families of big industry, and all they've spawned anatomically and financially, own this country. "We the people", refers to them. 'A government by the people' is acutely accurate when understanding who the 'people' are, 'for the people'...is another no-brainer when seen in such light, and 'of the people' is displayed prominently in the leading positions that make-up the U.S. Government.

Editorial on NSDD 138 <1984>
In 1984 it is appropriate to anticipate the latest newspeak of the Reagan administration. The most significant buzzword today is "terrorism," which term has effectively replaced "communist" or "subversive" in the jargon of the guardians of national security. After six years of building a national consciousness attuned to the issue of terrorism, however aberrantly defined through repetition of the word, the administration is playing the final cards in its hand.

On April 3, President Reagan secretly issued National Security Decision Directive 138 outlining new policies in the administration's fight against "terrorism." Details of the secret Directive were first exposed in the April 15 Los Angeles Times, although indications of its existence could be gleaned from the April 4 Washington Post report of a speech by Secretary of State George P. Shultz to the Trilateral Commission the night before. Shultz stressed the need for "preemptive actions" to stop "state-supported terrorism," and called for a "bold response" to a problem he saw exemplified by the bomb attack that killed 241 U.S. Marines at Beirut airport last October. (Predictably, he saw no need to mention the 2,000 Nicaraguans killed by the CIA's contras or the more than 30,000 Salvadorans killed by the military dictatorship the U.S. arms and trains.) At the moment Shultz was telling his audience about the serious questions raised in a democracy responding to terrorism, he was fully cognizant that his boss had preempted public debate on the subject by unilaterally signing NSDD 138 earlier that day. The cynicism of this administration knows no bounds.

NSDD 138

Even sketchy details of the new Directive, as described in the L.A. Times, were chilling. It approves of preemptive strikes against terrorists as well as reprisal raids. Both concepts, of course, are highly illegal—nearly incomprehensible—in the realm of domestic law enforcement. The document also approves of the creation of FBI and CIA paramilitary squads for anti-terrorism actions, and the Defense Intelligence Agency is authorized for the first time in its history to use intelligence agents. A Joint Special Operations Agency has been created under the Joint Chiefs of Staff to coordinate military counterterrorist units in each service. Although the Directive stops short of authorizing assassinations (purportedly banned in 1981 by Executive Order 12333), it does authorize preemptive and retaliatory strikes which could kill not only their targets, but innocent bystanders as well. The Directive contains a "dubious morality," one "senior administration official" conceded