Bush Doctrine

from JoeUser Forums

Matthew Yglesias points out that, contrary to Republican claims, there is little difference between left and right on the definition of the "the war against terrorism":

"I'm not seeing a vast substantive difference here. Surely the Bush administration also thinks that counterterrorism involves mere law enforcement on most days with only the occassional hot war (we've only fought two wars, after all, and Kerry only disagreed with Bush on half of one of them). I feel like I've heard that from the president's own mouth -- this is "a new kind of war," that kind of thing. I wouldn't want to say that there are no differences between the foreign policy views of Bush and his opponents, but at this point, they really aren't very big.

Big Media Matt hit the nail on the head by knocking down this right-wing straw man. Democrats have clearly embraced the pragmatic post-September 11th reality: the United States must be willing wage war against countries that threaten America by harbouring terrorists. No argument there.

Oh, and he was doing so well. But in that last sentence Yglesias veers off into no man's land. Excuse me, but the foreign policy differences between Bush and his opponents "really aren't very big"!? In what box, under what bridge has Matthew been living?

In case anyone's missed it, here's the difference: Democrats support attacking any country that threatens the United States, if it will help them win the war against terrorism -- the Bush Administration doesn't care whether, or not, such a country poses a threat to the United States in the first place.

The Bush Administration was clearly intent on war either way. Paul O'Neill has told us as much. Paul Wolfowitz said that weapons of mass destruction were simply the justification officials "settled on". Even when UN inspectors were readmitted to Iraq, the Administration reacted by reiterating its goal of "regime change". WMD, and by extension the "threat", were a minor issue, at best.

I'm not claiming this is imperialism. As Joe Biden recently said, the neocons are patriotic Americans who really believe this malarkey. They truly believe that -- even though Iraq posed no threat to the United States -- attacking Iraq made Americans safer.

For all their contempt of containment, deterrence and detente, the neocons are practicing their own version of it. A scary, warped version, but a version none the less.

They have written, in black and white, that the United States must create a world order characterized by American military dominance in every region of the world. The neocons aren't ready to stop supporting friendly dictators -- and they know they can't kill every terrorist. But they believe that by exercising absolute military power in the Middle East they can contain and deter terrorists.

I am a great supporter of containment and deterrence. They are, however, concepts steeped in rationality and logic. Sadly, those are two qualities I've found to be lacking amongst contemporary terrorists. And for that matter, amongst neocons.
politics
3,307 views 2 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I am a great supporter of containment and deterrence. They are, however, concepts steeped in rationality and logic. Sadly, those are two qualities I've found to be lacking amongst contemporary terrorists. And for that matter, amongst neocons." writes canuck...

A too Canadian, nowhere and compromised out of sight political position for me. "A plaugue on both your houses, everything is equally right and everything is equally wrong."

For fucks sake, actually take a stand. America is in the Middle East on amother war of imperial conquest, the same as it was in Vietnam, for oil resources and control of the real estate of other folks wherein it can be found. The democracy mantra is the same old tired shiboleth they always drag out to hide their crimes, for fuck sake, whether we're talking financing and supporting Latin American paramilitary killers, or invading more small and tiny countries like Granada, Panama, Lebanon, Cuba, Vietnam, and so on and so on. The twaddle of "democracy" is the smokescreen they throwup to do their international bullying behind, and only Bootlicking Canadians outside Jingoistic U.S. mindfucks believe it.

Shit man, I'd even respect you more if you openly took the neocon position of support for their phantom bullshit, "bringing enlightenment and democracy to the savage masses." But no, what we get is another nowhere JoeNobody Canuck position that achieves the same thing, but takes the moral and intellectual cowards way out. Too fucking Canadian for anything but toilet paper.

Get off your knees, wipe the Yankee cum from your chops, and wipe the Yankee boot black off your tongue. Actually say something honest, that takes real "independant" guts. Get out of the intellectual and moral fag closet.

We mustn't offend anybody must we? It's the "Canuck" way. too boring.

At least "the terrorists" know who their enemy is and why, and lacking U.S. America's weapons of mass destruction, they've got the guts to use their bodies and minds as guidance systems for the only missles they can afford. We just suck Yankee cock because its all we really know what to do. Eat NAFTA you motherfucks.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
That was little over the top. I don't even know how to respond to that!?
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion