Would This Be A Preemptive Strike?
by Big Dog on Feb 26, 2009 at 21:37 Political
The left went nuts over our attack on Iraq claiming that we should not engage in preemptive strikes. They went along with it all until public sentiment started to change and then they all claimed they were tricked into voting for the war by a guy they all think is stupid. Iraq was not the first time we attacked a country that did not attack us. Japan attacked us in 1941 and we went to war with them and Germany. Germany did not attack us.
In any event, the left was dead set against the idea, at least when it was politically helpful to do so. But now they are in control and occupy the seat at the top. Things might be a little different now. The Navy is prepared to shoot down any missile that North Korea launches if Obama gives the go ahead.
The North Koreans claim they are going to send a satellite into space and the Navy says that if it is a satellite it will be left alone but if the missile is determined not to be one they will shoot it down if Obama gives the order.
This puts Obama in a tough spot. He and his ilk opposed the Bush Doctrine of preemptive strikes so if Obama decides to shoot down a missile he will basically be doing the same thing. In reality, unless that missile is heading for us or our interests we need to leave it alone. If we shoot it down then we are taking a preemptive posture.
Now I am not opposed to preemption and I think there would be no problem shooting down any missile launched just to assert our power and make the NOKs think before doing something stupid. If Obama and the Democrats had not opposed preemption I would not care what they do but since they did oppose it, they need to be held accountable for any act of preemption.
You can bet that if he shoots it down all the libtards who chastised Bush will be rationalizing The Evil Won’s actions. It will also show the value of missile defense, a program the Democrats want to scale down or eliminate.
It would not surprise me if Obama gives the order to shoot it down. Preemption was something Bush believed in.
And so far, Obama has kept a lot of Bush’s policies and practices in place.
Source:
ABC News
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: missile defense, missiles, navy, north korea, Obama
[…] the rest at Big Dog’s House) Share This Article With […]
Ahh reality. Such an ugly concept for the hopenchange movement.
BTW may I use “The Evil Won”? That is too good….
I don’t see why not. I borrowed it from someone else.
I guess it depends on what you view is a threat. Many of those who opposed Iraq supported Afghanistan because they thought there was cause for attack. Iraq had violated agreements and clearly was hiding information for many years but the problem in that lay in what was perceived as a threat worthy of preemption. After the fact it became clearer that there was no cause for attack as outlined and even Bush admitted that himself though I know you still hold out with theories about where the WMD went and such.
I wouldn’t call shooting down a missile so much as preemption in terms of Iraq but you could call it that I see. If that is the case I have to say I’m not against preemption in general so much as I am against “decapitation strikes” and “shock and awe” and all that other outrageous BS the Bush administration called their aggression in Iraq.
In the end Obama has lived up to what he promised he would do in the way of Pakistan and North Korea though so if any liberals start to get regrets then they need to wise up.
I don’t disagree completely with your view. It all depends on what we define as preemption and what threat there is. I think shooting down a missile that is no threat to us would be as assertive as shock and awe though not on as big a scale it would make a similar statement. Shock and Awe would have been great if it were really that but it was more of a puff and ahh.
If it had truly been shock and Awe it probably would have broken a lot of people from the get go.
And we have to look at why the preemption occurs. Bush had intelligence reports from all over saying Iraq had WMD. I know they had them and I know they did not destroy them because there is no evidence that they have been destroyed. I have a little experience in that realm so I know there would be tell tale signs. The question becomes, where did they go? I believe his senior officers who said they were shipped to Syria. If he truly destroyed them then the world should have hired him to get rid of all the ones required to be eliminated under treaty because he would have done it the most cost effective and clean way imaginable. That is why I know they were not destroyed.
If the missile appears to be a threat based on the assessment when it is launched then we should destroy it. If it appears a threat and we shoot it down and it turns out that it was not then it would be no different than Iraq except for the scale.
As for keeping promises. Not sure about that. He is doing very little different than the man he heavily criticized. We will have to wait and see how things pan out in this regard.
I also assert that those who supported Afghanistan did so because it was politically expedient just as they did with Iraq. They called Afghanistan the right war but now that Iraq is winding down they are pulling back on the support for Afghanistan.
I think what Obama promised to do was be tougher on Pakistan and North Korea, to step up troops in Afghanistan, and to wind down Iraq. So far he’s worked to keep all 4 of those promises. It’s too early to say results for sure though of course. He’s also talked about Iran but nothing much to say about that so far. You’re right in the case of Pakistan for sure where Obama hasn’t stopped drone attacks on targets like Bush was doing at the end as well.