Allow the President to invade...

[Lancecastor]

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion...and you allow him to make war at pleasure.

...If today he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us," but he would say to you, "Be silent: I see it if you don't."

Quote: Iraq Information Minister Press Briefing, today.

 

[zipman]

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion...and you allow him to make war at pleasure.

...If today he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us," but he would say to you, "Be silent: I see it if you don't."

Quote: Iraq Information Minister Press Briefing, today.

What do you have to worry about, you're 2-0 in wars?

 

[Guest]

 

[Lancecastor]

Re: Re: Allow the President to invade...

What do you have to worry about, you're 2-0 in wars?

Not worried at all...but I'm wondering what you think of the reasoning as it relates to your President.

 

[phrodeau]

Re: Re: Re: Allow the President to invade...

Not worried at all...but I'm wondering what you think of the reasoning as it relates to your President.

Since you are Canadian, your opinion is worth bupkis.

 

[Lasher]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Allow the President to invade...

Since you are Canadian, your opinion is worth bupkis.

You give him far more credit than he deserves.

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Allow the President to invade...

You give him far more credit than he deserves.

See Lance, I told you to pay off your HSN bill. But nooooooo...you had to have that turkey deep-frier didn't you?

 

[Lancecastor]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Allow the President to invade...

Since you are Canadian, your opinion is worth bupkis.

Okay...fair enough...what are your thoughts on the quote as it relates to the US Presidency?

 

[Guest]

 

[zipman]

Re: Re: Re: Allow the President to invade...

Not worried at all...but I'm wondering what you think of the reasoning as it relates to your President.

Sorry, I really didn't take it too seriously as the comments were made by the Iraqi information minister and we did not go to war for the fun of it.


Having said that, I doubt that congress would authorize any action against Canada unless the risk was clearly proven and all efforts at diplomacy had failed.


On the other hand, if it did happen, at least then I would be able to understand your intense dislike for America.

 

[Worm]

You have to have faith in the people that were elected. Regardless if you think the President was elected or not congress gave him the go ahead and they too were elected. I wonder if Saddam asked the people if it was ok to invade Kuwait.

 

[phrodeau]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Allow the President to invade...

Okay...fair enough...what are your thoughts on the quote as it relates to the US Presidency?

I think it's dead on. What will I do about it? I will vote. What will you do about it... whine?

 

[Lancecastor]

iraq wasn't entered to prevent an invasion!!

It was invaded as a preemptive strike against a country "thought" to pose a risk to US national security..that was the whole thrust of the rationale.

And to Zip's point....the quote relates to the USA's "Wolfowitz" foreign policy framework developed during the Reagan Administration, pitched after Gulf War 1 to Bush1, then withdrawn and shelved until September 11, 2001 when Rumsefeld wanted a viable rationale to put Iraq on a hitlist.

The quote says "canada", but that's a red herring...look at the principal...do you want your President to be able to take you to war because he "thinks" your country is at risk without attack or proof?

Do you believe the preemptive strike doctrine is right for the USA?

 

[PAUL C]

territorial ambitions in Canada

It wasn't in the Labour Party manifesto to invade Canada. But then it wasn't in it to invade Iraq.

 

[ozraven]

The quote says "canada", but that's a red herring...look at the principal...do you want your President to be able to take you to war because he "thinks" your country is at risk without attack or proof?

Do you believe the preemptive strike doctrine is right for the USA?

I am niether American or Canadian, but to answer these questions, yes.

To think that any elected head of state should have to convince his entire constituency, or even 80% of it prior to an attack is to nueter him, and leave your country at a significant disadvantage.

This sort of thinking allowed Hitler to take much of Europe, as the governments of many nations, including the UK, were not game enough to attack first, in the face of overwhelming, (but not conclusive) evidence of Hitlers intentions.......gutless, pacifistic inaction that ultimately probably cost millions of lives.

Does that apply in this instance.....ie Iraq, probably not, but as I understand it, that wasn't your question.........

And to the Iraqii Information Minister, well at least we now know what yayati does for a day job.

 

[celiaKitten]

This is a quote from Abraham Lincoln, isn't it? I've quoted it myself quite a few times ..

 

[zipman]

It was invaded as a preemptive strike against a country "thought" to pose a risk to US national security..that was the whole thrust of the rationale.

And to Zip's point....the quote relates to the USA's "Wolfowitz" foreign policy framework developed during the Reagan Administration, pitched after Gulf War 1 to Bush1, then withdrawn and shelved until September 11, 2001 when Rumsefeld wanted a viable rationale to put Iraq on a hitlist.

The quote says "canada", but that's a red herring...look at the principal...do you want your President to be able to take you to war because he "thinks" your country is at risk without attack or proof?

Do you believe the preemptive strike doctrine is right for the USA?

First off, it wasn't shelved, Clinton was the first to say that we needed to affect regime change in Iraq.

Secondly, if a country does pose a threat to the US, then yes, if the President orders it and Congress authorizes it, chances are I would support it.

Hopefully, the UN will get it's pathetic act together and be what it was intended to be and eliminate the need for this type of scenario. Considering what I have seen and heard recently, I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Lancecastor]

This is a quote from Abraham Lincoln, isn't it? I've quoted it myself quite a few times ..

Bing!


In 1848, Lincoln wrote those words to William Herndon explaining his opposition to the Mexican War.

The USA used to hold dear the pricipal that war should only be waged when faced with a clear and present danger.

Iraq marks a profound change in US Foreign Policy.

One your forefathers wouldn't have supported.

Interesting, yes?

 

[celiaKitten]

Bing!


In 1848, Lincoln wrote those words to William Herndon explaining his opposition to the Mexican War.

The USA used to hold dear the pricipal that war should only be waged when faced with a clear and present danger.

Iraq marks a profound change in US Foreign Policy.

One your forefathers wouldn't have supported.

Interesting, yes?

Iraq marks the open change, only. We've been sticking our fingers into other pies for quite a few decades, now. This time, we gave the diplomatic equivilant of a "Fuck you, I'll do what I want" to those that disagreed, and then opened that terrible door into secrecy, veiled truth and international relations by threat, not cooperation.

I think it's certainly interesting that both sides call on historical reference only when it's convenient, denouncing the use of it when it doesn't suit their purpose.

 

[zipman]

Bing!


In 1848, Lincoln wrote those words to William Herndon explaining his opposition to the Mexican War.

The USA used to hold dear the pricipal that war should only be waged when faced with a clear and present danger.

Iraq marks a profound change in US Foreign Policy.

One your forefathers wouldn't have supported.

Interesting, yes?

Ahh, but WMD didn't exist back then and the possibility of a single person being able to wipe out a city or kill hundreds of thousands of people didn't exist.

Times and circumstances change, and I would rather change with them then be destroyed by holding onto principles that jeapordize the security and future of my country.

You don't see the hole left by the Twin Towers, Lance, I do. You do not live in the highest threat area, I do.

Believe me, it changes your perspective.

 

[Lancecastor]

This time, we gave the diplomatic equivilant of a "Fuck you, I'll do what I want" to those that disagreed, and then opened that terrible door into secrecy, veiled truth and international relations by threat, not cooperation.

This is the core of the Wolfowitz doctrine adopted by Bush in the wake of Sept 11.

It's your new foreign policy...preemption.

 

[Lancecastor]

You don't see the hole left by the Twin Towers, Lance, I do. You do not live in the highest threat area, I do.

So, go find the people who did it and bomb them.

 

[Guest]

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion...and you allow him to make war at pleasure.

...If today he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us," but he would say to you, "Be silent: I see it if you don't."

Quote: Iraq Information Minister Press Briefing, today.

OK, do you believe this guy or don't you? Here's what you said about the information minister yesterday.

He appears to have few doubts about his own credibility, despite mounting evidence that much of what he says is quite untrue. He spends most of his time accusing the US and Britain of lying.

 

[zipman]

So, go find the people who did it and bomb them.

That's exactly what we are doing. Since terrorists don't have a country or flag, we have to go after those countries that continue to deal with or harbor terrorists as well as those countries who are developing WMD.

 

[celiaKitten]

Re: Re: Allow the President to invade...

OK, do you believe this guy or don't you? Here's what you said about the information minister yesterday.

One of Lance's bait 'n' switch things ... it isn't a quote from the Iraqi minister, but President Lincoln