Frontline Tonight 2/20/03

[Rokenn]

anyway back on topic...

I had no idea the divisions on the premption issues went back so far and, at least according to this show, are pretty much centered around Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz. One thing for sure, I have even more respect for Mr Powell now then I did before. If he does run for president sometime in the future he will most certainly have my support [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

[img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] Ronn & skywalker

You're BOTH slackers!!!!. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] I get up at 5:30am every morning and I rarely go to bed before 11pm. Sometimes, I stay up till midnight or later. I'll admit that age is catching up to me (will be 40 very soon) and I can't go on 4-5 hours sleep like I used to. I stayed up till 1am 2 days this week and I was hating it hard by the 3rd day...but even then, I went to bed at the "early" hour of 10pm.

[Timber Loftis]

Umm.... on the [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] portion of this post: normally I sleep from 2am or 3am to 7am. One night a week I'll turn in REALLY early (like 10-11pm) and catch-up on my zzzz's.

Back on-topic:

Yeah, who knew how far back it went? Bush 41 had to end the war when he did - and Powell advised him well on that. Helicopters shooting at men who threw down their weapons and ran would not have played well here. The "highway of death" just barely avoided being a huge snafu.

But, Saddam has really gone nuts on pushing the envelope. We have a problem there that must be addressed - in one way or another.

But, the Bush/Wolfowitz doctrine, taken literally, knows no bounds and will embroil us in conflict in numerous places at once if we're not careful. I think the term "crusade" will become more and more applicable as we realize the breadth of restructuring that is being contemplated regarding the middle east.

On a similar note, Suadi Arabia last week began contemplating steps to reform some elements of its government. Just like the Bush/Wolfowitz doctrine contemplates: make war and oust those we can't change through diplomacy, encourage reform with diplomacy where they're acceptable to it.

[Djinn Raffo]

That sounds extremely dangerous to me Timber. I didn't see the show but i am well aware of the Powell/Wolfowitz division, so this post might be off topic...

"On a similar note, Suadi Arabia last week began contemplating steps to reform some elements of its government. Just like the Bush/Wolfowitz doctrine contemplates: make war and oust those we can't change through diplomacy, encourage reform with diplomacy where they're acceptable to it."

I know it says what it 'contemplates'.. but.. make war and oust those we can't change through diplomacy, encourage reform with diplomacy where they're acceptable to it. It does not draw sides or distinctions between who 'they' are at all.

I know it is only a snippet of a quote and does not encompass the whole doctrine..

but is this doctrine pushing Democracy? or Capitalism? Or both? after the war/ousting or diplomacy..

I fail to see how democracy can be imposed through war and the ousting of regimes. To me.. the only way a democracy can happen is if the people want that to happen. The people who will be living under that democracy are the ones who will have to rise up. Not the peoples of a foreign power. That being said their could be nothing wrong with offering a helping hand in that rising up..

Well it is all a very complex and sometimes maddening problem and it is very hard to tell what the right thing to do is.. or for that matter if their even is a right thing to do..

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: I fail to see how democracy can be imposed through war and the ousting of regimes. To me.. the only way a democracy can happen is if the people want that to happen. The people who will be living under that democracy are the ones who will have to rise up. Not the peoples of a foreign power. That being said their could be nothing wrong with offering a helping hand in that rising up.

It can and has worked without the people rising up. Sometimes the people can't arrange Democracy on their own, sometimes they don't even know what it is, but once they get it, they won't let it go. West Germany and Japan prove the point. East Germany is a great example of how things fail if you don't keep the people in mind.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, it'd be nice if every nation's experiences were like the "Velvet Revolution" but that seems to me to be more the exception than the norm.

I agree it's fraught with problems. A good question on the capitalism/democracy issue - in modern time they are hard to distinguish. The whole Wolfowitz/Bush doctrine is subject to a macro version of what's called "mission creep." The 80's "Powell Doctrine" that was the model followed by "41" strictly forbade mission creep - saying military actions should only be undertaken for strictly-defined purposes, when no other option was available, with clear objectives, and with overwhelming force. Sounds good to me.

But, lookee here:
9/11/01: We will get who did this
10/01: We will not distinguish between states who harbor terrorists and the terrorists themselves.
12/01: There are state-sponsors of terrorism which form an axis of evil we must address.
Early 02: You are either with us or against us.

I see a collision course to war with many nations coming from this doctrine. Mission creep at its finest.

[Rokenn]

Another thing about the Wolfowitz/Bush doctrine, I remember hearing that one of it's tenants is using premption to stop another 'superpower' from arising to challange the US in world affairs. Does anyone else remember this?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Rokenn: Another thing about the Wolfowitz/Bush doctrine, I remember hearing that one of it's tenants is using premption to stop another 'superpower' from arising to challange the US in world affairs. Does anyone else remember this?

I think you may be mistaken. The way I understand it, the "preemption" doctrine is to react to a national threat before something actually happens. This would apply to WoMD's in Saddam's hands, for instance. But, I don't think it would apply to France or its nukes. That just seems silly.

[Djinn Raffo]

What about from Chinas Shenzou mission? China does not want to 'cede' space to the United States and has been actively and vigorously pursuing a space program. With satelites you are opening up a whole new world of weapons strike possibilities and getting into the realm of scifi almost. A Chinese presence in space could be seen as a threat to the lone superpower.

EDIT> Ok thats going off on a wierd tangent.. but the whole Prevent another superpower.. i think that is the way it is. Once you are on top.. you want to stay there.

[ 02-21-2003, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Quote: Originally posted by Rokenn: Another thing about the Wolfowitz/Bush doctrine, I remember hearing that one of it's tenants is using premption to stop another 'superpower' from arising to challange the US in world affairs. Does anyone else remember this?

I think you may be mistaken. The way I understand it, the "preemption" doctrine is to react to a national threat before something actually happens. This would apply to WoMD's in Saddam's hands, for instance. But, I don't think it would apply to France or its nukes. That just seems silly.[/QUOTE]awwww but come on, do you really trust the French with nukes? [img]tongue.gif[/img] Aren't pretzels from France, and one of those tried to kill 43...