yourdomain.com

[kestrel]

"All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time...I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing." --President Dwight Eisenhower, 1953, upon being presented with plans to wage preventive war to disarm Stalin's Soviet Union


And yet we still take our president seriously after a preemptive war with Iraq and now talk of striking Iran

[dale]

"In this day and time"
We are not in 1953. So we are not in the day and time the Eisenhower was speaking about.

Therefore his quote has little relevance to today's situation.

[Orin]

Yes, why not harken back to Washington's reccomendation of neutrality and avoidence of political parties? Why didn't you bring up Monroe and T. Roosevelt?

" If only we had...." Great for Historical speculation.
_________________
Voodoo Economics with Zeb

"Now, if you're so stupid as to think we didn't have a surplus, you're not going to believe the GAO figures either.... " as he tries and pass off PBGC budget as the national budget. Twice and in Red nonetheless.

[Osiris]

So much for the "what if's". Now, how about the notion of "pre-emptive war"? In view of Saddam and Iraq disaster on PR, in that Saddam's Iraq had nothing with which to threaten the US with in any shape of form, and that the current intell on Iran seems to be following pretty much the same track line, are you going to suggest that because they "might" someday have the means, that allows us to stike them first before they might have the means? You're talking about war against nations now, not against terrorism.
_________________
You don't promote the cause of peace by talking only to people with whom you agree.
Dwight David Eisenhower (1890-1969) US President (1953-61)

[gary]

Osi, If you are cautioning about the quality of the intel, then I will join you. We have to be a whole not more sure than we were with Saddam. We also have to make sure that we don't tell them we are coming months ahead so that they can move things out of country. I know that we can't prove that Iraq did that. However, it is a better explaination that to assume that both the Clinton and Bush administrations got things so completely wrong.

Iran is a different and the same as Iraq. They are a closed country where human intel is hard to come by. Satelites can only show you so much as we have learned recently. Both are headed up by people believed to be at least a bit unstable. Both are agressive in their intentions toward other states in the region. Both have exported their agression in different ways.

The differenece are also many. Iran is more talk and a whole lot less actions than Iraq. Iran is more sublet than Saddam was in their agression toward others, just ask the Kewaities and Saudis. Iran has not lost a war to us and then refused to abide by the conditions of that peace process.

Will we go into Iran? I doubt it. Will we turn a blind eye to Israel bombing the presumed nuclear sites? Could be.

gary