McCain refuses to rule out pre-emptive attacks

Sen. McCain, sir, you DO realize that the doctrine of pre-emptive attacks works two ways, don't you? Given the Iraq debacle, other countries might feel that the Excited States of America is a threat to THEIR national security, and would, to use your way of thinking, be perfectly justified in launching a pre-emptive attack themselves! Or does America think that far ahead?

GG, I think you're underestimating the callousness of McCain and his cabal.

other countries might feel that the Excited States of America is a threat to THEIR national security, and would, to use your way of thinking, be perfectly justified in launching a pre-emptive attack themselves!

That, I suspect, is exactly what he's hoping for. That's why there are US warships moored within sight of the Iranian coast, goading the populace whilst all the time making threatening noises like this.

I don't believe the Iranian government would be so rash as to launch a pre-emptive strike, but it's well within the realms of possibility that some misguided loony with delusions of patriotic martyrdom would respond to the constant taunts and use himself as a weapon.

Get into the the US mainland and perform some low-level, ham-fisted act causing some deaths or property damage, and that's all the NeoCons will need to pin it as proof of an AlQaida/Iranian conspiracy plot. Fox et al will whip up the masses into a panicked sense of victimhood, and the Pentagon can play the righteous vengeance card. Again.

And that's carte blanche to getstuck in, the way they've been champing at the bit to do this last five years. Cheney's been like a cockblocked teenager, held back from his PNAC goals by the rank incompetence of the Iraq fiasco. But a bit more concrete dust in the air of US city will wipe that reality away, and that's what McCain is aiming for here.

This man scares me.

I agree folks, Mr. "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" McCain is one very scary dude! If Diebold has the Mossad's way, they'll rig the voting machines again to put him in the White House, just like "W" and that's when I think many people will be thinking, "Stop the world, I wanna get off""

I see, so all of you like the idea of being attacked first...

Well, Iraq is part of the greater Islamic empire and Islam has declare war on the west a loooong time ago so really was Islam pre-emptively invaded?

Like I said folks, it depends on how one looks at it. Of course I don't expect JT lefties to do that!

GG - I don't wanna get off, I want the warmongering loonies to get off.

Deep breath, nobody's falling in love with the idea of being attacked first. Islam didn't declare war on the west a long time ago. Islam only got really radical as we know it 60 years ago, when the "State" of Israel was declared. A limited and clearly targeted pre-emptive strike when there is clear and present danger, and demonstrably so, would be justified to most thinking individuals. So far these conditions have not been met. Certainly not in Afghanistan, and definitely not in Iraq. Unfortunately the White House has L I E D the USA into war. And John McCain is one of those who lied the USA into war. And there is good reason to suspect that he would glibly and without a second thought lie the USA into war again. THAT is why the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes is so contentious; it's the liars who strike pre-emptively under false pretenses. And, no OBL sitting in his cave did not do 9/11. THAT is a story beyond the topic of this discussion.

If someone is about to launch a missile at us and we attack, this is not a pre-emptive attack. This is a countermeasure.

If we have a notion that someone could someday launch a missile at us and we attack, that would be a pre-emptive attack. It is not about waiting to be attacked first. It is about intelligently distinguishing threats.

Im with cleo. How about a battleroyal style island for all the warmongers to fight it to the death between themselves and leave the rest of the people out of it. Last one alive can stay on the island all by himself. Preferably an island far far away.

GrouchyGaijin: 60 years ago? Keep telling yourself that Israel is the root of ALL the problems meanwhile small and poor countries fall into Muslim hands...

I would prefer the US not bother helping any country any longer.. When we went to Somalia, I recall before the decision to send us, many famous people, including super model Imam was complaining that the US needs to be the force to stand up first. Well we did and what did it get the US? Nothing but flack. So, if the US can isolate itself and leave any country coming under new forms of government by undesirable people - leave them alone. That includes Kosaovo, African countries, South East Asia.. Perhaps that would settle the need or thoughts of any type of pre-emptive attacks..

BTW, even the girls from the view agree with the reporter who stated that the real issue right now is "How are we going to keep Iran out of Iraq" and that is from the most left leaning media organization in the US! Apparently there is something to consider

Respectfully, skipthesong, I agree that the US should follow the advice of your former president: "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801. ME 3:321 What America needs is a president who will put America 1st, 2nd and 3rd heeding Jefferson's counsel.

It really is not our business to keep Iran out of Iraq. Of course, that is not going to stop jingoists from making it our business.

What McCain is saying is just common sense.

The key is making sure you have the intelligence measures in place to make sure that mistakes aren't made.

It really is not our business to keep Iran out of Iraq.

Then I guess it's not the worlds business to keep America out of Iraq.

The key is making sure you have the intelligence measures in place to make sure that mistakes aren't made.

You mean like electing a president of at least average intelligence? Pity the key doesn't get past the first hurdle.

SuperLib,

We have as much business in Iraq as the Soviet Union did in Cuba. The question is one of who is farthest from home as well as whether they are present with troops or present with constructive aid.

The Iraqis have much more in common than with Iran than they do with the US. The US is not predominantly Muslim, Arab or Persian and we are culturally at sea in the Middle East.

It's one thing to claim Central and South America as our exclusive sphere of influence and quite another to pretend to reorder the entire world for our convenience-even, or maybe especially, when our convenience greatly inconveniences us.

hillary is the type of person who is vindictive and doesn't like being told what to do. She proved that by dismissing Gen. Petraeus' report this week. ou would've thought she knew more than a man in his position. Must've been her own combat experience in the mid-1990s shining through.

barack is a lawyer. Not a general. Though he sits on the Armed forces committee it does not make him a veteran who knows what is going on. He may listen to his generals and admirals but I doubt he would be able to make a decision due to his lack of military knowledge. There is a big difference in fighting it out in a courtroom or the senate and doing it on a battlefield. He visited Iraq once and never left the safety of the camp. The soldiers he interviewed were hand picked. Nor does he know what it's like to get shot at and fight back or watch your buddy die. If he knew those feelings he would change his position on the war and want the job finished.

Gen. Petraeus is an honorable man but he cannot speak for all Iraqis and who they support. In Vietnam, the VC would hold villages hostage or kill the chiefs' family members until they denounced America and the South Vietnamese Government. Al Queda does the same thing. That's why they're terrorists. Just like the VC, we don't know them from respectable Iraqis until they blow themselves up. There are some Iraqi villages that are afraid of Al Queda and support them out of fear. barack and hillary should realize this. Mr. McCain does.

RR

RomeoRamen - while you throw dirt at Hillary and Obama, what can you say about McCain?

The man crashed or was shot down in 6 (?) planes and spent 5 1/2 years as a POW. Does that somehow qualify him to lead the U.S. economy with all its intracacies?

McCain talks about pre-emptive strikes, but what does he know about the economy? Not much by the sounds of it.

He talks about staying in Iraq to finish the job, but is he also talking about benefitting Americans - the people he is actually supposed to represent?

He's not saying a lot in that area either.

What I see here is a case of the Republicans rearranging chairs on the Titanic. The U.S. economy is in serious trouble with the very real chance it will inflict serious drag on the global economy, and yet all McCain seems to be able to talk about is "winning" in Iraq (not America) and supporting the spending of untold more billions of borrowed money (from an economy that is already massively bankrupt and tanking) to do so.

And to cap it all off, McCain fails to articulate any clear definitions of

what "victory" in Iraq means (does he even know??) when it may be achieved, or how it will be paid for, which is something it seems pretty much all Republicans/War Supporters - including yourself - run away into the night when you are confronted about.

Sen. McCain needs to shut up about Iraq and pre-emptive strikes on other nations and focus on the far more important issue of fixing the U.S. economy.

His support of the out-of-control spending on Iraq is a prime cause of his country's economic problems, and yet all he seems happy to do is make it worse by encouraging even more spending on an unwinnable war in Iraq, and even talking about further pre-emptive strikes.

My question is: when is it going to stop?

Clinton and Obama are wise to demand an end to the already failed Iraq war.

Yes, a pullout will be tenuous and it won't come without its fair share of problems and backfires, but what is the alternative?

Have U.S. forces remain in Iraq, while the Iraqi government sits on their a*ses, unmotivated and with no compulsion to do anything constructive?

You can bet your last yen that when President Obama announces U.S. forces redeployment dates in 2009, those Iraqi politicians will get a wake up call like they have never had in their lives.

It will be sink or swim time, and the sooner that moment arrives, the better for Iraqis, the better for Americans, and the better for both economies.

America cannot stay in Iraq forever - we know that. It's time to force the Iraqi Government to get into gear and take responsibility for their own country, and the longer U.S. forces remain in Iraq, the longer it will take for that to occur.

To back up my point - consider the failure of the U.S. "surge."

Its goal - as you know - was to give the Iraqi Govt. breathing space to foster reconcilliation.

Did that happen? No, hence the "surge"'s failure.

So, what's the plan now? Just sit and wait for an indefinite period in Iraq babysitting Iraqi soldiers (and getting mortared and shot), as Gen. Petraeus and Bush are suggesting?

Are you kidding us?

You and the other war supporters need to come up with a better thought out strategy than that if you want to be taken seriously in this debate.

Looking forward to your response.

Keep Iran out of Irak? I think that that was the job of Sadam until the US invaded Irak. And is just like in the Korean war, keep China out of Korea. Why the US dont sit in the negotiation table wiht Iran and divide the country in two like Germany with the Soviet Union and Korea with China? Then Iran can build a Berlin Wall or bith sides can make a Land mine field and see the irakis from the Iranian sides trying to escape to the Us side. In place of fight a never ending war, let again that history show that a represive governament be a communist one or a theocratic one dont bring solution to un-emplyment. That a democracy with economic and military alliance like Germany, Japan and SK can flourish. Can take many generations reunite Irak. But that is up to the Irakis, when the Iran backed gov crumble. I mean... is a strategy that worked well, why dont give it a try?

Oh, and Romeo, if you really had the interests of your country at heart, you would be asking serious questions about why $12-15 billion of taxpayers' money is being spent on Iraq and Iraqis instead of on America and Americans.

"There are some Iraqi villages that are afraid of Al Queda and support them out of fear. barack and hillary should realize this. Mr. McCain does."

Probably because his advisors tell him.

That's what advisors do.

"McCain refuses to rule out pre-emptive attacks"

War-monger.

He sounds just like JFK.

"Military Men Are Just Dumb, Stupid, Animals To Be Used As Pawns In Foreign Policy" — Henry Kissinger

I wonder what Sen. McCain would say about this?

' "Military Men Are Just Dumb, Stupid, Animals To Be Used As Pawns In Foreign Policy" — Henry Kissinger I wonder what Sen. McCain would say about this?'

I bet he'd say that Kissinger - like you? - must have gotten his clock cleaned after pissin off the wrong grunt.

"one ( pre-emptive attack ) would be high unlikely"

McCain

Yes, because most of our enemies know what will happen to them if they're dumb enough to attack us while a Republican is in the White House.

Sushi - would you PLEASE quit whining about how much money the U.S. gov't is spending on the war in Iraq? It's not your tax money. Sheesh.

Sarge - "Sushi - would you PLEASE quit whining about how much money the U.S. gov't is spending on the war in Iraq?. Sheesh."

I thought as much. That's the attitude of a young irresponsible, unworldly kid who thinks he can max out his credit card, keep spending the bank's money and everything's going to be rosy, like, forever.

An ignorant and dangerous attitude to say the least.

But it's one that Sen. McCain, you, RomeoRamen and all the other war supporters on JT refuse, or are simply too scared to address because you KNOW you don't have any sensible solutions.

It's called fiscal responsibility, something that Bush and McCain appear to know very little, if anything about.

The repurcussions of your fiscal irresponsibility will come back to haunt you, your kids and your grandkids for years in the form of higher taxes and reduced services at home.

You can shut your mind off from this if you like, Sarge, but it won't do anything to stop the fiscal fallout hitting you upside the head.

"It's not your tax money."

Yes, it is. Taxpayers in Japan are funding the Iraq war, as are taxpayers in China. I thought you knew this by now - I have only posted precisely this point more than 10 times before - was that not enough? :-)

A McCain pre-emptive strike and the ensuing drain on finances will only make matters worse.

Also, I find it amusing that on another thread, RomeoRamen hinted I was only concerned about the fiscal side of this war.

Obviously, it is far more than that - the ongoing fiscal drain due to this war will put the squeeze on spending in America, resulting in higher taxes and reduced services at home, which will affect all Americans, AND every country that trades with America - yes, the ramifications of a slowing/tanking U.S. economy due to this war will be global.

The effects are not severe yet, but the squeeze has already started - Bush earlier this year capped or scrapped funding for every domestic program.

Q: If that's not real enough for you Sarge, what is?

Sarge, I have another strategy for you, one that might actually work, and that you have already been using for years. (Bush and Sen. McCain uses this strategy too, so it must be effective.)

It's easy -

1/ Put your hands over your ears.

2/ Close your eyes tight.

3/ Start singing, 'I can't hear you!, I can't hear you!"

There, all your problems just go right away, don't they? :-)

It's called fiscal responsibility, something that Bush and McCain appear to know very little, if anything about.

C'mon Sushi, money is no object when the Rapture's right around the corner.

Nessie、you're right - the Rapture.

Will that happen before or after all Iraqis come together next Tuesday at 9 o'clock after thousands of years of warring and kiss and make up with each other and all the Great American Liberators? :-)

The Rapture!

Hey. Haven't hear that one in a while. As imminent as it was in 2000! Why, it's like the Police State that Bush has been trying to implement next week since taking office.

Right?

Yeah?

"Taxpayers in Japan are funding the Iraq war, as are taxpayers in China. I thought you knew this by now - I have only posted precisely this point more than 10 times before - was that not enough?"

That would be you, sushi sake.

You support the US war effort.

never left the safety of the camp. The soldiers he interviewed were hand picked. Nor does he know what it's like to get shot at and fight back or watch your buddy die.

I thought you were talking about GWB! I mean isn't this also true for him? Yet McCain seems to be echoing his insistence that we need to stay "to win it" (and costs be damned). Yet "winning" requires that a functioning government capable of providing for its own security be in place. On that front, as in South Vietnam, we've failed dismally and for the same reasons:

Some foreign policy experts think that the commitment of a large, long-term troop presence in Iraq does little to spark action in a lethargic political reconciliation process in Iraq, the ultimate key to success there. They draw a very different parallel with Vietnam. "It does not provide an endgame, which puts us right back in the problem of Vietnam in trying to push an ally or a host nation to try and change," explained Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University. "We are giving them the breathing space because of our large force numbers, but their belief is that because we have made such a large commitment, we are not going to leave, so they don't really have to change."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/04/01/mccain/index2.html

Folks, check out the ticking clock for the $ cost of "w's" war in Iraq......and WEEP! http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

Folks, check out the progress being made in Iraq... and take heart!

http://www.goodnewsiraq.com

The article says barack advocates withdrawing troops.

Uh, no, he doesn't. barack says as (cough) U.S. president he will maintain a troop presence in the country, a "strike force".

A strike force means combat troops.

How many troops? barack doesn't say. For how long? Again, barack doesn't say.

RR

RomeoRamen, you claim Obama hasn't made certain things clear.

How about you making something clear to us - and answering a question I have repeatedly asked you but you have repeatedly dodged - where is the money going to come from to fund the war?

Sen. McCain doesn't know either, and he talks about pre-emptive attacks, which will only make everything worse.

"where is the money going to come from to fund the war?"

Sake 2/3: From taxpayers like you and me.

RR

our exclusive sphere of influence

Sure, but first you have to guarantee that the things that happen in their sphere of influence will never cross over into ours. Which you can't.

I thought that line of thinking went out with Pearl Harbor?

Does anyone here thing pre-emptive strikes should be ruled out completely?

first you have to guarantee

...dangling conversations...thought fragments...can't cope...

To predicate non-intervention on assurances that events in one sphere of influence will never cross over into our sphere of influence is to give ourselves carte blanche to stick our oar in at any time and at any place. It should be obvious that those assurances cannot be given and to raise an impossibility as an impediment to a practicality is a rhetorical sleight of hand.

The practical tests are those of necessity and reality. There simply was no necessity for us to intervene in Iraq in the first place. Even more telling than this, it is unrealistic to pretend that we can ever prevent Iranian influence with respect to Iraq. As its neighbor, Iran will always have influence on Iraq if not in it.

RR / Sushi2/3

RR - Barack has pledged to withdraw the troops. But he says he'll redeploy them if al Qaida is found to be establishing a base in Iraq. Senator McCain has already informed him that al Qaida is in Iraq now. They're called "al-Qaida in Iraq." Barack lamely retorted that "al Qaida wasn't in Iraq until George Bush decided to invade."

Sushi2/3 ( 06:07 ) - "Sarge, I have another strategy for you, one that might actually work, and that you have already been using for years"

Why would you advise me to use a strategy that you think I've already been using?

To predicate non-intervention on assurances that events in one sphere of influence will never cross over into our sphere of influence is to give ourselves carte blanche to stick our oar in at any time and at any place.

That's not what I said. I don't think other countries should have the right to meddle when they want and for whatever reason. But you said the US shouldn't be involved because Iraq isn't in our sphere of influence and left it at that. You made a blanket statement and I challenged it, and in response you turned my challenge into a straw man.

The practical tests are those of necessity and reality.

That's a better statement and one that I'm able to agree with. Just curious tho....how does humanitarian assistance figure in to the situation? What about stopping genocide?

Sarge - barack lies about everything: About energy. About healthcare. About national defense. And especially about himself.

so-called unifiers don't lie about America being less safe because of the Iraq War when there hasn't been an attack inside the U.S. since 9-11. The same cannot be said of many other nations that have tried to appease the Islamoterrorists.

America is safer now than on any day during the clinton regime because with Mr. Bush we have had a president who took action. The clinton years were all about inaction.

RR

What about stopping genocide?

That is ease, the US just must to drop the "winning at any cost because my pride demand it" attitude. If these is about the US stoping the violence in Irak and not about the US controling Irak. Make anyone obey a cease-fire and sit the strongmen in Irak: Maliki, Sadr, Hashemi and Barzani to negotiate sharing the power in Irak. If one of the conditions for peace in Irak is get the US out of Irak, is the Irak decision. In my opnion is better for peace in Irak to become neutral in the US-Iran hate realtionship. Irakis are just threated like a pawns in a proxi war.

SuperLib,

That's not what I said.

I said that it is not our business to keep Iran out of Iraq. When you commented that it then followed that it was not the world's business to try to keep America out of Iraq, I said those were different things.

I said it was one thing to claim a sphere of influence locally and quite another to do so globally. You have made up the part about me saying that we should not be in Iraq because it is not our sphere of influence. I think you'll find the straw man was your creation.

I agree with you that countries do not have a right to meddle whenever and wherever they want. But my reason for saying that we should not be in the business of keeping Iran out of Iraq is not because Iraq is in Iran's "sphere of influence". That's just scary talk. My reasons are that (a) we still have no idea what we are dealing with in Iraq and (b) Iran has a much bigger stake in what happens in Iraq than we will ever have.

Basically McCain as president means four more years of Bush. I suspect that Bush will start a war with Iran around election time and the war hysteria will put McCain into the White House.

McCain must be trying to help the Democrats to win, making stupid statements like that. All U.S. Presidents reserve their rights to do anything they like, we know that, but to come out and say so when you are trying to look like anything but the current politically and morally bankrupt administration is pretty daft.

Way to go, McCain - poor fella's losing his marbles already, at least Ray-gun had the decency to get elected first!

Jean - But, but, if Bush starts a war with Iran, the "vast majority of Americans who oppose the Iraq war" ( and, of course, would oppose a war with Iran ) would put Obama or Clinton into the White House, no?

F&C - "McCain must be trying to help the Democrats to win"

Hey, they need all the help they can get! He's just trying to be fair!

Farmboy - "The Straight Talk Express got off the track a while back"

Har!