| REVIEWER | RATING & REVIEW |
 | abichara (60)
10/31/2004 |  Acutally as I've explained before, pre-emptive action is completely justifiable when there is a clear and present threat. However, there is a huge problem when you advocate a policy of preventive war, where the enemy isn't well defined, when you're pursuing a supposed threat even if they're deterred or unable to pose any significant threat. Such an approach leads to hubris and disbalances of power. A leader cannot commit a nation to war if there's no clear goal, no point where we can say that we've accomplished our aims and pull out. Since the threat is rather nebulous at best, we never know the outcome--make times deterrance works better than throwing caution to the wind. National interests aren't always served by starting wars with the purpose of making a power grab; in fact, many times such an approach can blow up in one's face. One cannot go into war for altruistic reasons either; the road is always paved with good intentions and many times such humanitarian interventions end up creating more problems rather than solving them (witness Somalia).
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Mr.Political (18)
08/24/2004 | Let me get this straight. If one day a brutal dictator ,who is responsible for killing a massive amount of his own people (for no reason), made WMD's and aimed them to a country he or she HATED (US maybe?), you wouldn't want to defend your country before that WMD could hit and kill many innocent, defenseless people, children and adults alike? Sounds like that's dangerous, lincolnsandcadillacs.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | TriSec (2)
08/24/2004 | This makes the US no better than Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or dozens of other regimes, some of which we defeated.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| lincolnsandcadillacs (4)
07/23/2004 | This is an extremely dangerous advocation by Bush. It will create more hatred and terrorism. I just don't think Bush realizes the consequences of what he's doing.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| Anonymous (1)
01/11/2004 | What a joke. The U. S. should not go attacking every country that it does not agree with. This is where fascism starts. Germany, Italy, and Japan all took over other countries before they attacked them.
There will always be terrorists, and there will always countries opposed to America. Do you know why? It is partly because of this Bush Doctrine! No country wants to be reduced to dust just because they don't agree with another. Iraq would not have attacked the U. S. because Saddam would not have been stupid enough to trigger an invasion that would destroy his country. This Doctrine is just an excuse for corporate America to get richer and richer. War should be used as a tool for protection. Who ever heard of a preventive war?
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | jgls (12)
01/03/2004 | it seems that the few times we have used pre-emptive military action, our actions were directed at despots who were killing their own people. the last time i checked, president bush wasn't rounding up his enemies and executing them.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| StanUzbeck (14)
01/03/2004 | This is breath-taking in its arrogance and hypocrisy. Pre-emptive means a sneak attack, and military action means war and killing and bombing and destruction. It is rightly considered a crime by the world courts, and there was a time when it was considered a crime in the U.S. of A. If Bush can claim the right to attack anyone at anytime for reasons of 'nation security', then what's stopping him from waging war for any reason at all? Almost anything can be spun into a 'national security' issue, and no one will ever know the real reasons behind such action, especially given the extreme secrecy of this administration. Hitler claimed the right to wage pre-emptive war, and many Germans were as ignorant and misguided then as many Americans are now. Don't think that this is anything other than a war crime, whatever the reasons given for it.
(7 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | jamestkirk (23)
12/31/2003 | Again, this is an opinionated statement by the person who made this list. What do you define as US national interests?
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| Redoedo (39)
12/31/2003 | I'm sure that there are some cases, espescially in today's world climate, where pre-emptive military action against a rogue terrorist state or regime could be justified, AND, broad international support could be gained. However, The Bush Doctrine only seems to require half-truths, rhetoric and shady evidence (at best) to justify a pre-emptive strike. Only if a clear and present danger is presented (and evidence is provided to support that thesis) should a pre-emptive military strike even be considered. It is simply my judgment that Iraq was not a clear and certainly not a present danger to U.S. national security, especially when compared to other rogue terrorist states around the world. In over-extending our military presence around the world through this questionable use of pre-emptive force, Bush has actually drained our military resources to the point at which we cannot immediately respond to another terrorist attack.
(7 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Enkidu (37)
12/29/2003 | This one is actually a very big deal, since we defined pre-emptive war as a war crime at Nuremberg in 1946. Changing our minds on this when it suits us is rightly perceived as hypocrisy by the rest of the world.
(6 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| 1-10 OF 10 | View All |