doublegunshop.com - home Forums Muslims in London

The president submitted his new policy of pre-emption to Congress as part of a National Security Strategy in fall 2002. Google it. Precipitated a world-wide ruckus because it meant anything goes.

Here's(Below) is what the National Security Strategy of 2002 actually states: It's QUITE different from what King Brown reported immediately below:

Quote for King Brown:
"The former president proclaimed that the United States of America has the right to invade pre-emptively ANY country it considers inimical to its national interests and change its social, political and economic institutions? What do you call that? It's called the Bush doctrine. Is it death on the streets to those who oppose the invaders? Are the invaders jihadists? Zealots?"



National Security Strategy 2002:(Taken directly from the published document)
"The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction� and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy�s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world�s most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather. We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions. To support preemptive options, we will:
�build better, more integrated intelligence capabilities to provide timely, accurate information on threats, wherever they may emerge;
�coordinate closely with allies to form a common assessment of the most dangerous threats; and
�continue to transform our military forces to ensure our ability to conduct rapid and precise operations to achieve decisive results.

The purpose of our actions will always be to eliminate a specific threat to the United States or our allies and friends. The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just."


Note this particular verbage "change its social, political and economic institutions" must be a fabrication from Brown's imagination as nowhere is anything like this stated in the published document.

Hardly a fabrication, Jim. When a country arbitrarily, preemptively invades another country that it considers inimical to its national interests---Iraq, for instance---it changes its social, economic and political institutions by taking control of them, as it did in Iraq. The reasons for the invasion, again in the case of Iraq, were not "clear, the force measured, and the cause just." The Bush doctrine was a cock-up start to finish. Wikipedia, in part:


"PNAC member and the chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee (DPBAC), Neoconservative Richard Perle, later expressed regret over the Iraq invasion and ultimately put the blame for the invasion on President George W. Bush;.[47]
Other than Bush and Rumsfeld, who are thought to have adopted neoconservative foreign policy thinking include Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.[48]
The Bush Doctrine, in line with long-standing neoconservative ideas, held that the United States is entangled in a global war of ideas between the western values of freedom on the one hand, and extremism seeking to destroy them on the other; a war of ideology where the United States must take responsibility for security and show leadership in the world by actively seeking out the enemies and also CHANGE THOSE COUNTRIES who are supporting enemies.[14][19][20][49]
The Bush Doctrine, and neoconservative reasoning, held that containment of the enemy as under the Realpolitik of Reagan did not work, and that the enemy of United States must be destroyed pre-emptively before they attack � using all the United States' available means, resources and influences to do so.[14][19][20]"

What ever you "think" King. This is a typical convoluted Liberal stretching of the truth into whatever you want to believe.
I'm sure you'd have a fantasy field day with Woodrow Wilson's "Make the world safe for democracy" statement.
But Wait: You can't do that because he was a democrat!
I pulled up word for word what was stated in the National Security Document of 2002 for everyone to see and I think what you fabricated is very apparent to everyone.
You really ought to consider NOT posting this drivel as your caught red handed every time.

I just sat here and watched the Commissioner of the IRA Douglas Shulman explain to Congress why he's been to the White House 171 times since Obama became President. His ONLY answer was to attend the Easter Egg hunts!! Frankly; His explanation is more convincing than yours.
As an Aside': His predecessor during the Bush administration was there once.
Jim

Wrong again keith, and coming from such a respected professor of english, you sure seem inept at spotting figurative language.

There is not one instance were a parishioner (who was not a victim) outed a pedophile priest. Those alter boys were victims, but I guess you could call them Christian. There are a lot of documented instances where the church protected the diddlers and all the christians who go to church support the church along with all of its less then desirable acts.

I don't know why you do not agree with me on this. You seem happy to hold all muslims culpable for the acts of a crazy few, but you wont allow Bob's clear logic to hold true to another group of people who are likewise just as culpable for the acts a a crazy few. But then again if I consider the source, I think I know why.

Maybe its because most muslims have brown skin...or your past affiliations have clouded your judgment. My bet, its both.

Hold on.

We have another group of people we can hold accountable for the acts of a crazy few. Looks like some NRA member/2nd amendment supporter sent ricin laced letters to Bloomberg while exposing his god given 2nd amendment rights. Its been more than 24 hours and I have not seen a peep from this community expressing the same outrage you expect from the Muslim community under similar circumstances.

Come on guys step up to the plate!!! WHY NO CONDEMNATION?????

Shit, now that I think of it, this logic applies to pro-life community as well. Nothing but a bunch of murderous thugs because they not have outed the carzy few that go around and kill or bomb abortion providers.

Thanks Bob, this line of logic is coming in real handy!!

Quote:
"Maybe its because most muslims have brown skin...or your past affiliations have clouded your judgment. My bet, its both. "

Here we go with the race card How typical!!

Jim. here is your post #326695

"Thanks for posting:
I received this email as well and forwarded it to everyone I know. In addition; Muslims males are into buggering young boys as pointed out in the book Charlie Wilson's War. I personally find Muslims despicable and I make no bones whatsoever about this.
Jim"

One more time Jim, why don't you accept your racism? Its right there for you to see.

King, did you try substituting in freedom fighter.