Skip to main content

It makes you wonder how we survived the Cold War. . . .

. . . . when Senator John McCain refuses to rule out pre-emptive war, ala the Bush Doctrine.

Quoth the Straight-talker:

"I don't think you could make a blanket statement about pre-emptive war, because obviously, it depends on the threat that the United States of America faces," McCain told his audience at Bridgewater Associates Inc., a global investment firm.

"If someone is about to launch a weapon that would devastate America, or have the capability to do so, obviously, you would have to act immediately in defense of this nation's national security interests."


During the Cold War, you may recall, the US had a doctrine of no first strike, but massive retaliation, a doctrine that such different personalities as JFK, LBJ, Tricky Dick, Smilin' Jimmy, and the Gipper all accepted. This was during a time when we were actually faced by an opponent--remember the USSR?--with the nuclear capacity to kill at least 100,000,000 Americans in a single ICBM salvo.

And yet, we had a doctrine of no pre-emptive war. Not in Korea. Not in Vietnam. Granted--as in the Gulf of Tonkin--our pretexts were paper thin, but they still had to be there.

It was the Soviet Union that we could therefore denounce for invading and occupying Afghanistan.

Now I'm about to be very cold-blooded, at the risk of offending everyone.

Al Qaeda took its best shot on September 11, 2001, and killed nearly 4,000 Americans.

If a rogue state acquires nuclear weapons (let's use Iran or North Korea as examples) and actually fires one nuclear missile at us, or at our allies, what will happen? We will lose as many as 5-10,000,000 people and proceed to incinerate their entire country in retaliation.

If a terrorist group succeeds in smuggling in, or assembling on the ground, a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb, we may or may not know against whom we should retaliate.

If, even under the threat of losing half our population in half an hour we did not espouse a doctrine of pre-emptive war, what crazed moral bankruptcy has caused us to accept it?

Part of living in a republic is the acceptance of responsibility for your own actions, and the idea that all risks cannot be eliminated.

I do not want, nor will I accept, vote for, or support any Presidential candidate from any party who refuses to repudiate the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war.

John McCain, you are dead to me, now.

I will not be a party to another American Pearl Harbor.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Steve, you are right. Amen. I find it absurd that we cannot actually discuss these things in a rational manner without being accused (or fear being accused) of being crass, insensitive or unpatriotic.

Yes, there are bad things that can happen. That's life. That's democracy.

Thanks for saying it.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...