Gravitymaster 0 #1 October 5, 2004 Here is the questionaire: THE GLOBAL TEST FOR PREEMPTIVE STRIKES Brought to you by your local U.N. Please answer these questions with a "yes" or "no" in regards to your proposed preemptive strike. * Is this action needed to protect your nation from an imminent threat? * Have you considered all other courses of action? * Will the U.N. actually have to do anything other than talk? * Will this financially benefit France? * Does Communist China think it’s a good idea? * Do all Communist nations think it's a good idea? * Even Cuba? * Can you wait for at least 18 months of pointless U.N. debate before acting? * Will this in no way help Israel? * Will this interfere with any current kickback programs at the U.N.? * Will this in no way anger any Muslims? * Did you obtain the permission of the country you plan to invade? If you answered "yes" to all these questions, then you will be allowed to do a preemptive strike after you allow for the debate, fill out an ecological impact form, and grease all the right palms. Thank you for supporting your local U.N. and have a peaceful, globally popular day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #2 October 5, 2004 I love this. Quote from Kerry: "No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America." Right winger translation: Kerry will give up the right to preempt to defend America. The polls are tipping back, so I suppose some panic is in order in the Bush camp, but really - how about going after something he actually said? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #3 October 5, 2004 QuoteI love this. Quote from Kerry: "No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America." Right winger translation: Kerry will give up the right to preempt to defend America. The polls are tipping back, so I suppose some panic is in order in the Bush camp, but really - how about going after something he actually said? How about lightening up? It's a joke. Talk about signs of panic! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #4 October 5, 2004 QuoteI love this. Quote from Kerry: "No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America." Right winger translation: Kerry will give up the right to preempt to defend America. The polls are tipping back, so I suppose some panic is in order in the Bush camp, but really - how about going after something he actually said? Panic? Sounds about right, especially after Bremmer let the cat out of the bag on Bush's ineptitude. And then there's Rummy's flip-flop on Al Qaeda and Iraq.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #5 October 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteI love this. Quote from Kerry: "No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America." Right winger translation: Kerry will give up the right to preempt to defend America. The polls are tipping back, so I suppose some panic is in order in the Bush camp, but really - how about going after something he actually said? Panic? Sounds about right, especially after Bremmer let the cat out of the bag on Bush's ineptitude. And then there's Rummy's flip-flop on Al Qaeda and Iraq. Bwahahaha.. Right.... Bremmer is an expert on the Military and Bush should have listened to him instead of every General on the ground who said more troops weren't necessary. Talk about desperate for an issue, BTW Bushs' job approval is up 3 points since Sept 21 to 53%. Kerrys' favorability is down 2 points to 43%. These figures are from "likely voters" which are a more accurate compass. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #6 October 5, 2004 >Bremmer is an expert on the Military and Bush should have listened to > him instead of every General on the ground who said more troops weren't >necessary. From the same article: ------------------------------ His comments raise eyebrows because they are similar in tone to criticism in March 2003 from then-Army chief of staff Gen. Eric Shinseki that the United States needed several hundred thousand troops to keep the peace in postwar Iraq. Shinseki's comments were rebuked by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other Pentagon superiors. ------------------------------ D'oh! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #7 October 5, 2004 You mean like the then current chief of staff who said it would take several hundred thousand troops and was lambasted for it?? Quote June 3, 2003 Former Army secretary Thomas White said senior Defense officials "are unwilling to come to grips" with the scale of the postwar U.S. obligation in Iraq. The Pentagon has about 150,000 troops in Iraq. "This is not what they were selling (before the war)," White said, describing how senior Defense officials downplayed the need for a large occupation force. "It's almost a question of people not wanting to fess up to the notion that we will be there a long time and they might have to set up a rotation and sustain it for the long term." The interview was White's first since leaving the Pentagon in May after a series of public feuds with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld led to his firing. Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz criticized the Army's chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, after Shinseki told Congress in February that the occupation could require "several hundred thousand troops." Wolfowitz called Shinseki's estimate "wildly off the mark." Rumsfeld was furious with White when the Army secretary agreed with Shinseki. after that the hierarchy was told simply not to ask for more... ”shut up and color” wouldn’t want to embarrass the civilian leadership with the facts from the ground... But anyone with eyes on the ground under the rank of O6 knew we were short handed for the missions as given… never let reality intefere with your template.... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #8 October 5, 2004 QuoteYou mean like the then current chief of staff who said it would take several hundred thousand troops and was lambasted for it?? Quote June 3, 2003 Former Army secretary Thomas White said senior Defense officials "are unwilling to come to grips" with the scale of the postwar U.S. obligation in Iraq. The Pentagon has about 150,000 troops in Iraq. "This is not what they were selling (before the war)," White said, describing how senior Defense officials downplayed the need for a large occupation force. "It's almost a question of people not wanting to fess up to the notion that we will be there a long time and they might have to set up a rotation and sustain it for the long term." The interview was White's first since leaving the Pentagon in May after a series of public feuds with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld led to his firing. Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz criticized the Army's chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, after Shinseki told Congress in February that the occupation could require "several hundred thousand troops." Wolfowitz called Shinseki's estimate "wildly off the mark." Rumsfeld was furious with White when the Army secretary agreed with Shinseki. after that the hierarchy was told simply not to ask for more... ”shut up and color” wouldn’t want to embarrass the civilian leadership with the facts from the ground... But anyone with eyes on the ground under the rank of O6 knew we were short handed for the missions as given… never let reality intefere with your template.... I'm talking about the decisions being made above his pay grade. QuoteNumber of Troops in Iraq to be 'Event Driven,' Chairman Says By Jim Garamone American Forces Press Service SAN FRANCISCO, Calif., Oct. 20, 2003 – The decision on how many American troops will be needed in Iraq will be "event driven" and will not be made in some "mindless way," Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers said Oct. 19. In an interview, Myers said reports of a DoD plan to cut U.S. troop levels in Iraq to 50,000 by the middle of 2005 are not true. The chairman said U.S. Central Command chief Army Gen. John Abizaid is responsible for planning and recommending troop levels along with the Coalition Provisional Authority. He said the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff discuss troop levels all the time, and that the United States is not on a timeline. "We're going to be event driven," he said. "The events on the ground will define how many forces we have there at any given time." One goal is to train and equip more Iraqi forces. More than 70,000 Iraqis now are involved with the police, the border guards, the infrastructure protection force, the new Iraqi army and the Civil Defense Force. These forces are taking over much of the security work that needs to happen in a country of 23 million people. Myers said the coalition is looking to accelerate the training the Iraqis receive so more trained security forces can take over the mission faster. Another consideration affecting the number of U.S. troops in Iraq is international contributions. There are 23,000 international soldiers in two multinational divisions in Iraq. The number of Iraqis and the number of international forces available will affect the number of Americans in country, the chairman said. Myers said Central Command, the Joint Staff and the services are looking forward. "We get updates on the estimates of troop requirements periodically," he said. Another major estimate will come in December, and that will help the department make decisions about the number of troops needed in Iraq in 2004. "The notion that there is some plan and we're going to march to that plan in some mindless way is to be disabused," Myers said. "That's not that at all". http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2003/n10202003_200310203.html BTW nice try at thread hijacking. Always a sure sign of panic and desperation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #9 October 5, 2004 exactly what does your link have to do with the fact that senior military leaders recognized BEFORE the invasion that we did not have enough troops on the ground to do the job properly and were told to 'shut up and color' by the administration??? no thread hijacking about it.. the original post was a stupid political agenda 'joke' based on statements that were NEVER made.... but you can sure spin it fast if you try hard enough....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #10 October 5, 2004 Quoteno thread hijacking about it.. Oh, no. None at all. Quotethe original post was a stupid political agenda 'joke' based on statements that were NEVER made.... but you can sure spin it fast if you try hard enough.... Yeah, like you Libs NEVER post humorous stuff that isn't true. Difference is, I find it funny when both sides do it. But of course that requires a sense of humor which is understandably hard to muster when in a panic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #11 October 5, 2004 do i sense some whining because no one found your 'joke' amusing... here let me find you some cheese.. oh wait there it is right in the first post....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #12 October 5, 2004 >Bremmer is an expert on the Military and Bush should have listened to > him instead of every General on the ground who said more troops >weren't necessary. No. But history has shown that he should have listened more to the generals and leaders who were actually IN Iraq instead of Cheney and Rumsfeld, who were desperate to portray the war as an easy win. "Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region. When the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace." - Cheney "It it not knowable how long the conflict would last. It could last six days, six weeks, I doubt six months" - Rumsfeld "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." - Cheney "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." - Wolfowitz "The streets in Basra and Baghdad are sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans." - Cheney They were wrong, and Bush was wrong to take their advice over Bremer and Shinseki. PS for extra credit, who said the following in 1991? -------------------------- I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq. --------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #13 October 6, 2004 Quotedo i sense some whining because no one found your 'joke' amusing... here let me find you some cheese.. oh wait there it is right in the first post.... *I* thought it was pretty funny, and also unrelated to Kerry v Bush election matters. I suspect it was written a year back. So, yeah, everyone else needs to lighten up. Not everything revolves around lauding or lambasting John Kerry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #14 October 6, 2004 QuoteTHE GLOBAL TEST FOR PREEMPTIVE STRIKES Brought to you by your local U.N. Please answer these questions with a "yes" or "no" in regards to your proposed preemptive strike. * Is this action needed to protect your nation from an imminent threat? Yes * Have you considered all other courses of action? no * Will the U.N. actually have to do anything other than talk? What's the U.N.? * Will this financially benefit France? Who cares? * Does Communist China think it’s a good idea? Nope. They are not happy * Do all Communist nations think it's a good idea? No. They're next * Even Cuba? No. But good sugar is there * Can you wait for at least 18 months of pointless U.N. debate before acting? No UN, and no debate * Will this in no way help Israel? What is Israel? * Will this interfere with any current kickback programs at the U.N.? Hopefully the League of Nations will be most displeased * Will this in no way anger any Muslims? I do not see how * Did you obtain the permission of the country you plan to invade? No, I did not. I just invaded and/or bombed their fleet Signed, Hirohito - November, 1941. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #15 October 6, 2004 Basically your article about "event driven" forces is saying that instead of careful planning for possible eventualities and being proactive, they're going to be reactive. Quite contradictory to the idea of a pre-emptive invasion of another country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #16 October 6, 2004 "It it not knowable how long the conflict would last. It could last six days, six weeks, I doubt six months" - Rumsfeld " [tongue in cheek] See, he didn't actually mean what you read or heard, you must have misunderstood him. [\tongue in cheek]-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #17 October 6, 2004 You do realise that all across the world similar jokes are being made with the title "American Test for Preemptive Strike" but with content that reads any one of the following: “Do we want their oil? (or any other resource).” “Will it please my daddy?” “Do I need a war to get re-elected?” “Is there some thing we can create to make it seem like we’re under an immanent threat? Not my view of course, I just wanted to check that you realised what everyone else is joking about… Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #18 October 6, 2004 QuoteYou do realise that all across the world similar jokes are being made with the title "American Test for Preemptive Strike" but with content that reads any one of the following: “Do we want their oil? (or any other resource).” “Will it please my daddy?” “Do I need a war to get re-elected?” “Is there some thing we can create to make it seem like we’re under an immanent threat? Not my view of course, I just wanted to check that you realised what everyone else is joking about… That sounds funny. Can you post the entire list? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #19 October 7, 2004 Quotedo i sense some whining because no one found your 'joke' amusing... here let me find you some cheese.. oh wait there it is right in the first post.... They say all humor has it's roots in reality. QuoteU.N. panel to frame guidelines on legality of pre-emptive strike By Heather J. Carlson THE WASHINGTON TIMES Members of an international panel studying United Nations' operations say the group hopes to lay down clear rules declaring when it is legal for a nation to use pre-emptive military force in its own defense. The issue grows out of the international controversy over the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq without a final U.N. Security Council resolution explicitly authorizing the war, said panel member Gareth Evans, a former foreign minister of Australia. "I expect the panel to be giving close consideration to what those rules are and how they should be applied and whether an effort should be made to identify generally agreed criteria for the legitimate use of force, whatever the context," Mr. Evans said during a recent appearance at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. He made his remarks before last week's presidential debate in which Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry's call for a "global test" on when pre-emptive action is justified became a campaign issue. Full article here. http://www.washtimes.com/world/20041006-012158-7663r.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mardigrasbob 0 #20 October 7, 2004 Global test this! ------------------ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
