Awesome!

The being pro-active, making assumptions now doctrine is way better than being too afraid or inept to do anything like in the 1930's which led to millions killed world wide. History can and will repeat itself if we hide at home. And then the typical pantshi%%er rant: But the methods are wrong, our soldiers don't have the right armor, we can't democracize the whole world, what right do we have to be over there? blah, blah, blah...

Joby

I doubt most of this generation could lose enough weight to be able to fight.

__________________
When it's advocated that the government help the poor, it's un-American socialism.

When the government helps millionaires, it's to save the American dream.

John1234

So aside from us, which country is acting up like Germany from WW2?

We are the only people that I am aware of who are bent on Global Domination.

Because our policy is that we will use Nuclear Weapons to prevent heavy troop casualties abroad, we also can not lose any war short of a conflict with Russia or China.

The only thing stopping us from a massive crusade is internal politics.
I do not like everything the left stands for, but they sure are saving our ass right now.

__________________
"We are all Georgians". No Mr. McCain, We are all Americans.

Iriemon

If we'd followed the proactive, making assumptions pre-emptive Bush doctrine in the 80s we'd have started a nuclear war with the USSR. Personally, I think it is way better we didn't have the Bush doctrine then, and won the cold war through diplomacy, patience and superior ideology as opposed to killing hundreds of millions in WWIII. Just my opinion.

__________________
Matthew 5:9

John1234

Hundreds of millions?

During the 80's Nuclear weapons were at their historical peak.
Russia had around 16,000 and we had around 10,000.

Adding in our allies and China, there were almost 30,000 nuclear bombs during the 80's.

It would require less than 10,000 detonations at any location to blot out the sun and irradiate our earth for centuries.
All people living on the surface would die.
The rest would die once their supplies ran out.

Human beings only survive nuclear holocaust in the movies.

The deaths from the blast are only the begining.
And those are the lucky ones.

Iriemon

Yes, yet some warmongers in the 80s were putting forth arguments about a "winnable" nuclear war and arguing for US first strike capability.

Under the Bush doctrine, with the assumptions made about Soviet power and intentions, a first strike action would have been justified.

John1234

That is all the ABM's are.
They are worthless in defense of a full nuclear war.
All they do is enable a first strike to yeild better results.

If Russia launched first, the ABM's are pointless.
But if we launched first and caught thousands of Russian nukes on the ground while our subs first strike theirs, there is potential for a technical victory if the ABM's can clean up enough of what they are able to launch.

We should stop trying to attack MAD with Russia and focus on placing ABM's in Japan, Israel, and South Korea... where they can actually do some serious good.

Awesome!

I don't agree. We clearly demonstrated to the USSR way before the 80's: Korea, Bay of Pigs, and Vietnam with blood that we would stand up to them directly or stand up against their communist friends. We weren't too diplomatic handling their invasion of Afghanistan either, because that is all they understand. Just like this retard in Venezuela. We should take care of business asap. He's a clown, but some think he is a hero, or a great man, just like we some thought of Hitler. Pro-active I say...or in other words knowing what we know now about the results of WW2, should we have intervened with the Japanese after the rape of Nanking, or with the Germans in the 1930's?

Iriemon

We didn't need the Bush doctrine to have responded to Nazi Germany or Japan because those nations had violated the sovereignity of other nations by attacking and invading them. The invasion by one nation of another justifies a response, like the first Gulf war.

That's not the Bush doctrine. The Bush doctrine calls for the attack and invasion of another nation which has not attacked or violated the sovereignty of another nation, but based upon the proclamation that the nation represents a threat to the US or is supporting terrorists. That is why the administration made such a big deal misleading us about Iraq's WMD and relationship with Al-Queda -- neither which was true, but both designed to show that Iraq represented an "urgent threat" to the United States justifying invasion per the Bush doctrine.

That's the difference. That is the same grounds upon which Germany justified attacking Poland and Russia attacking Georgia. Under the rule of the Bush doctrine, both those actions were legitimate actions.

John1234

Russia attacked Georgia because Georgia was attacking South Ossetian Civilians and launched a missile attack on a Russian base.

It is hardly the same.
Russia's move was defensive, not pre-emptive.