Global Test for Pre-emptive Military Action by the U.S.

Shotgun · Oct 4, 2004

1. Is the U.S. President a Republican?

2. Could this action possibly stabilize oil production?

3. Are France and Germany supplying the intended target with weapons or advice?

4. Would any small time thugocracy with a seat on the Security Council feel threatened?

5. Are family members of high ranking U.N. bureaucrats benefiting financially from the status quo?

6. Is this action likely to enhance America’s power in the world?

7. Would this action further the goals of free market/free trade advocates?

8. Would this action make the U.N. look weak and inconsistent?

9. Would this action divide the countries of the European Union?

10. Would this action be seen as offensive to a world religion (other than Christianity and Judaism)?

To this, I would only add the following:

If the answer to any of the above is "Yes," then DO NOT DEFEND AMERICA. Hold a summit, ask for a U.N. declaration, beseech the favor of Kofi Annan and seek rapprochement with Jacques Chirac. Make it clear that you will NOT take action unless and until the French, Germans and all members of Security Council nations have pledged at least 100,000 troops, unlimited funds and their blessing upon all U.S. military missions -- past, present and future.

http://carolliebau.blogspot.com/

xpanda · Oct 5, 2004

With regards to Iraq, what were you defending yourselves from, exactly?

GAMEFACE · Oct 5, 2004

Liberals believe any US military action that defends our nation is wrong, wrong time, wrong place.

D2bets · Oct 5, 2004

Gameface, you are a fvcking idiot. Was the invasion of Afghanistan a military action that defended out nation? Did John Kerry and the liberals oppose the invasion into Afghanistan? The correct answers are YES and NO, therefore your statement is simply false. Better try next time.

xpanda · Oct 5, 2004

GAMEFACE said:
Liberals believe any US military action that defends our nation is wrong, wrong time, wrong place.

Burden of Proof. Go.

Shotgun · Oct 5, 2004

xpanda said:
With regards to Iraq, what were you defending yourselves from, exactly?

John Edwards did say Iraq posed an imminent threat...you don't believe a smart guy like that?

Actually we were already in a state of war with Iraq long before our invasion. After Gulf 1 we only signed a cease fire, not a peace treaty. Saddam had to do this, that and the other in order to keep the peace. He failed to do this, that and the other, and lost his job as a result.