The policy of "Preemptive War".....

[burdell]

Originally Posted by RCCCB

Nobody in their right mind calls bringing in radical Islam or Islamic Clerics freedom and democracy. Carter, Obama and Democrats call it that and I don't think they are in their right minds.

Nobody with a mind would call bringing in any regime by popular vote anything but democracy.

HINT: It DOES NOT cease to be a democratic process just because you don't like the result.

[Grandpa Pipes]

Originally Posted by Mircea

Too bad we can't negatively rep people for lies and false information. You are wrong again as usual.

It was Jimmy Carter.

The Carter Doctrine.

"...an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

Stansfield Turner, "Toward a New Defense Strategy," New York Times Magazine, May 10, 1981, p. 16.

The Carter Administration created the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF) -- of which I was a member -- in 1980 to strengthen America's military posture in the Gulf. On January 1, 1983, the RDJTF was upgraded and converted to a new unified command, the US Central Command (CENTCOM). At that time the force comprised about 220,000 personnel. That figure, and the Reagan Administration's plans for a force totaling 440,000 personnel, are set forth in in the US Congressional Budge Office, Rapid Deployment Forces p. xv.

I see that your knowledge of US Foreign Policy is equally as bad as your knowledge of Economics.

It's to bad that you can't avoid snarky asinine comments when you add good stuff to the discussion. Makes people think you''re a nut job........

[itshim]

United Nations Charter Article 51 may explain some of it.

[Hillrunner]

Originally Posted by tablemtn

Well wait a minute... go back and read Bush's speeches from the early Iraq War era. A common theme was the notion of spreading "freedom and democracy" across the Mideast.

You are correct. The idea of a "pre-emptive strike" under the guise of spreading " freedom and democracy' was exactly what the Bush Doctrine was all about.

[Hillrunner]

Originally Posted by Mircea

Too bad we can't negatively rep people for lies and false information. You are wrong again as usual.

It was Jimmy Carter.

The Carter Doctrine.

"...an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

Stansfield Turner, "Toward a New Defense Strategy," New York Times Magazine, May 10, 1981, p. 16.

The Carter Administration created the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF) -- of which I was a member -- in 1980 to strengthen America's military posture in the Gulf. On January 1, 1983, the RDJTF was upgraded and converted to a new unified command, the US Central Command (CENTCOM). At that time the force comprised about 220,000 personnel. That figure, and the Reagan Administration's plans for a force totaling 440,000 personnel, are set forth in in the US Congressional Budge Office, Rapid Deployment Forces p. xv.

I see that your knowledge of US Foreign Policy is equally as bad as your knowledge of Economics.

WOW....are you WAYYYY off base. You do understand that we are now "the outside force" that Carter is talking about. One has nothing to do with the other.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Tightwad

It's to bad that you can't avoid snarky asinine comments when you add good stuff to the discussion. Makes people think you''re a nut job........

Here's a novel idea: stop posting from stupid web-sites or do your own research and fact-checking.

Originally Posted by Hillrunner

You are correct. The idea of a "pre-emptive strike" under the guise of spreading " freedom and democracy' was exactly what the Bush Doctrine was all about.

There is no "Bush Doctrine." It is the Carter Doctrine. The only thing Bush did is reaffirm the Carter Doctrine. You might want to actually read foreign policy journals and study foreign policies at universities, instead of letting your knee jerk you around.

Originally Posted by Hillrunner

You do understand that we are now "the outside force" that Carter is talking about. One has nothing to do with the other.

Now? We have always been the "outside" force.

What you fail to understand is that US foreign policy has always considered MENA (the Middle East and North Africa) to belong to the US...as in the US "owns" it..., and that has been the case since the US (and Britain) set up the puppet dictators in those countries.

And you fail to understand that in the coming years, as oil production declines in MENA and oil production ramps up in the 5 Central Asian States, MENA, and indeed the Persian Gulf, will become even more critical to the US.

Why? Because the Chevron Consortium (Chevron and British Petroleum -- formerly the UNOCAL Conglomerate of UNOCAL, Chevron, Amoco and BP -- in the interim period Chevron bought UNOCAL and Amoco and BP merged) owns 75% of the rights to the oil, natural gas and strategic metals and minerals in Central Asia.

And the only way to get those resources out of Central Asia is through Russia, Iran or Afghanistan (except that some natural gas can go through China).

And you failed in Afghanistan (as I correctly predicted you would).

That leaves Russia or Iran.

While the Chevron Consortium owns the rights and derives royalties (profits) from the sale of those resources, the Chevron Consortium does not control the sale of those resources.

The country that controls the end-point controls the sale, and those two countries are Russia and Iran (three really with the third being China).

Russia will not sell those resources on the world market in US Dollars. They don't have to. And they aren't. You want to buy oil or natural gas from Russia, then you pony up Euros or Rubles, because Russia refuses to accept US Dollars in payment, which is their right.

But that harms your economy, because it results in lower demand for US Dollars and higher demand for Euros and Rubles, and the value of your US Dollar declines against other currencies, which makes it costly for you to import goods, and you need to import goods, because you lack both the Capital and the resources to make those goods yourself.

Central Asia has 5x to 7x more oil and natural gas than all of MENA (and eastern Russia has twice that of Central Asia).

While it is not a problem now, today, this minute, it will be a problem 30 years from now when MENA oil production has declined and Central Asian production has increased.

Understand, I'm not advocating any particular position or attempting to evaluate the moral or ethical consequences, I'm simply stating the facts.

Your choices are invade Iran, or overthrow the Iranian government and set up a puppet dictator or arm the Baluchs and foment civil war so that Baluchistan is independent from Pakistan, which will give you air, land and sea access to Central Asia from the Persian Gulf/Indian Ocean and you control the end-point sale and can guarantee the sale of those resources are exclusively in US Dollars.

Or, you can prepare to deal with a 2nd World Economy and 2nd World Country standard of living (because your standard of living will decline).

If you want, I can put it more bluntly. You can learn to use public mass transit, give up glossy lipstick and microwaveable foods, or you can go murder people and take over their country so you can continue to have glossy lipstick and microwaveable foods and drive your SUVs around.

[djacques]

Originally Posted by RCCCB

Bush wouldn't have pushed for the Arab Spring the way Obama has. Obama was told this would bring about big problems because the only politically organized groups in those areas were the Muslim Brotherhood which is the base group for all radical Islamic terrorist organizations.

Obama did that baby on his own. Bush wouldn't do that.

Bush had the Arab Spring prequel, in case you forgot: Iraq 2005, Palestine 2006. The former elected Iranian puppets, half of the latter elected Hamas. Afghanistan also held elections thanks to Bush--I don't think we have to review the kinds of monstrosities they elected.

[Hillrunner]

Originally Posted by Mircea

Here's a novel idea: stop posting from stupid web-sites or do your own research and fact-checking.



There is no "Bush Doctrine." It is the Carter Doctrine. The only thing Bush did is reaffirm the Carter Doctrine. You might want to actually read foreign policy journals and study foreign policies at universities, instead of letting your knee jerk you around.



Now? We have always been the "outside" force.

What you fail to understand is that US foreign policy has always considered MENA (the Middle East and North Africa) to belong to the US...as in the US "owns" it..., and that has been the case since the US (and Britain) set up the puppet dictators in those countries.

And you fail to understand that in the coming years, as oil production declines in MENA and oil production ramps up in the 5 Central Asian States, MENA, and indeed the Persian Gulf, will become even more critical to the US.

Why? Because the Chevron Consortium (Chevron and British Petroleum -- formerly the UNOCAL Conglomerate of UNOCAL, Chevron, Amoco and BP -- in the interim period Chevron bought UNOCAL and Amoco and BP merged) owns 75% of the rights to the oil, natural gas and strategic metals and minerals in Central Asia.

And the only way to get those resources out of Central Asia is through Russia, Iran or Afghanistan (except that some natural gas can go through China).

And you failed in Afghanistan (as I correctly predicted you would).

That leaves Russia or Iran.

While the Chevron Consortium owns the rights and derives royalties (profits) from the sale of those resources, the Chevron Consortium does not control the sale of those resources.

The country that controls the end-point controls the sale, and those two countries are Russia and Iran (three really with the third being China).

Russia will not sell those resources on the world market in US Dollars. They don't have to. And they aren't. You want to buy oil or natural gas from Russia, then you pony up Euros or Rubles, because Russia refuses to accept US Dollars in payment, which is their right.

But that harms your economy, because it results in lower demand for US Dollars and higher demand for Euros and Rubles, and the value of your US Dollar declines against other currencies, which makes it costly for you to import goods, and you need to import goods, because you lack both the Capital and the resources to make those goods yourself.

Central Asia has 5x to 7x more oil and natural gas than all of MENA (and eastern Russia has twice that of Central Asia).

While it is not a problem now, today, this minute, it will be a problem 30 years from now when MENA oil production has declined and Central Asian production has increased.

Understand, I'm not advocating any particular position or attempting to evaluate the moral or ethical consequences, I'm simply stating the facts.

Your choices are invade Iran, or overthrow the Iranian government and set up a puppet dictator or arm the Baluchs and foment civil war so that Baluchistan is independent from Pakistan, which will give you air, land and sea access to Central Asia from the Persian Gulf/Indian Ocean and you control the end-point sale and can guarantee the sale of those resources are exclusively in US Dollars.

Or, you can prepare to deal with a 2nd World Economy and 2nd World Country standard of living (because your standard of living will decline).

If you want, I can put it more bluntly. You can learn to use public mass transit, give up glossy lipstick and microwaveable foods, or you can go murder people and take over their country so you can continue to have glossy lipstick and microwaveable foods and drive your SUVs around.

The Carter Doctrine was aimed at strategic resource containment in the middle east due to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. As far as oil pipelines, the major supply lines run through South Ossetia. Not Russia proper. The U.S is also undertaking a major reclaimation of the natural gas industry which will definitely help with our energy independence from oil.