Applying the Bush Doctrine

[prole]

 

Hey dipshit, thanks for the historical legacy.

 

Russia Could Use Nuclear Arms Pre-Emptively: General

 

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia's armed forces chief said on Saturday Moscow could use nuclear arms pre-emptively if under serious threat, his comments marking no change in defense policy but underlining a renewed military confidence.

 

Interfax news agency quoted Chief of Staff Yuri Baluyevski as saying also that Russia, rebuilding defenses under President Vladimir Putin after the decline of the immediate post-Soviet years, must guard against "excessive militarization" of society.

 

He said Russia was not going to attack anyone.

 

"But we believe all our partners in the international community should understand clearly and have no doubts that in order to protect its and its allies' sovereignty and territorial integrity, Russia will use its armed forces, including nuclear weapons, and it can do it pre-emptively," he told a scientific conference in Moscow.

 

In Soviet times, military doctrine stated Moscow would not use nuclear arms first in any confrontation with the West. With the decline of its conventional forces in the 1990s, Moscow dropped this element of its policy.

 

President Vladimir Putin, who signed a new doctrine into force in 2000 as acting president, must step down after an election in March likely to be won by his choice of successor, First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.

 

Western analysts will be looking for any changes of nuance in defense and other policy, though Putin is expected to maintain strong influence.

 

Moscow is currently at odds with the West over U.S. plans to develop a missile defense shield it fears could make it vulnerable to U.S. missile attack. It also resists Western moves that could lead soon to the breakaway of the Kosovo region of Russian ally Serbia.--from Reuters 1/19/08

 

A foreign policy that someone with a nuclear explosion for an avatar could be proud of.

[Fairweather]

The United States has never renounced nuclear first-strike, and neither have the Russians/Soviets. What's Bush got to do with it? - aside from your myopic hatred.

Edited January 20, 2008 by Fairweather

[sexual_chocolate]

so you are blaming bush for these developments? the article somewhat vaguely speaks of putin signing a "new doctrine into force" in 2000....

[prole]

Bush's witches-brew of foreign policy instruments, from "renditions" to "preemption", have helped to legitimize these "tools" and either enabled other states to use them or fostered a climate in which other states feel they must adopt such tactics to defend themselves.

[sexual_chocolate]

so the argument goes. please give specific examples of "other states" that have used these "tools", or specific other states that "feel they must adopt such tactics to defend themselves."

I am not certain russia is a pertinent example, for reasons discussed above.

[Hugh Conway]

or specific other states that "feel they must adopt such tactics to defend themselves."

 

Israel, S. Africa, Argentina, Iran, N. Korea

[ashw_justin]

Let's take Iran. If Iran launches an attack of any kind like our warlords are begging them to, their excuses will be every bit as (ill)legitimate as those spouted by the Reagan/Bushite Supreme Leaders in past and present years. They will say that they were preempting nuclear-backed US and Israeli aggression, which sounds a lot like our current accusations against countries that we decide to bully (except more factual and in agreement with cause and effect).

[sexual_chocolate]

or specific other states that "feel they must adopt such tactics to defend themselves."

 

Israel, S. Africa, Argentina, Iran, N. Korea

 

oh excellent point. these countries all adopted these tactics because george bush did. how silly of me!

[ashw_justin]

"Bush Doctrine" is of course a misnomer. He's just credited with popularizing these ideas in the current era. We've done it since WWII of course.

[Hugh Conway]

oh excellent point. these countries all adopted these tactics because george bush did. how silly of me!

 

Iran did

[sexual_chocolate]

oh excellent point. these countries all adopted these tactics because george bush did. how silly of me!

 

Iran did

 

so out of the countries you listed, you now say that only one of these is applicable as an example, but now you must state exactly what it is that iran "did".

[tvashtarkatena]

The United States has never renounced nuclear first-strike, and neither have the Russians/Soviets. What's Bush got to do with it? - aside from your myopic hatred.

 

Under Bush, the U.S. has begun developing new nuclear weapons; extremely provocative.

 

In addition, Russia ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 2000. Under Bush, the U.S. has yet to do so. Also very provocative.

 

Dumbass.

Edited January 20, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[Hugh Conway]

it is that iran "did".

 

Iran felt me up and didn't pay for dinner

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Iran made several warm diplomative gestures towards the United States immediately after 911, expressing sympathy and condemning the act. They also supported the U.N. effort to oust the Taliban from Afghanistan.

 

The U.S. (well, Cheney) snubbed these gestures, and so a rare opportunity to begin burying the hatchet with that country was squandered by the Bush administration. It didn't jibe with the regime change plans the "thought leaders" (Cheney) have had for Iran since the mid nineties. Since then, I'm a Dinner Jacket has replaced his more moderate predecessor, Iraq has (predictably) exploded, and the U.S. has repeated threatened Iran with "serious consequences", which in Bush speak clearly means military action. As a result, reconciliation has become more and more difficult. The shame is that it didn't need to be that way: the Bush administration chose this confrontational course.