I think this was fairly obvious before and just a reminder to all terror organizations/ nations.
U.S. strategy includes ‘all options’
Preemptive strikes to counter unconventional arms
By Mike Allen and Barton Gellman
THE WASHINGTON POST
Dec. 11 — A Bush administration strategy announced yesterday calls for the preemptive use of military and covert force before an enemy unleashes weapons of mass destruction, and underscores the United States’s willingness to retaliate with nuclear weapons for chemical or biological attacks on U.S. soil or against American troops overseas.
THE STRATEGY introduces a more aggressive approach to combating weapons of mass destruction, and it comes as the nation prepares for a possible war with Iraq.
A version of the strategy that was released by the White House said the United States will “respond with overwhelming force,” including “all options,” to the use of biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear weapons on the nation, its troops or its allies. However, a classified version of the strategy goes even further: It breaks with 50 years of U.S. counterproliferation efforts by authorizing preemptive strikes on states and terrorist groups that are close to acquiring weapons of mass destruction or the long-range missiles capable of delivering them. The policy aims to prevent the transfer of weapons components or to destroy them before they can be assembled.
In a top-secret appendix, the directive names Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya among the countries that are the central focus of the new U.S. approach. Administration officials said that does not imply that President Bush intends to use military force, covert or overt, in any of those countries. He is determined, they said, to stop transfers of weapons components in or out of their borders.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
I wonder, if every powerful nation in this poor world of ours adopts the same policy, would we have a world to live in, anyway?
[/QUOTE]
I am not too worried. In the open all these countires are still using 1970's tactics and technology. In the Book, War in the Time of Peace by David halberstam, he says that if the US had the type of technology that they do now, they would have wiped out Iraqi forces in 36 hrs in 1991.
Its touching that even though Iraq has done nothing against US physically, but US is always very concerned about the safety of its allies in the region. Its equally amazing that while US is so concerned about the welfare of its allies in the middle east and is willing to do anything for them, these same "allies" are saying not-so-subtly, "go away, we don't want you to do anything".
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
...these same "allies" are saying not-so-subtly, "go away, we don't want you to do anything".
[/QUOTE]
I don't think that is the position of US #1 ally in the region - Israel.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chaltahai: *
Prince of Dump: We don't need anattack by Saddam to attack Iraq. They have done enough already.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, like threaten Bushy's father and his oil empire. Bad Saddam bad!
Secondly...GBJ gives me nightmares. If any American president would use one...I think him.. I think he thinks he can do what he pleases..and has no morals.
In Fact...(he has the forced blessing of congress? maybe?)
Sinse him having the right to declare war without congressional aproval.. had to go to court to begin with? makes me leary and afraid of this man.
Look at the team there in Washington. Bunch of x-energy people. I have not yet seen proof that Saddam is a threat to U.S. I can't understand the people that approve of his actions.
Why so many?
Eeks they might be scared... JOHN ASHCROFT and his McCarthy-like behaviors.