The Best Defense, By William Safire

[Alex Moon]

April 14, 2003
The Best Defense
By WILLIAM SAFIRE


WASHINGTON

"The best defense is a good offense." That favorite saying of heavyweight champion Jack Dempsey gets a half-million hits on Google, including George Washington in 1799: "Offensive operations, often times, is the surest, if not the only means of defence."

That's the essence of our new policy of pre-emption as a last resort. If threatened by a regime harboring terrorists or likely to provide them with mass-murder weaponry, the U.S. will not wait to gain world sympathy as the victim, but will defend itself by striking first.

That power to protect ourselves — and our will to use that power — was established in Afghanistan and driven home in Iraq. Dangerous dictators elsewhere as well as fair-weather friends no longer doubt America's seriousness of purpose.

First dividend of our new credibility can be seen in a sudden shift in attitude in and around North Korea. For six months we resisted paying another round of blackmail to Pyongyang for more of its nuclear duplicity. Instead, we called on its neighbors — Russia, China and South Korea — to join us in multilateral pressure to stop the North's nuclear buildup. They pretended it was solely America's problem, not their own.

While defeating Saddam, we let it be known that the U.S. was prepared to pull our 37,000 tripwire troops out of harm's way along the demilitarized zone, opening the possibility of an air assault on plutonium production. In addition, we hinted we would help Japan and Taiwan build their own missile shields, diminishing the strategic power of China and Russia.

Lo! Reminded by Under Secretary of State John Bolton that rogue states like North Korea should take Saddam's lesson to heart, our sunshine allies suddenly decided the U.S. meant business.

In return for our not pressing the feckless U.N. Security Council to condemn the North for tearing up its nonproliferation treaty (toothless U.N. resolutions have become mere publicity stunts), the Chinese finally agreed to put diplomatic and economic heat on their reckless neighbor across the Yalu River.

Then Vladimir Putin, rattled by Paul Wolfowitz's mild suggestion that Russia forgive the $8 billion arms bill run up by Saddam's Iraq, ordered his foreign ministry to state ominously that Pyongyang's nuclear threat "goes categorically against Russia's national interests."

Kim Jong Il may be crazy but he's not stupid. With one end of the axis down, his father's many heroic statues look a little shaky. His South Korean counterpart, Roh Moo Hyun, whose own attitude toward the U.S. has undergone an after-Saddam epiphany, says that Kim was "petrified" by the speedy U.S. victory.

Yesterday, a Washington Post headline read "North Korea Drops Its Demand for One-on-One Talks With U.S." Although derided as bellicose by Democrats, President Bush's insistence on Kim's dealing with a coalition of those concerned may be working out peacefully. Different strokes for different dictators.

Thus may the credible threat of pre-emptive war obviate its carrying-out. Bush officials say that Syria has chemical weapons, has been warehousing Iraqi weapons and — in what Defense Secretary Rumsfeld called "a hostile act" — was the conduit for the illegal shipment of Russian arms. Plain logic suggests Syria is probably now hosting Iraq's most wanted killer-scientists.

Do we threaten to invade Syria? No. Do we put the economic squeeze on the stumbling young Assad, now that he is no longer propped up by a lucrative smuggling trade with his fellow dictator in Baghdad? Yes. And after coughing up Saddam's mafia, Syria — in the aftermath of Saddam's downfall — might also be persuaded to end its occupation of Lebanon and support of Hezbollah terror.

If we steadily introduce free enterprise and the rule of law into a loose confederation; if we expect little gratitude from Iraqis exercising the freedom to complain loudly and a lot of carping from "the little three" in Paris, Berlin and Moscow — then Americans could possibly achieve what seems as far-fetched as defeating fascism in the 40's and Communism in the 90's.

We could give liberty a chance to take root in the land of Job. Then our children may be able to lay down the burden of a great offense because there will be less need for a best defense

Thoughts? comments?

[Alex Moon]

Oh, here's the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/14/opini ... sition=top

The article requires registration though

[phongn]

http://archive.nytimes.com/2003/04/14/o ... 4SAFI.html does not require registration.

[Vympel]

What a load of codswollop.

April 14, 2003
The Best Defense
By WILLIAM SAFIRE


WASHINGTON

"The best defense is a good offense." That favorite saying of heavyweight champion Jack Dempsey gets a half-million hits on Google, including George Washington in 1799: "Offensive operations, often times, is the surest, if not the only means of defence."

That's the essence of our new policy of pre-emption as a last resort. If threatened by a regime harboring terrorists or likely to provide them with mass-murder weaponry, the U.S. will not wait to gain world sympathy as the victim, but will defend itself by striking first.

Ah yes, the Nuremberg defense for Nazi Germany. Worked for them.

That power to protect ourselves — and our will to use that power — was established in Afghanistan and driven home in Iraq. Dangerous dictators elsewhere as well as fair-weather friends no longer doubt America's seriousness of purpose.

*fap fap fap fap*

First dividend of our new credibility can be seen in a sudden shift in attitude in and around North Korea. For six months we resisted paying another round of blackmail to Pyongyang for more of its nuclear duplicity. Instead, we called on its neighbors — Russia, China and South Korea — to join us in multilateral pressure to stop the North's nuclear buildup. They pretended it was solely America's problem, not their own.

Utter nonsense. He actually contends that *South Korea* thinks North Korea isn't their problem!!!! Russia and China have been censuring NK for years. Blatant revisionist bullshit.

While defeating Saddam, we let it be known that the U.S. was prepared to pull our 37,000 tripwire troops out of harm's way along the demilitarized zone, opening the possibility of an air assault on plutonium production. In addition, we hinted we would help Japan and Taiwan build their own missile shields, diminishing the strategic power of China and Russia.

Lo! Reminded by Under Secretary of State John Bolton that rogue states like North Korea should take Saddam's lesson to heart, our sunshine allies suddenly decided the U.S. meant business.

*fap fap fap fap fap*

In return for our not pressing the feckless U.N. Security Council to condemn the North for tearing up its nonproliferation treaty (toothless U.N. resolutions have become mere publicity stunts), the Chinese finally agreed to put diplomatic and economic heat on their reckless neighbor across the Yalu River.

More bullshit. China has been pressuring NK since long before Iraq.

Then Vladimir Putin, rattled by Paul Wolfowitz's mild suggestion that Russia forgive the $8 billion arms bill run up by Saddam's Iraq

Really? That must be why Russia (Putin, the Duma) told Wolfowitz quite bluntly shove it up his ass, and that they would not right off Iraqi debt whatsoever, and furthermore, that such talk of debt relief would be conducted with the legitimate government of Iraq, not the US. But let's not check up on that- continue the fappage, dear sir.

ordered his foreign ministry to state ominously that Pyongyang's nuclear threat "goes categorically against Russia's national interests."

It hasn't been in Russian interests for quite a long time. Russia doesn't like that basket case much.

Kim Jong Il may be crazy but he's not stupid. With one end of the axis down, his father's many heroic statues look a little shaky.

Tee-hee. He thinks there's an axis.

His South Korean counterpart, Roh Moo Hyun, whose own attitude toward the U.S. has undergone an after-Saddam epiphany, says that Kim was "petrified" by the speedy U.S. victory.

Yes, because North Korea= Iraq.

Yesterday, a Washington Post headline read "North Korea Drops Its Demand for One-on-One Talks With U.S." Although derided as bellicose by Democrats, President Bush's insistence on Kim's dealing with a coalition of those concerned may be working out peacefully. Different strokes for different dictators.

Code for different strokes for weak compared to relatively strong.

Thus may the credible threat of pre-emptive war obviate its carrying-out. Bush officials say that Syria has chemical weapons, has been warehousing Iraqi weapons and — in what Defense Secretary Rumsfeld called "a hostile act" — was the conduit for the illegal shipment of Russian arms. Plain logic suggests Syria is probably now hosting Iraq's most wanted killer-scientists.

Utter bullshit. These bullshit claims were made by Israeli intelligence, and have been given no credence by the CIA, FBI, or the Pentagon. 'Plain logic' indeed.

Do we threaten to invade Syria? No. Do we put the economic squeeze on the stumbling young Assad, now that he is no longer propped up by a lucrative smuggling trade with his fellow dictator in Baghdad? Yes. And after coughing up Saddam's mafia, Syria — in the aftermath of Saddam's downfall — might also be persuaded to end its occupation of Lebanon and support of Hezbollah terror.

Another member of Israel's 'amen corner' I see.

If we steadily introduce free enterprise and the rule of law into a loose confederation; if we expect little gratitude from Iraqis exercising the freedom to complain loudly and a lot of carping from "the little three" in Paris, Berlin and Moscow — then Americans could possibly achieve what seems as far-fetched as defeating fascism in the 40's and Communism in the 90's.

We could give liberty a chance to take root in the land of Job. Then our children may be able to lay down the burden of a great offense because there will be less need for a best defense

This guy's blood definitely isn't going to the larger of his two heads.

[Ignorant twit]

[quote="Vympel]

Thus may the credible threat of pre-emptive war obviate its carrying-out. Bush officials say that Syria has chemical weapons, has been warehousing Iraqi weapons and — in what Defense Secretary Rumsfeld called "a hostile act" — was the conduit for the illegal shipment of Russian arms. Plain logic suggests Syria is probably now hosting Iraq's most wanted killer-scientists.

Utter bullshit. These bullshit claims were made by Israeli intelligence, and have been given no credence by the CIA, FBI, or the Pentagon. 'Plain logic' indeed. [/quote]

Right Vympel, that is why we just caught Watban Ibrahim Hasan al-Tikriti, you know Saddam's half-brother, making a run to Syria. Or is CNN not worth credence?

Let's be honest, if you are a war criminal in Iraq, where would you go? Iran, sure no hard feelings over the war there. Turkey, hey they aren't NATO members and likely to turn your ass in. Kuwait, no hard feelings from the last war there either. Saudi Arabia, sure just stroll across the vast desert and hope nobody notices you moving in. Jordan, not like the Jordanian border hasn't been closed and is comparatively easy to police.

Syria IS your best bet to run to if you want to escape the US, and other people who may just want to kill you. Hiding in Iraq is not a particularly good idea because even a small fraction of the population working with the US or other forces is a good way to get caught. Where is a more logical for bastards on the run to go?

If we steadily introduce free enterprise and the rule of law into a loose confederation; if we expect little gratitude from Iraqis exercising the freedom to complain loudly and a lot of carping from "the little three" in Paris, Berlin and Moscow — then Americans could possibly achieve what seems as far-fetched as defeating fascism in the 40's and Communism in the 90's.

We could give liberty a chance to take root in the land of Job. Then our children may be able to lay down the burden of a great offense because there will be less need for a best defense

This guy's blood definitely isn't going to the larger of his two heads.

Come on try something more than a one liner that detracts nothing from the arguement made.

[Vympel]

Right Vympel, that is why we just caught Watban Ibrahim Hasan al-Tikriti, you know Saddam's half-brother, making a run to Syria.

I was referring to Weapons of Mass Destruction, smuggled Russian weapons, etc etc, Ignorant Twit.

Oh piss off with the red herring. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. They have this habit of firing rockets at civillians. Even if you don't agree with Israeli policy stopping the actions of Hezbollah is a good thing. Getting Syria out of Lebannon would be just as good as withdrawing Israel. All of these things are good in and of their own right, REGARDLESS of what happens with Israel.

Why is that when talking about the actions of any Arab state we end up with somebody pissing about Israel.

Hey, he did it, not me. He's just another fool who regards Israel as the 51st state in the union and acts like the region's superpower with 200 nuclear weapons can't defend itself, and needs massive US support, probably while pretending that the US is a 'neutral' party in Israel/Palestine issue.

Come on try something more than a one liner that detracts nothing from the arguement made.

Interesting then how you snipped my responses to the other idiocy soaked, revisionist paragraphs. Or do you think I'd forget what I wrote originalyl when it's right there in black and white?