You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #177: You were right about the Bush Doctrine and I was wrong. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #171
177. You were right about the Bush Doctrine and I was wrong.
From Wiki:

"The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to aggressively secure itself from countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan."

"Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate; a policy of spreading democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating terrorism; and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.<2><3><4> Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002."

Since the doctrine was not fully articulated until September of 2002, it didn't exist in its final form at the time we invaded Afghanistan.

So the complete doctrine includes at lease three elements:

1. The right to attack countries that harbor terrorists who attack US interests
2. Regime change and nation building of said countries
3. Pre-emptive war on states that we feel are a threat to our security

There are other principles, but for the sake of argument these three are sufficient.

I've made no secret of the fact that I agree 100% with the invasion of Afghanistan, as did a ridiculous majority of the American people. So yes, I agree with the first clause of the Bush Doctrine.

For the record, I strongly disagree with clause 3, which would pertain to the invasion of Iraq.

I sincerely apologize for calling you stupider than Sarah Palin. This discussion has gotten me quite hot under the collar but I'm resolving to keep it civil if you care to continue.

I guess the problem that I'm having with you is that you seem more intent on proving that I'm an idiot and a shill for Bush than in convincing me that the Afghan invasion was morally wrong. And frankly, your posts confuse me greatly.

You have very strongly given me the impression that you believe that bin Laden is innocent of the 9/11 attacks on the basis of one denial video, which may or may not have been faked.

Yet here in your last post you state...

> I want Bin Laden's head on a platter too, no doubt he's a murderous bastard.

Well. How do you know this? By your own (and the FBI's) standards of proof, there is no reason for you to 'know' that bin Laden is guilty of anything. You have completely rejected the subsequent conession videos and all evidence from his confederates that he was complicit. But suddenly you are demanding his head on a plate.

Can you explain this?

Now, let's revisit the whole NTSC/PAL thing one more time.

I did indeed make the statement that NTSC video has no horizontal resolution. This is technically incorrect as you point out. My intention was to explain that when displayed on an output device, the concept of horizontal resolution cannot be defined in pixels, but is entirely a function of bandwidth, only bandwidth. The resolution is in fact defined by the ability of the output device to sweep a beam horizontally across a screen and amplitude modulate a 15.75 kHz tone fast enough to create pieces of color and lumna information 6 micro-seconds in duration. Trust me, I understand this.

I assumed that you were conversant enough to takemy meaning, and I believe that you did, but were more intent on trying to browbeat me into admitting that I'm an idiot, which I won't do.

Instead you undertook a crusade to show the world that I am clueless. This offended me greatly, because I assure you I am not clueless about how TV works. In the 1980s I was the lead mechanical engineer on a project to create a data storage device from an industrial VCR. As part of the due diligence, I learned quite a bit about NTSC and how analog information is stored on tape and then displayed on an output device. The project ultimately failed, not because we could not get the recording process to work, but because the tape transport mechanism was a complete piece of garbage.

I am however, completely clueless about the conversion of PAL to NTSC and vice versa. Removing every fifth scanline seems like a perfectly reasonable way to do this, albeit with the caveat that the image becomes squashed.

While it may in fact be ridiculously easy to reformat PAL into NTSC while maintaining the aspect ratio, it seemed reasonable to me that people working out of a cave may not have the hardware and software to do it correctly, and may have relied on a very cheap piece of hardware to do it.

SO I'll repeat it again for clarity. I don't know if or how that original confession tape was edited. But I do not believe it to be a fake because if it was, why hasn't bin Laden ever claimed it was faked? If he was intent on denying his culpability, why would the (normally very media-savvy) bin Laden not disavow this fraudulent work?

Your turn. Let's see if you can return to civility.

If not, then have it your way. You have totally PWN3D me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC