Obama Doctrine: He could even attack nations over climate change

Ernest Istook writes in the Washington Times:

The emerging Obama Doctrine justifies attacking nations that violate “international norms,” as judged solely by the president.

Based on statements by President Obama and key players, he could even launch attacks against those he blames for global climate change. Polluters and deniers beware: You may have to face our Marines.

Read more…

13 thoughts on “Obama Doctrine: He could even attack nations over climate change”

  1. The reason that nukes are left to moulder is that against military targets they’re practically useless. One of the first things the US military did after the war was judge their effectiveness against fleets, by trying repeatedly to bomb fleets of junk ships held stationary in the South Pacific. The bombs sunk one ship. It was quickly realised that nukes were only useful on cities, and without serious application directly in combat.
    Of course this ignores the best way any country has for not losing its citizens to enemies, which is don’t make them.

  2. I read the old freakonomics, I’ll have to pick the new one up. I mentioned war crimes in reference to the accusations launched against US soldiers by too many of our own citizens. I do kind of object to the concept of civilised law abiding war, though. The death of a diplomat is certainly an act of war, but I don’t see much use for farcical “trials” after the war has been won.

  3. Did you ever read Superfreakonomics? The authors did the math, and Americans are more likely to win the lottery than die by a terrorist’s hand.

    The phrase “war crime” only applies because this was a direct attack on a diplomat, which has not been allowed since ancient times.

  4. Somewhere in the years after WWII, Politicians/military leaders managed to dissassociate themselves from the soldiers following their orders by crying “war crime” over dead civilians. Spurned on by propogandists claims of american soldiers stomping on babies and gunning down hospitals, the american people let them get away with it. Now our military is left to try to fight a war against a list of specific people without accidentally hurting any unapproved targets. Can you imagine soldiers trying to go door to door through Imperial Japan attempting to arrest only the high ranking officials and only being allowed to fire their weapons if they’re fired on first? The War on terror is the ultimate result. We can’t even name a country we’re at war with for fear of offending people.

    Meanwhile, on the other side of the coin, Terrorism isn’t a real threat to the USA. There isn’t an invasion force at the shore. We have a better chance of being killed in a traffic accident then by a terrorist. Keeping Americans scared of terrorists is essential to getting us to quietly accept the losses of physical liberties like being able to move about freely within the country without massive government involvement. Keeping Americans blaming themselves (it was after all an insensitive youtube video that started the whole thing) is essential to getting us to quietly accept the loss of the more philosophical liberties like the ability to speak our minds in public, or even in what we used to think was private without fear of the government misunderstanding and putting us on a watchlist.

  5. To be fair, any policy that maximizes damage to the enemy while minimizing risk to our soldiers is the right decision in my opinion. I’ve often wondered why we have troops on the ground while ICBMs are gathering dust in our submarines.
    The problem lies in the decision of whom the enemy is.

  6. Well, let’s be fair. After Benghazi, there was no one left to attack that we weren’t already attacking. Benghazi was a war crime by Lybian Ghadaffi loyalists aided by Al Quaeda. That was what confused me about the whole matter. It would have been simple enough to just state the truth, “these murderers have murdered again”, and taken responsibility for letting the guard down. Mistakes happen, and in war, people die because of them. Instead, the administration obfuscated and actively lied, apparently for the heck of it.

  7. Obama seems more likely to attack an ally over pollution than to attack an enemy over the death of an ambassador.

  8. “Polluters and deniers beware: You may have to face our Marines.” Naw, he is more a UAV carried missile in the night kind of guy. He only likes soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen as backdrops for his speeches.

  9. He who must by obeyed, Barack Obama, The Punisher. Taking his cue from Dick Nixon, “When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.