Now which one did we invade without prior provocation, decapitate the political leadership and militarily occupy with American soldiers for 5 years?

Those you listed may have involved military conflict but not one of them, with perhaps the exception of Vietnam, has much relationship to the pre-emptive policies we've seen in Iraq.

Faith based , in this context, is how you regard what Bush and his many spokespeople say and do. You believe what Bush/Cheney say about Iraq. You believe it when they say all they want to do is keep Americans safe from those dreaded terrorists. You take it on faith. Their words. The evidence demonstrates so clearly that Iraq, as larry rightly knows, was never really about anything the Dynamic Duo told Americans.

It is my opinion from reading your postings and comments….that you still believe the words of the president and vice president about Iraq….to this day.

Btw, what does "faith-based" mean in this context ? I don't get it.

And you avoided my question, as I thought you might. But you did repeat the following: "Pre-emptive wars of choice against countries posing no threat to America…..is new to U.S. history…"

So, I'll ask you again.

Since WWII, which of the following countries was threatening the USA ? We have taken military action in all of them: China/Taiwan, Korea, Lebanon, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicauragua, Grenada, Panama, Liberia, Bosnia, Libya, Iraq (the first time).

Perhaps this time you can answer me.

While I agree America has been a militaristic and imperialistic country for a long time, triumphalistically taking what we think is ours, all foreign policy experts, all knowledgeable and experienced foreign policy folks, including George the Elder, rejected pre-emptive wars of choice without provocation.

When Bush the Junior gave his pre-emptive talk in 2002, he broke new and dangerous fascist ground. Those who have been paying attention for a long time recognized the new pre-emptive neo-con doctrine for what it was……unbridled, unilateral imperialism. PNAC, relatively modern to power, pushed for the change and in W……got what they wanted.

You are simply refashioning history to fit a criminal leaders pathetic and maniacal performance.

larry: No, the maniacs haven't yet, though they are giving it hell, attacked another nation pre-emptively and without provocation. But pre-emption IS the new policy. The reason has been laid out there by Schrub. Everything has changed now because of 9-11. That's the reason why foreign policy had to change. Go back and read his pre-emption speech.
That speech alone disporoves what King is saying.

Pre-emptive wars of choice against countries posing no threat to America…..is new to U.S. history…..and still is the operative policy of the criminals in the White House.

King again: Which ones of those countries that you listed did U.S. forces attack, decapitate the political leaders and then militarily occupy the population for over 5 years?

Since WWII, which of the following countries was threatening the USA ? We have taken military action in all of them: China/Taiwan, Korea, Lebanon, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicauragua, Grenada, Panama, Liberia, Bosnia, Libya, Iraq.
I'm sure I've left some out.

The USA has used it's military to advance democracy and proactively deal with situations worldwide. The USA has also acted in it's self-interest, not merely it's self-defense. We have used our military preemptively and preventitively. That's neoconservative foreign policy thinking. We've been doing that all along. I'm surprised that you'd think otherwise. I'd think you of all people would understand this. You aren't one of those people who just started paying attention following 9/11 are you ? I don't mean that as an insult, just as an observation that could possibly explain your viewpoint.

Nice shot on his age too.

In other words….he has a bit of mental imbalance. He is 71 years old.

King: You are falling more and more into a faith-based approach to current issues. You are suggesting that there is nothing new about pre-emptively invading a non-threatenign country. You are saying that ever since WW2, we have been invading sovereign nations who posed no threat to us and occupying their lands. All without provocation.

That sure seems revisionist to me. Anyone else subscribe to King's "ever since WW2 pre-emption policyy"?