[N8 v2.0]

John Kerry’s Global Test
The Washington Dispatch | 1 Oct

While most of the “debate” last night was a tightly orchestrated snooze fest, a frightening picture did slip through. No it wasn’t the facial contortions of President George W. Bush, or the orange skin tone of John F. Kerry. The most frightening part of the debate was when John Kerry let slip that he would actually put American security to a “global test.”

Mr. Kerry made it crystal clear on how he would handle any attacks on America and any “pre-emptive” actions that America may need in the future to defend the country. John Kerry says that any decision he would make to defend America would be put to a vote from the “global community” and if and only if---the global test was approved by the French, the Germans and the United Nations, America could proceed in defending itself.

The senator sent a very mixed message when he began with this clumsy disclaimer addressed to the American voter, “No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.” That sounded good, but the “Internationalist" in Kerry just couldn’t quit, and he let his true colors shine through. He contiuned, “But if and when you do, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.”

John Kerry’s fixation with the United Nations approval is frightening. How much of America’s sovereignty would John Kerry surrender to foreigners with his “global test?”

 

[Toshi]

example of u.s. action that did not pass the "global test": invasion of iraq. no one is suggesting that we consult the u.n. for actions within our borders but some things, invading sovereign nations for one, should be evaluated on the world stage before we jump into the fray.

 

[bomberz1qr20]

If you're going to stomp the s**t out of a foreign country, it's not a bad idea to run it by the UN to see how many people you're going to piss off. This concept is lost on Bush, or he doesn't give a f*ck, or both.

At least that's my take on Kerry's plan. Why is double checking your policy with the countries that it will be affecting "surrendering US sovereignty"?

 

[bomberz1qr20]

N8, please state an actual opinion in this thread.

N8?






Hello?

 

[BurlyShirley]

example of u.s. action that did not pass the "global test": invasion of iraq. no one is suggesting that we consult the u.n. for actions within our borders but some things, invading sovereign nations for one, should be evaluated on the world stage before we jump into the fray.

but on what level? Lets say fictional country "Assramestien" has some missiles pointed our way and is training terrorists within its borders. Clearly there is a danger, yet the UN is so perterbed about the whole Iraq thing that it wont go along with any more of the US's preemptive strikes. The US is just supposed to go "Well, ok, we'll wait til they attack us, I guess"

THATS RETARDED!

 

[BurlyShirley]

At least that's my take on Kerry's plan. Why is double checking your policy with the countries that it will be affecting "surrendering US sovereignty"?

Are double checking and needing approval the same thing? NO! Not even close. Dont be unrealistic.

 

[N8 v2.0]

The UN is totally inept and has no business 'approving' the US's national defense plans no matter what they consist of.

 

[Toshi]

but on what level? Lets say fictional country "Assramestien" has some missiles pointed our way and is training terrorists within its borders. Clearly there is a danger, yet the UN is so perterbed about the whole Iraq thing that it wont go along with any more of the US's preemptive strikes. The US is just supposed to go "Well, ok, we'll wait til they attack us, I guess"

THATS RETARDED!

that scenario has yet to arise, and one would hope that the UN would see the difference between your "assramestien" example, with its missiles pointed towards the u.s., and that of iraq, with its distinct lack of capability to strike the u.s.

if the u.n. thought that invasion in such a clear cut case was not called for then ignoring them would be the proper course of action. however, as i've written, the u.n. has not done this, and indeed its track record is better than ours at the moment since iraq has turned out to be both a dud in terms of wmd and horribly costly in many ways.

 

[N8 v2.0]

I think you have a very short sited view of history.

Perhaps 50 years from now, the Iraq invasion and the Bush Doctrine will be hailed as the creator of a Middle Eastern Renaissance which will being peace and freedom to the region.

It is far too soon to tell.

 

[N8 v2.0]

 

[bomberz1qr20]

I think you have a very short sited view of history.

Perhaps 50 years from now, the Iraq invasion and the Bush Doctrine will be hailed as the creator of a Middle Eastern Renaissance which will being peace and freedom to the region.

It is far too soon to tell.

That is a sweet dream, isn't it?

I think you have a romantic and fanciful view of the long term affects this war will have on US security.

50 years from now, we may be mourning the dead in a nuclear winter, because Bush decided to point us in the direction of Iraq, instead of dealing with countries that actually HAVE WMD's.

It is far too soon to tell...

 

[N8 v2.0]

Kerry is unwittingly calling their bluff.
France and Germany don't want to send troops, under ANY circumstances.



Europe Flattered, Unnerved by Kerry Overtures
Reuters | 10/1/04 | Mark John

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - U.S. presidential contender John Kerry will have won yet more admirers in Europe with his pledge during a campaign debate to restore alliances damaged by the transatlantic split over the Iraq war.

But his forthright overtures may also prompt squirming in European governments as they realize a Kerry victory on Nov. 2 would force them to show willing by offering more help to end the violence there, analysts said Friday.

"Kerry created a mood of empathy for the Europeans, which is no surprise," said Annette Heuser, director of the Bertelsmann Foundation think-tank, of a debate Thursday pitting President Bush against his Democratic rival.

"But I would warn Europeans it would then be up to us to deliver," she said, adding that Kerry's popularity with the European public could make it harder for war opponents such as France and Germany to ignore future calls for military help.

Iraq dominated much of a fierce foreign policy debate staged in Florida. Bush cast doubt on Kerry's ability to lead America in dangerous times while Kerry argued the president had left U.S. international partnerships "in shatters."

European analysts said it was unsurprising that in a debate aimed at domestic voters neither candidate offered much detail on how Washington would engage with Europe on Iran's nuclear ambitions, Middle East peace, or on other foreign policy areas.

Karsten Voigt, Berlin's coordinator of German-U.S. ties, said the debate would have served to confirm the gut preference of most Europeans in favor of Kerry, illustrated by a French poll Friday giving the Democrat nearly 90 percent support.

"Because in Europe, unlike in America, a lot of people were skeptical about the war, you'll probably find that the majority of Europeans found Kerry more convincing," Voigt told Reuters Television, doubting the debate would affect U.S. voting.

WHERE'S THE EXIT STRATEGY?

Arguing that Bush's decision to invade Iraq without the blessing of the U.N. Security Council had left the United States with "90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost," Kerry said it was time to get help.

"I think we need a president who has the credibility to bring the allies back to the table and to do what's necessary to make it so America isn't doing this alone," he said, pledging to invite allies to a summit on Iraq.

But while anti-war capitals such as Paris or Berlin -- which have ruled out any troop presence in Iraq -- welcome such displays of multilateralism, they would also demand a clear Iraq exit strategy from Kerry if he was elected.

"He fails to explain how he would suddenly manage to draw other allies to Iraq. That's not convincing. He fails to say how he would do it in concrete terms," said Bruno Tertrais, analyst at the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris.

Bertelsmann's Heuser suggested that such unresolved issues might in the end convince some European officials it would be simpler to deal with a second Bush administration.

"Bush demonstrated the same unlistening approach (in the debate) as we have seen from him. But cynically speaking, it might be more comfortable for European governments if he were reelected," she added.

 

[bomberz1qr20]

insert lame cartoon here...

Think of the above cartoon...

It is referring to TWO DIFFERENT things.

We were attacked by terrorists from Saudi Arabia, funded and organized by a Saudi.

So we go over and invade Iraq. (huh?)

The UN had a problem with the US invading a country for the wrong reasons.

Is it me or should we have invaded Saudi Arabia and taken all their godamn money?? If you're gonna live the thug life, aim high.

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

“But if and when you do, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

As per usual, the righty tighties are screaming nonsense.

OMG!!! Kerry said "Global". He must be a godless commie [probably a homo too]. Nevermind that he explained exactly what he meant by "global test". It's not like his reasoning follows the rule of law or anything. I mean, who on earth would want to follow that silly "innocent until proven guilty" doctrine anyway. :mumble:


And since when is being an "Internationalist" a bad thing?

 

[ASH]

It is not the duty of the president to worry about who gets "pissed off" it is his duty to protect the sovereignty and the lives of the citizens of this country. Going to war to remove sadam is not a legitimate reason, but if the threat of the use of WMD or the proliferation of those WMD's is real then that is more than good enough reason. The idea of the " united nations" is un american and against everything the founding fathers believed in.

 

[ohio]

I didn't bother with this whole thread because I'm busy, but Kerry specifically said last night that he would not give the UN a veto on US foreign policy as insinuated.

Nice attempt at spin though, N8.

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

The idea of the " united nations" is un american and against everything the founding fathers believed in.

I disagree. The idea of the 'UN' actually IS an american idea [literaly].
I also believe the founding fathers would dig the idea. The whole premise of the UN is a lot like the United States itself, no? Independent states gathering together to resolve differences and afford help when necessary. It has it's faults for sure [just like our own Federal Government], but it's far better than nothing at all.

 

[N8 v2.0]

I didn't bother with this whole thread because I'm busy, but Kerry specifically said last night that he would not give the UN a veto on US foreign policy as insinuated.

Nice attempt at spin though, N8.

So what the hell is the point of going through the "Global Test" then?

Why mention it?

 

[N8 v2.0]

I disagree. The idea of the 'UN' actually IS an american idea [literaly].
I also believe the founding fathers would dig the idea. The whole premise of the UN is a lot like the United States itself, no? Independent states gathering together to resolve differences and afford help when necessary. It has it's faults for sure [just like our own Federal Government], but it's far better than nothing at all.

League of Nations and now the UN... they've been inffectual at stopping anything since their inception.

 

[ohio]

So what the hell is the point of going through the "Global Test" then?

Why mention it?

Are you kidding? We do this all the time... in business, in politics, in our daily lives. We guage reactions, we weigh consequences, we seek advice and support wherever it's available but ultimately we make decisions ourselves.

There's nothing wrong with allowing others to INFLUENCE our foreign policy. We just don't want them to DICTATE it. The difference is that Bush decided the foreign policy before-hand, and didn't allow for the decisions, opinions, and actions of others to influence it.

 

[fluff]

League of Nations and now the UN... they've been inffectual at stopping anything since their inception.

Prove it, I dare you.

 

[ASH]

Just because the un was an american idea dose not make it a good one, I do agree very much that our federal gov has its faults big glaring faults likewise the executive branch the president. but if you would read anything written by T. Jefferson among others would never say they would "dig it". A foreign body of alies or other wise should never have any bearing on how we protect ourselves or govern. I live in MA and believe me kerry is a snake in the grass, which is why I'm gona leave that space blank or write in another name.

 

[ASH]

Bosnia

 

[fluff]

Bosnia

Kuwait

Did you have a point?

 

[N8 v2.0]

Prove it, I dare you.

Korea
Israel
WWII
Uganda
Somilia

just a few to start with


But let's look at something more current like Iraq.

The US utterly failed the Iraqi people and brought them nothing but hardship under the brutal dictator Saddam.

 

[ohio]

I live in MA and believe me kerry is a snake in the grass

You live in MA? Well, faced with this irrefutable evidence I have no choice but to believe you.

 

[golgiaparatus]

That angle is a bit extreme dont you think N8? Did you get it from some Republican Hate site? That statement is more crooked than a Tompson Layback Post

 

[ohio]

The US utterly failed the Iraqi people

Is that a typo or a freudian slip?

 

[ASH]

you dont have to believe me because in 30 days or so when he wins the entire nation will see first hand, not that bush is better he is not but all I know the man kerry that is has not done anything worth a bleep for the residents of this state or the nation, except his service time in the military, his entire political life has been spent working to become president.

Thanks for the sarcasm though!

 

[ohio]

Thanks for the sarcasm though!

Anytime.

 

[fluff]

Korea
Israel
WWII
Uganda
Somilia

just a few to start with


But let's look at something more current like Iraq.

The US utterly failed the Iraqi people and brought them nothing but hardship under the brutal dictator Saddam.

Ha ha nice typo. N8, you claimed the UN had failed to prevent anything, not failed to prevent some things. The UN has done much good and despite your narrow minded inability to accept that it is true.

My point was you cannot prove a negative, but, being subtle, clearly once again it was lost on you.

 

[fluff]

you dont have to believe me because in 30 days or so when he wins the entire nation will see first hand, not that bush is better he is not but all I know the man kerry that is has not done anything worth a bleep for the residents of this state or the nation, except his service time in the military, his entire political life has been spent working to become president.

Thanks for the sarcasm though!

I hope Ohio donates some syntax next time in place of the sarcasm. What are you saying?

 

[Changleen]

League of Nations and now the UN... they've been inffectual at stopping anything since their inception.

Jeeze, you are so 'left behind' about world affairs N8! Get a clue!

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

but on what level? Lets say fictional country "Assramestien" has some missiles pointed our way and is training terrorists within its borders. Clearly there is a danger, yet the UN is so perterbed about the whole Iraq thing that it wont go along with any more of the US's preemptive strikes. The US is just supposed to go "Well, ok, we'll wait til they attack us, I guess"

THATS RETARDED!

what is retarded is that the US has more missiles aimed at other, and has shot them before; than any other country has pointed at the US.

yet, its not RETARDED to invade them without any multilateral backup.

according to your reasoning, i, as a citizen without any regard to others rights, should not wait for courts, nor police to act, nor any higher authority permission to act OVER the rights of others.

but i should take "pre-emptive" action on every paranoial threat i feel. even when I AM a bigger threat to everybody else than everybody else together for me.
dont you think that is self-righteouness as big as it gets????

UN policy is, dont shoot anybody that hasnt shoot you before. excellent policy. that policy kept peace thru the cold war. and saved millions of lives, than say a republican in office instead of JFK in the missile crisis. what would you policy do then???

which policy worked out better?? the dont-shoot-unless-shot-first, or the GWB shoot-em-all-and-they-will-shoot-as-back??

your, n8s, GWB and others policy is SHOOT ANY possible threat.
seriously... which one do you think saves the most lives, even more US lives????