• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Kerry's vision for a Global Test

3

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Right from his own mouth:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n...e.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41012

Ten years ago, Sen. John Kerry said the deaths of U.S. military personnel are justified if they are engaged in a United Nations effort, but not if they die while fighting in a unilateral operation.

The comment was made while discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, the Washington Post reported:

"If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
This doesn't show that he would indeed subordinate control to the UN.
Click to expand...

In paraphrase, he says that troops only die for a cause when they fight for the UN. If they die because the US decided to take action, then it was in vain. That DOESNT sound like he will only use troops at the UN's discretion?

What I hear him saying is this... regardless of the reasoning, regardless of the circumstances, unless the UN gives the "ok," then the US military does nothing.
 
Uh huh.

I also saw a draft of the global test, it was multiple choice. You guys are grasping at straws now huh? I guess when you have four years of failure, you might as well scour the net for quotes to take out of context and them post here.
 
There's no debate that Kerry's an internationalist, multilateralist, and UN lover. His words and actions over the last 35 years prove it. Instead of DENYING it and looking the fool, you should try and DEFEND it. There's plenty of people who think that way, so, tell me why it's a good thing.
 
Originally posted by: Todd33
Uh huh.

I also saw a draft of the global test, it was multiple choice. You guys are grasping at straws now huh? I guess when you have four years of failure, you might as well scour the net for quotes to take out of context and them post here.
Click to expand...

How is it out of context? Tell me how I misinterpreted it. Please. I dont want to believe that one of the guys that could be our President would rather the UN make decisions regarding our military. However, the man's own words support it.

Great debate of the facts there Todd. :roll:
 
Originally posted by: cwjerome
There's no debate that Kerry's an internationalist, multilateralist, and UN lover.
Click to expand...

Even if he is, that doesn't mean he would subordinate control of our troops to the UN.


Is this line of argumetn absurd enough for you:

There's no debate that Bush is cheerleader. His actions over his lifetime prove it. Instead of DENYING it and looking the fool, you should try and DEFEND it. There's plenty of people who think being a male cheerleader is cool, so, tell me why it's a good thing.
Click to expand...
Go on. Tell me! :roll:


 
He said "the United Nations effort" not "a United Nations effort". Get your articles straight. He is referring to a very specific situation there.
 
"If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."
Click to expand...

Let me put it into my own words: If the UN passed a resolution to use force after inspectors found WMDs and Saddam refused to disarm, the loss of US troops would be justified. Using bad intel and rushing to war and losing 1100+ US soldiers is wrong. It a matter of a war of necessity versus Imperialism based on lies.

Joining the allies in WW2 to fight Hitler = good. Invading Mexico in response to Perl Harbor = bad.
 
Originally posted by: ducksoup0
He said "the United Nations effort" not "a United Nations effort". Get your articles straight. He is referring to a very specific situation there.
Click to expand...

Hey duck, what is the definition of "is?"

He said in THIS EXAMPLE... If we do it through the UN = good. If we DONT = bad.

Okay, so if he can apply that logic in THAT particular situation, what makes you think that he wont apply it to OTHER situations? REGARDLESS OF THE MEANING of "global test," doesnt the fact that that term is in his current vocabulary point to "Gee, he might apply that logic again?"

 
for as anti-amaerican as the UN is, americans sure do put a lot more faith in it than thier own elected officials, even the ones they have/will vote for.
 
I could argue why being a cheerleader may be good. But I can also argue against the idea that Bush IS a cheerleader and his actions over a lifetime prove it. When was he a cheerleader? How long did it last? Was it something that defined him? Is it something that affects his presidency? Hmmm.... not exactly the same thing as a private and public record going back 35 years that consistently distinguishes how a person thinks.
 
Originally posted by: cwjerome
I could argue why being a cheerleader may be good. But I can also argue against the idea that Bush IS a cheerleader and his actions over a lifetime prove it. When was he a cheerleader? How long did it last? Was it something that defined him? Is it something that affects his presidency? Hmmm.... not exactly the same thing as a private and public record going back 35 years that consistently distinguishes how a person thinks.
Click to expand...

It doesnt HAVE to make sense... it just as to be insulting... havent you figured it out yet? :roll:
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
:cookie:
Click to expand...

Ah, this must not have passed conjur's Global issue test - go figure. :roll:

CsG
Click to expand...

Now now... I thought his rebuttal was brilliant! I mean come on... :cookie: just says it all doesnt it?
Click to expand...

There's nothing to rebut. Hence, the :cookie:
Click to expand...

Yep, it didn't pass the conjur Global issue test. I doubt too many here are surprised.

CsG
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
:cookie:
Click to expand...

Ah, this must not have passed conjur's Global issue test - go figure. :roll:

CsG
Click to expand...
Now now... I thought his rebuttal was brilliant! I mean come on... :cookie: just says it all doesnt it?
Click to expand...
There's nothing to rebut. Hence, the :cookie:
Click to expand...
Yep, it didn't pass the conjur Global issue test. I doubt too many here are surprised.

CsG
Click to expand...
Aww...poor CsG. Him must be hungwee. Here:


:cookie:
 
A global test would have saved us from the mess we're having in Iraq. Tell me why that's a bad thing?
 
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Originally posted by: ducksoup0
He said "the United Nations effort" not "a United Nations effort". Get your articles straight. He is referring to a very specific situation there.
Click to expand...

Hey duck, what is the definition of "is?"
Click to expand...

The present, third-person form of "to be". Also, the copula. (Yes, I remember Clinton). Language is very important, however. I did not like how the paraphrase completely twisted the meaning of the quote by changing the article.

He said in THIS EXAMPLE... If we do it through the UN = good. If we DONT = bad.

Okay, so if he can apply that logic in THAT particular situation, what makes you think that he wont apply it to OTHER situations? REGARDLESS OF THE MEANING of "global test," doesnt the fact that that term is in his current vocabulary point to "Gee, he might apply that logic again?"
Click to expand...

I remember when he said that in the debate, and to me it made sense: in Kerry's view, we live on a small world and we must be accountable for our actions, just like any person is accountable for his actions to his peers. Unfortunately, the wording "global test" is a bit awkward (IMHO), and some have seen it as meaning "subordination to the UN" or similar. Let's assume for the moment that Kerry isn't an idiot (whether or not he's evil is another question). Do you really think he'd propose subordination to the UN? He is proposing accountability and responsibility, something that this current administration has distinctly lacked.




 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
A global test would have saved us from the mess we're having in Iraq. Tell me why that's a bad thing?
Click to expand...

It's a bad thing because the UN doesn't dictate our foreign policy. America and Americans decide our policies by who WE elect - not some two bit dictator or foreign Leader who may or may not have been "elected".

America's decisions belong to America - not the UN.

CsG
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jpeyton
A global test would have saved us from the mess we're having in Iraq. Tell me why that's a bad thing?
Click to expand...

It's a bad thing because the UN doesn't dictate our foreign policy. America and Americans decide our policies by who WE elect - not some two bit dictator or foreign Leader who may or may not have been "elected".

America's decisions belong to America - not the UN.

CsG
Click to expand...
Right now, American's decisions belong to the PNAC and, indirectly, to Israel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top