Kerry's vision for a Global Test

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Exactly. It's just another Bush diversion, a smoke screen to obscure his own miserable performance.

To all the Kerry supporters who have been sucked into defending against Cad & Co's definition of "global test", please STOP. It's a lie. Go back and review what Kerry said -- the whole thing -- and avoid their attempts to twist it into something else. When you let them frame it falsely, you reinforce their lie. Chop it down at the roots instead of swatting at the branches YABAs dangle in your face.

No, it's not a "diversion" from anything. It's a real issue. kerry brought it up and is now trying to weasel out of what he says. The problem is that he has a history of "globalist" stances and can't shake it because he keeps bringing it up. You call it a "lie" but the only "lie" seems to be coming from kerry on this issue. If he keeps trying to lie to himself - why should anyone trust him?

The issue is - why does there need to be this "global test"? Who gets to decide when it's used? Who gets to decide if the test passes/fails? What is the criteria? Who gets to decide what the criteria is?
The UN? :roll:

Anyway - keep in mind that carterism doesn't get anything done.

CsG

John Kerry, from the debate:

• Kerry answered, "The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.
  
  "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.
  
  "But if and when you do it, Jim, 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."

There, I made it easy for you. There's the quote. Either address what he said, in context, or slink back under your bridge. The only thing worse than Bush's lies are the mindless sycophants who repeat them.

Which part of the world gets to decide what a legitamate reason is?

They won't answer because they are caught in a situation that would show their hand. My guess is they are holding the carter card. I've asked how many times in this thread? And no one will address them as they only try to attack the person asking or Bush as a diversion from the issue.

CsG

Get over yourself. Nobody give's a rat's arse about your Carter card. It's just another empty talking point you picked up and chant endlessly as a substitute for independent, intelligent thought. We decide what the legitimate reasons are. Kerry was very clear about it. All he said is after we act, we need to be able to explain what we did and why it was legitimate. That is a completely reasonable position. It is certainly what I would expect if my government says it needs to go kill a bunch of people.

This whole furor is just another Bush campaign diversion anyway. Kerry is obviously drawing a pointed contrast to George's adventure in Iraq where we changed rationales more often than most people change shorts, continually hunting for an excuse people would buy. The YABAs are again trying to spin it 180 degrees to draw attention from Bush's miserable failures in Iraq.

Aww.... poor bow - can't handle the fact that carterism is alive in today's left.

Oh, and "carterism" is a talking point? Where exactly have you heard it? I haven't heard it being used anywhere - it was so horrible people have forgotten about it - maybe they should take another look at it and see that it is very much alive in the way the left wants to deal with things of today.

No, we don't need to "justify" or anything else to anyone - especially AFTER we act. Why would what they think matter AFTER we acted? It's an absurd notion - but hey, you can believe whatever you wish.

It matters because we are one member of a global community, and we are highly dependent on a global economy. I would think you Republican business experts would understand that. If a significant piece of the world decides they've had enough of our cowboy bully shtick, they could drop the U.S. into a third-world state just by calling in their markers and refusing to buy our products.

Other than that, you've added nothing new. You continue to dodge the points and continue to spin why it's OK for you to lie about Kerry's position. I hold myself to a higher standard Cad, but you only have to live up to -- or down to -- your own expectations.

No, actually it's you and yours that have been doing the dodging and spinning. Why do you refuse to address kerry's internationalism? Why do you keep ignoring kerry's "global test" concept? Answer the questions - who, when, how?

Ofcourse us making correct decisions are important - but making decisions in our own best interest is what our leader is supposed to do. Yes, part of what is weighed during a decision is the consequeces of it - but after it is made - we don't have to pass some "global test" for it to be correct or "right".
Yeah, we all know what level you hold yourself to bow, but substandard isn't something I aspire to emulate so your standards don't really matter to me.

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Exactly. It's just another Bush diversion, a smoke screen to obscure his own miserable performance.

To all the Kerry supporters who have been sucked into defending against Cad & Co's definition of "global test", please STOP. It's a lie. Go back and review what Kerry said -- the whole thing -- and avoid their attempts to twist it into something else. When you let them frame it falsely, you reinforce their lie. Chop it down at the roots instead of swatting at the branches YABAs dangle in your face.

No, it's not a "diversion" from anything. It's a real issue. kerry brought it up and is now trying to weasel out of what he says. The problem is that he has a history of "globalist" stances and can't shake it because he keeps bringing it up. You call it a "lie" but the only "lie" seems to be coming from kerry on this issue. If he keeps trying to lie to himself - why should anyone trust him?

The issue is - why does there need to be this "global test"? Who gets to decide when it's used? Who gets to decide if the test passes/fails? What is the criteria? Who gets to decide what the criteria is?
The UN? :roll:

Anyway - keep in mind that carterism doesn't get anything done.

CsG

John Kerry, from the debate:

• Kerry answered, "The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.
  
  "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.
  
  "But if and when you do it, Jim, 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."

There, I made it easy for you. There's the quote. Either address what he said, in context, or slink back under your bridge. The only thing worse than Bush's lies are the mindless sycophants who repeat them.

Which part of the world gets to decide what a legitamate reason is?

They won't answer because they are caught in a situation that would show their hand. My guess is they are holding the carter card. I've asked how many times in this thread? And no one will address them as they only try to attack the person asking or Bush as a diversion from the issue.

CsG

Get over yourself. Nobody give's a rat's arse about your Carter card. It's just another empty talking point you picked up and chant endlessly as a substitute for independent, intelligent thought. We decide what the legitimate reasons are. Kerry was very clear about it. All he said is after we act, we need to be able to explain what we did and why it was legitimate. That is a completely reasonable position. It is certainly what I would expect if my government says it needs to go kill a bunch of people.

This whole furor is just another Bush campaign diversion anyway. Kerry is obviously drawing a pointed contrast to George's adventure in Iraq where we changed rationales more often than most people change shorts, continually hunting for an excuse people would buy. The YABAs are again trying to spin it 180 degrees to draw attention from Bush's miserable failures in Iraq.

Aww.... poor bow - can't handle the fact that carterism is alive in today's left.

Oh, and "carterism" is a talking point? Where exactly have you heard it? I haven't heard it being used anywhere - it was so horrible people have forgotten about it - maybe they should take another look at it and see that it is very much alive in the way the left wants to deal with things of today.

No, we don't need to "justify" or anything else to anyone - especially AFTER we act. Why would what they think matter AFTER we acted? It's an absurd notion - but hey, you can believe whatever you wish.

It matters because we are one member of a global community, and we are highly dependent on a global economy. I would think you Republican business experts would understand that. If a significant piece of the world decides they've had enough of our cowboy bully shtick, they could drop the U.S. into a third-world state just by calling in their markers and refusing to buy our products.

Other than that, you've added nothing new. You continue to dodge the points and continue to spin why it's OK for you to lie about Kerry's position. I hold myself to a higher standard Cad, but you only have to live up to -- or down to -- your own expectations.

No, actually it's you and yours that have been doing the dodging and spinning. Why do you refuse to address kerry's internationalism? Why do you keep ignoring kerry's "global test" concept? Answer the questions - who, when, how?

Ofcourse us making correct decisions are important - but making decisions in our own best interest is what our leader is supposed to do. Yes, part of what is weighed during a decision is the consequeces of it - but after it is made - we don't have to pass some "global test" for it to be correct or "right".
Yeah, we all know what level you hold yourself to bow, but substandard isn't something I aspire to emulate so your standards don't really matter to me.

CsG

Sorry Cad. I'm not going to play by your rules; I'm not even going to play your game. Here's the quote; choke on it:

John Kerry, from the debate:

• Kerry answered, "The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.
  
  "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.
  
  "But if and when you do it, Jim, 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."

There, I made it easy for you. There's the quote. Either address what he said, in context, or slink back under your bridge. The only thing worse than Bush's lies are the mindless sycophants who repeat them.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Sorry Cad. I'm not going to play by your rules; I'm not even going to play your game. Here's the quote; choke on it:

John Kerry, from the debate:

• Kerry answered, "The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.
  
  "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.
  
  "But if and when you do it, Jim, 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."

There, I made it easy for you. There's the quote. Either address what he said, in context, or slink back under your bridge. The only thing worse than Bush's lies are the mindless sycophants who repeat them.

Read my reply to conjur.
You guys can continue to post what he said all you want - it doesn't change his concept - nor does it change my questions on that concept. So yes, please address the issue and question or slink back under your new home(that new MLK bridge should be big enough for you - no?)

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Sorry Cad. I'm not going to play by your rules; I'm not even going to play your game. Here's the quote; choke on it:

John Kerry, from the debate:

• Kerry answered, "The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.
  
  "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.
  
  "But if and when you do it, Jim, 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."

There, I made it easy for you. There's the quote. Either address what he said, in context, or slink back under your bridge. The only thing worse than Bush's lies are the mindless sycophants who repeat them.

Read my reply to conjur.
You guys can continue to post what he said all you want - it doesn't change his concept - nor does it change my questions on that concept. So yes, please address the issue and question or slink back under your new home(that new MLK bridge should be big enough for you - no?)

CsG

First, your questions are specious, blatant diversions to distract us from King George's constant failures.

Second, your questions have been answered by people gracious enough to try to rephrase Kerry's clear, unambiguous comments in simpler terms that you might understand. You have no interest in reading or understanding those answers, of course, prefering instead to continue lying about it.

Third, I will defer to your expertise on bridges.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
First, your questions are specious, blatant diversions to distract us from King George's constant failures.

Second, your questions have been answered by people gracious enough to try to rephrase Kerry's clear, unambiguous comments in simpler terms that you might understand. You have no interest in reading or understanding those answers, of course, prefering instead to continue lying about it.

Third, I will defer to your expertise on bridges.

First - who is ignoring the issue here? Oh wait...that'd be you.
Second - no they haven't. Please address them. Trying to restate kerry's statements doesn't answer the questions about his concept of passing some test. Who gets to decide? When do they decide? etc...
Third - I don't live under one - but since you seem to be looking for a bridge to troll from - I figured you might as well go for the newest one.

CsG

 

[NeoV]

"Answer the questions - who, when, how? " - that sounds great and all CAD, but if you would read what Kerry said, and read it IN CONTEXT, then maybe you would understand that there isn't a who, when, and how, and there is no global test.

I sure as hell understand Carterism - do you understand what a contrast his? Kerry was simply trying to contrast working with your allies and working without them. Stop ignoring this and talking about a global test that doesn't exist. You can continue to quote RNC talking points about the global test, but the question you continue to ask has been answered nearly a dozen times in this thread already - you just don't get it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
You can try to claim Vietnam all you wish, but there have been many other wars fought due to what our elected officials deem necessary at the time. Heck, the Balkans must have been necessary - right? Was Korea necessary? Ofcourse the point of all this is - it's subjective and all hindsight now. There have always been naysayers and isolationists - that doesn't mean our elected officials can't or shouldn't make decisions that they feel necessary for the US
CsG

Decisions to mislead the American Public to support an invasion based on faulty intel and lies (at least lies told to the Dub and his Administration) is never in the best interest of this country. Our involvement in Viet Nam is the closest example of this current situation and we all know how that turned out!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
So, you support a war for unjust causes? This war on Iraq is EXACTLY what Kerry was talking about when he said "global test". Kerry meant that AFTER we take action, we better be able to go to the world and say, "Look, here's the proof. We did it for the right reasons."

Where's that proof now, CsG? Where *are* those WMDs?

Why? Why does it matter after we decide? Does it change anything?(no) So why even bring up this whole global test BS then? Who gets to decide on this "global test" after we acted? What is the criteria? Oh, and please don't foget the most important one that I started off with - why again do it matter after we decide?

Oh, and nice diversion attempt with the WMDs conjur.

CsG

Why does it matter? Jesus Christ, man! Look at the mess in Iraq! Look at how invading Iraq has increased anger toward the US, deepened the debt, divided this nation, killed over 1,100 Americans, anywhere from 10,000 to 30,000 Iraqis, injured 8,000 Americans, strained relationships with other nations, etc.

That's what Kerry meant by the global test comment.

And, the WMD comment is NOT a diversion. It's what this war was about, remember?!?! After we take action to "protect America from imminent threats", we'd best be able to say afterwards we were right to do so. Can we do that now? NO. Where are those WMDs? They were the ONLY justification given for invading Iraq.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
You can try to claim Vietnam all you wish, but there have been many other wars fought due to what our elected officials deem necessary at the time. Heck, the Balkans must have been necessary - right? Was Korea necessary? Ofcourse the point of all this is - it's subjective and all hindsight now. There have always been naysayers and isolationists - that doesn't mean our elected officials can't or shouldn't make decisions that they feel necessary for the US
CsG

Decisions to mislead the American Public to support an invasion based on faulty intel and lies (at least lies told to the Dub and his Administration) is never in the best interest of this country. Our involvement in Viet Nam is the closest example of this current situation and we all know how that turned out!

Ofcourse your premise assumes the intent was to mislead on both occasions. Yes, I know history will have it's revisionists and claim things were wrong - because the war was "lost" politically - but how exactly is that mislead again? Oh that's right - it's one's opinion. I don't share that opinion and this was most certainly was necessary.

conjur - WTF does the aftermath have to do with the decision? Afterwards it doesn't matter because it's already decided. Sheesh - are you really that dense? You can bleat on and on about how bad you think this war is - it doesn't change the fact that it was a decision made by our gov't in our best interest. Yes, that means Bush AND congress.
Yes, your little WMD bleat was most certainly a diversion - you can claim what you wish - but the war most certainly was not only about WMDs. Ofcourse if you pulled your head out - you'd have realized that by now. It's not my fault you didn't understand the situation.

Again, who gets to decide if things pass this "global test"? What is the criteria used? How is it applied? No one seems to be able to answer these things yet they want to claim they understand what kerry said. So again - what is behind this concept of "global test"? Answer the questions.

NeoV - No, it doesn't sound like you understand carterism. If you did - you'd see what I'm talking about.
Allies don't make decisions for us. Allies make their own decisions - just like we do. Just because we are allies - doesn't mean we always have to agree or that they have to approve of every decision we make(before OR after). Again, carterism isn't a "talking point" as I haven't heard anyone else who has thought about it enough to make the connection. And no, I'm not the one who doesn't get it I understand that this concept that kerry is yapping about is BS - but it seems those on the left want to try to hide what he says. kerry is a globalist and his record proves it. Now if you'd actually try to address the concept - we might actually get somewhere instead of having to deal with all these diversion attacks.

CsG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
conjur - WTF does the aftermath have to do with the decision? Afterwards it doesn't matter because it's already decided. Sheesh - are you really that dense? You can bleat on and on about how bad you think this war is - it doesn't change the fact that it was a decision made by our gov't in our best interest. Yes, that means Bush AND congress.

Yes, your little WMD bleat was most certainly a diversion - you can claim what you wish - but the war most certainly was not only about WMDs. Ofcourse if you pulled your head out - you'd have realized that by now. It's not my fault you didn't understand the situation.

Again, who gets to decide if things pass this "global test"? What is the criteria used? How is it applied? No one seems to be able to answer these things yet they want to claim they understand what kerry said. So again - what is behind this concept of "global test"? Answer the questions.

Uh, CsG? The aftermath is the whole point of Kerry's statement about the global test. Being able to show to the world, AFTER we've taken action, that we took action for the right reasons.

You know it but you continue to argue for the sake of arguing.

Give it up. You are fooling no one.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
You can try to claim Vietnam all you wish, but there have been many other wars fought due to what our elected officials deem necessary at the time. Heck, the Balkans must have been necessary - right? Was Korea necessary? Ofcourse the point of all this is - it's subjective and all hindsight now. There have always been naysayers and isolationists - that doesn't mean our elected officials can't or shouldn't make decisions that they feel necessary for the US
CsG

Decisions to mislead the American Public to support an invasion based on faulty intel and lies (at least lies told to the Dub and his Administration) is never in the best interest of this country. Our involvement in Viet Nam is the closest example of this current situation and we all know how that turned out!

Ofcourse your premise assumes the intent was to mislead on both occasions. Yes, I know history will have it's revisionists and claim things were wrong - because the war was "lost" politically - but how exactly is that mislead again? Oh that's right - it's one's opinion. I don't share that opinion and this was most certainly was necessary.

conjur - WTF does the aftermath have to do with the decision? Afterwards it doesn't matter because it's already decided. Sheesh - are you really that dense? You can bleat on and on about how bad you think this war is - it doesn't change the fact that it was a decision made by our gov't in our best interest. Yes, that means Bush AND congress.
Yes, your little WMD bleat was most certainly a diversion - you can claim what you wish - but the war most certainly was not only about WMDs. Ofcourse if you pulled your head out - you'd have realized that by now. It's not my fault you didn't understand the situation.

Again, who gets to decide if things pass this "global test"? What is the criteria used? How is it applied? No one seems to be able to answer these things yet they want to claim they understand what kerry said. So again - what is behind this concept of "global test"? Answer the questions.

NeoV - No, it doesn't sound like you understand carterism. If you did - you'd see what I'm talking about.
Allies don't make decisions for us. Allies make their own decisions - just like we do. Just because we are allies - doesn't mean we always have to agree or that they have to approve of every decision we make(before OR after). Again, carterism isn't a "talking point" as I haven't heard anyone else who has thought about it enough to make the connection. And no, I'm not the one who doesn't get it I understand that this concept that kerry is yapping about is BS - but it seems those on the left want to try to hide what he says. kerry is a globalist and his record proves it. Now if you'd actually try to address the concept - we might actually get somewhere instead of having to deal with all these diversion attacks.

CsG

Your questions remain specious diversions. They have been answered multiple times by people gracious enough to try to rephrase Kerry's clear, unambiguous comments in simpler terms you might understand. You have no interest in reading or understanding those answers, of course, prefering instead to continue lying about it. We are still waiting for you to address what Kerry really said instead of your Coulteresque cartoon perversion of what you wish he said.

John Kerry, from the debate:

• Kerry answered, "The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.
  
  "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.
  
  "But if and when you do it, Jim, 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."

There, I made it easy for you ... again. There's the quote. Either address what he said, in context, or slink back under your bridge. The only thing worse than Bush's lies are the mindless sycophants who repeat them. And repeat them. And repeat them.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Ozoned


"But if and when you do it, Jim, 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."[/list]
There, I made it easy for you. There's the quote. Either address what he said, in context, or slink back under your bridge. The only thing worse than Bush's lies are the mindless sycophants who repeat them.

Which part of the world gets to decide what a legitimate reason is?

[/quote]

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Ozoned


"But if and when you do it, Jim, 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."[/list]
There, I made it easy for you. There's the quote. Either address what he said, in context, or slink back under your bridge. The only thing worse than Bush's lies are the mindless sycophants who repeat them.

Which part of the world gets to decide what a legitimate reason is?

We do, as I said before. The question is a red herring since Kerry made it perfectly clear we do not require any other country's prior approval.

 

[Siwy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Siwy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Siwy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

And? Are you implying that we can't make a decision if a country might be affected?

(sounds like carterism to me )

CsG

Not unless your decisions are agreed upon by a country being affected or by international community ~ otherwise it becomes one big mess where countries, serving in its own interests, become bullies.

That?s not the world you want to live in, do you?

I live in America. You live.... Does where you live make decisions in it's own best interest? If it doesn't - then IMO you need to get some new leadership

I think I was correct with my earlier assessment - definitely carterism.

CsG

The country I live in does make decisions in it's own interest, while following international law. The two are not exclusive.

Since you are misinterpreting my comments and putting labels on me, let's stick to the basics....

Not referring to the current Iraq situation, just in theory, do you believe that one country has the right to attack another country without being imminently threatened and without international approval?

I never said they were mutually exclusive. But does your country not act in it's best interest over the interest of "the world" at some points?

regarding your question:
Depends on what "imminent" means and also depends on who gets to decide what "international approval" means and should come from.
Do you think our actions in the Balkins were correct by your question?

CsG

Of course my country acts in it's best interest over the interest of "the world", but it does so while following international law. You see, international law is an interesting concept ~ it prevents countries from reverting to international anarchy, in which each country seeks it's own justice by it's own means. In other words, it prevents international chaos. I'm sure you're an upstanding citizen who follows your country's laws, so you know exactly what it means and why it is necessary for you, your family and your neighbors.

If you do not know what "imminently threatened" means, maybe you should look it up in a dictionary and stop asking silly questions

But lets make the question simpler for you....

Do you believe that one country has the right to attack another country if all of the following are true?
1) There is no approval by international body (UN), to which the country belongs to.
2) The country has not been attacked.
3) The country is not about to be attacked.

Lets keep specific conflicts out of the discussion for now, or we will never get to the bottom of it.

 

[wiin]

Kerry is very consistent on this matter. The Bush haters however, keep coming up with excuses to defend kerry.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
conjur - WTF does the aftermath have to do with the decision? Afterwards it doesn't matter because it's already decided. Sheesh - are you really that dense? You can bleat on and on about how bad you think this war is - it doesn't change the fact that it was a decision made by our gov't in our best interest. Yes, that means Bush AND congress.

Yes, your little WMD bleat was most certainly a diversion - you can claim what you wish - but the war most certainly was not only about WMDs. Ofcourse if you pulled your head out - you'd have realized that by now. It's not my fault you didn't understand the situation.

Again, who gets to decide if things pass this "global test"? What is the criteria used? How is it applied? No one seems to be able to answer these things yet they want to claim they understand what kerry said. So again - what is behind this concept of "global test"? Answer the questions.

Uh, CsG? The aftermath is the whole point of Kerry's statement about the global test. Being able to show to the world, AFTER we've taken action, that we took action for the right reasons.

You know it but you continue to argue for the sake of arguing.

Give it up. You are fooling no one.

And again, who gets to decide? What criteria is used in such a concept?

Are you going to continue to ignore the issue here conjur and just continue to bleat the same BS? Come on now - think about it for a minute. Who decides if it passes the global test and can thus be justified? Where do the criteria come from? How is it applied?

Bowfinger -

Read my reply to conjur.
You guys can continue to post what he said all you want - it doesn't change his concept - nor does it change my questions on that concept. So yes, please address the issue and question or slink back under your new home(that new MLK bridge should be big enough for you - no?)

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Ozoned


"But if and when you do it, Jim, 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."[/list]
There, I made it easy for you. There's the quote. Either address what he said, in context, or slink back under your bridge. The only thing worse than Bush's lies are the mindless sycophants who repeat them.

Which part of the world gets to decide what a legitimate reason is?

We do, as I said before. The question is a red herring since Kerry made it perfectly clear we do not require any other country's prior approval.

Huh? Didn't conjur just say that the we have to show the world? Wouldn't that mean the world gets to decide if the reasoning is "legitimate"? Or are you confused as to what kerry was saying?

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Siwy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Siwy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Siwy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

And? Are you implying that we can't make a decision if a country might be affected?

(sounds like carterism to me )

CsG

Not unless your decisions are agreed upon by a country being affected or by international community ~ otherwise it becomes one big mess where countries, serving in its own interests, become bullies.

That?s not the world you want to live in, do you?

I live in America. You live.... Does where you live make decisions in it's own best interest? If it doesn't - then IMO you need to get some new leadership

I think I was correct with my earlier assessment - definitely carterism.

CsG

The country I live in does make decisions in it's own interest, while following international law. The two are not exclusive.

Since you are misinterpreting my comments and putting labels on me, let's stick to the basics....

Not referring to the current Iraq situation, just in theory, do you believe that one country has the right to attack another country without being imminently threatened and without international approval?

I never said they were mutually exclusive. But does your country not act in it's best interest over the interest of "the world" at some points?

regarding your question:
Depends on what "imminent" means and also depends on who gets to decide what "international approval" means and should come from.
Do you think our actions in the Balkins were correct by your question?

CsG

Of course my country acts in it's best interest over the interest of "the world", but it does so while following international law. You see, international law is an interesting concept ~ it prevents countries from reverting to international anarchy, in which each country seeks it's own justice by it's own means. In other words, it prevents international chaos. I'm sure you're an upstanding citizen who follows your country's laws, so you know exactly what it means and why it is necessary for you, your family and your neighbors.

If you do not know what "imminently threatened" means, maybe you should look it up in a dictionary and stop asking silly questions

But lets make the question simpler for you....

Do you believe that one country has the right to attack another country if all of the following are true?
1) There is no approval by international body (UN), to which the country belongs to.
2) The country has not been attacked.
3) The country is not about to be attacked.

Lets keep specific conflicts out of the discussion for now, or we will never get to the bottom of it.

I know what "immenent" means but it depends on one's interpretation of where the line is drawn.
"International law" So who gets to decide these laws? Who gets to enforce them? Do they trump a country's decision making?
1)yes
2)yes
3)yes
We've engaged in such conflicts before. Action in Kosovo weren't UN approved. They didn't attack us. We weren't about to be attacked.


CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Which part of the world gets to decide what a legitimate reason is?

We do, as I said before. The question is a red herring since Kerry made it perfectly clear we do not require any other country's prior approval.

Huh? Didn't conjur just say that the we have to show the world? Wouldn't that mean the world gets to decide if the reasoning is "legitimate"?

No, that is NOT what it means.

Or are you confused as to what kerry was saying?

CsG

Neither of us is confused about what Kerry said. You're just lying about it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Which part of the world gets to decide what a legitimate reason is?

We do, as I said before. The question is a red herring since Kerry made it perfectly clear we do not require any other country's prior approval.

Huh? Didn't conjur just say that the we have to show the world? Wouldn't that mean the world gets to decide if the reasoning is "legitimate"?

No, that is NOT what it means.

Or are you confused as to what kerry was saying?

CsG

Neither of us is confused about what Kerry said. You're just lying about it.

First off - why do we have to prove anything if the world isn't going to decide whether it was legitimate? Are you really that naive bowfinger?
Yes, it seems you are confused and/or lying. Conjur seems to think we need to prove something to the world - but you say the world doesn't decide it if was legitimate? WTF are we proving then if not the legitimacy? Does the world just never get to decide then -all we have to do is prove it in our own eyes?

Anyway - please address the questions you seem to want to ignore all the time. I know it'll be hard for you, because if what you'll have to admit - but it'll be good for you. It'll help you break into what the rest of us call "reality".

CsG

 

[Infohawk]

First off - why do we have to prove anything if the world isn't going to decide whether it was legitimate?

Well, some people like to prove things to themselves. In other words, they have a belief system that revolves around reason and logic and not on faith or what their grandparents believed. If you think proof is only for other people, then you are selling yourself short.

 

[BBond]

"...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."

One more time. Real slow. What you're doing...(and) that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Tenses may be made purposefully difficult by those who would like to misconstrue statements, but they are clear for everyone else. Once you have explained your position to your countrymen you act with the knowledge that you are fully able to show the rest of the world community that you acted (past tense as in 'did') for legitimate reasons.

For example, Iraq. Bush did not make clear his proposed invasion of Iraq to the American people. Instead he used baseless claims of a threat that did not exist to trick his coutnrymen with full knowledge that there was no way he could then, after the truth came out about the non-existence of WMD or any threat whatsoever, show the rest of the world community the he acted for legitimate reasons.

Simple. Unless you are one of those who chooses instead to believe the lie.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Which part of the world gets to decide what a legitimate reason is?

We do, as I said before. The question is a red herring since Kerry made it perfectly clear we do not require any other country's prior approval.

Huh? Didn't conjur just say that the we have to show the world? Wouldn't that mean the world gets to decide if the reasoning is "legitimate"?

No, that is NOT what it means.

Or are you confused as to what kerry was saying?

CsG

Neither of us is confused about what Kerry said. You're just lying about it.

First off - why do we have to prove anything if the world isn't going to decide whether it was legitimate? Are you really that naive bowfinger?
Yes, it seems you are confused and/or lying. Conjur seems to think we need to prove something to the world - but you say the world doesn't decide it if was legitimate? WTF are we proving then if not the legitimacy? Does the world just never get to decide then -all we have to do is prove it in our own eyes?

Anyway - please address the questions you seem to want to ignore all the time. I know it'll be hard for you, because if what you'll have to admit - but it'll be good for you. It'll help you break into what the rest of us call "reality".

CsG

Why do you think we're getting little to no help in helping to rebuild Iraq? Because the invasion is seen as illegitimate by the rest of the world. Hell, Kofi called it an illegal war!

We're in this on our own and it's costing us dearly in lives and dollars. Was it worth it? Fvck no. And Fvck Bush and the Horse of the Apocalypse he rode in on.

 

[NeoV]

Cad, wasn't the reason for our military action in Kosovo rather obvious? Before and After?

Compare that to Iraq.

The bottom line in all of this back and forth mudslinging is that you feel the war in Iraq is a good thing, for good reasons, completely justified, and as far as I can remember, you haven't crititcized anything this administration has done in regards to this war.

Kerry's infamous global test statement, which you continue to use completely out of context, was one of dozens of statements Kerry made in the three debates to highlight the fact that he thinks we went to war with Iraq in the wrong manner. Let's stop the childish "who decides, who does this, who does that" - there is no spoon (or global test).

I completely understand Carterism - and no, sorry, you aren't the only right-winger to use the term when talking about Kerry - try a google search with "carterism kerry" and you'll see what I mean. Kerry is simply trying to hammer home the point (I'm certian you right wingers understand what hammering home a point is) that our "alliance" in going to war in Iraq was for the most part a collection of crap, and the once-proud standing of the US is long gone to most of th world, and that Kerry intends to do a much better job of working with our allies than Bush has. If you want to label him a globalist, fine, it's nothing at all to be ashamed of - but to make the leap and say that our best interests will be in the hands of other governments is ridiculous.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Anyway - please address the questions you seem to want to ignore all the time.

CsG

A little ironic for you to be saying this, don't you think CAD? Lately, I've noticed you are being more and more hypocritical.