Kerry's vision for a Global Test

[Rainsford]

I agree with conjur's cookie response, there is nothing to rebut here. But, for the sake of assuming that you conservatives are interested in rational, reasonable debate (and I've seen nothing to indicate this from most of you), I'll give it a try.

Kerry said that he would be ok with US troops dying in Bosnia if they were part of the UN effort there, but not if they were just trying to go it alone, because he believed that in that situation, going it alone could not affect the outcome. If you disagree with this, please let me know your line of reasoning based on what Kerry said, because I just don't see it.

Now, given this specific comment about a certain situation, you can infer NOTHING beyond the fact that Kerry sees international coalition action as valuable in at least one situation. Every situation is different, assuming Kerry thinks about each situation, as most people do, there is no reason Kerry would ONLY support multi-national action in any other situation unless he personally thought it would be valuable to do so.

No matter how hard you guys try, I STILL see nothing from Kerry indicating he would turn over control of our troops to foreigners. All he said here is that he thought UN action was more valuable than US only action in Bosnia. I can't figure out the thought process that would lead you to say that means Kerry wants to turn control of our troops over to the UN.

However, I'm open-minded about this, so I'll put the burden of proof in conservative hands here. Don't keep repeating empty words, tell me how seeing the value of international support means turning over control of our troops to foreigners and I'll listen. But I think you're treating this as a black and white issue just so you can repeat your lame ass talking points about how the French will control our troops if Kerry is elected. Disagree? Then PROVE me wrong.

 

[jpeyton]

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?

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

I'm sorry, I don't see how being wrong in the face of international criticism is admirable.

But I guess if you think our American foreign policy isn't broken, then yes, a global test is a bad idea.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

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?

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

Right now, American's decisions belong to the PNAC and, indirectly, to Israel.

:roll: Same old same old tinfoil BS. Come back when you attempt to think for yourself instead of bleating some conspiracy talking point from the kook fringe of the left.

CsG

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Kerry already flunked his global test. For him it would be a "global retest."

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

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?

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

I'm sorry, I don't see how being wrong in the face of international criticism is admirable.

But I guess if you think our American foreign policy isn't broken, then yes, a global test is a bad idea.

Again, others can think what they wish, but they get to elect their OWN leaders - not ours. Their leaders make decisions for THEM - not us. What they think is "wrong" and what America thinks is "wrong" won't always match up - but that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't make our own decision.


CsG

 

[Tom]

The article in the original post is flawed in not gving enough context to understand what Kerry was saying in detail. But given that lets look at what it does give us.

"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."


I have not seen anyone address the meaning of the part I bolded. Since some people want to use the whole quote to theorize what Kerry would do in a hypothetical situation..

Do you honestly want US troops dying, for a "false presumption that we can affect the outcome" ?

Or in other words, when their deaths would be pointless ?

In this statement Kerry is not drawing a distinction between UN approved actions and unilateral action by the USA..he is drawing a distinction between operations that could work and operations that won't.


edit- as far as the issue of unilateral action, Kerry has unequivicolly stated, numerous times, that the USA has the right to act unilaterally, and he personally would use that power if he thought it was necessary.

 

[Rainsford]

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?

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

No fvcking kidding. You keep repeating that crap over and over and over and over and over like it's some point of disagreement. THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES (INCLUDING KERRY) AGREE ON THAT!!! Kerry has said almost exactly those words many times. I believe his most straight to the point quote was something along the lines of, "I will never cede America's security to any institution or any other country." This sentence came DIRECTLY BEFORE his global test comment, I find it funny how you guys continue to pretend it doesn't exist.

Here's an analogy on the difference. Let's say I'm a manager at a company. I have an idea on how to solve a big problem with our product. If I'm a Kerry style manager, I go and talk it over with my underlings. If they have serious problems with the idea, I consider why that might be. I don't let them decide, but I pause in my decision making and consider why everyone disagrees with me. I may decide to go ahead anyway, but it enters into my thinking. If I'm a Bush style manager, I don't even take it to my underlings, I start to implement the plan right away. When people complain, I just tell them I'm in charge, not them, and they should just sit down and shut up.

Having worked numerous jobs, I can say I've ran into both types. And while the latter management style seems to appeal to stupid people with weak reasons for their decisions (think pointy-haired boss from Dilbert), the other style is an indication of a much stronger manager. Someone who can entertain other opinions and make decisions while considering other points of view is, IMHO, the ONLY acceptable kind of leader.

 

[ironcrotch]

:heart:

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jpeyton

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?

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

I'm sorry, I don't see how being wrong in the face of international criticism is admirable.

But I guess if you think our American foreign policy isn't broken, then yes, a global test is a bad idea.

Again, others can think what they wish, but they get to elect their OWN leaders - not ours. Their leaders make decisions for THEM - not us. What they think is "wrong" and what America thinks is "wrong" won't always match up - but that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't make our own decision.


CsG

Well Kerry's global test wasn't meant for a situation like Afghanistan, where the enemy was harbored and the goverment was tied directly to them.

We're talking about Iraq...something that needed a global test. Where the threat wasn't immediate, where we could have taken our time.

Do you see the difference? 9/11 was a direct attack, demanding direct retaliation on the attacker. International laws protect the rights of a country to wage war against an attacker. Nobody is required to globally test that right.

But in Iraq, we weren't attacked. It was a preventative situation. The threat wasn't immediate. The global test would apply, so that we could find multinational cooperation on how to deal with a distant threat.

So why wouldn't a global test be a good thing for situations like Iraq?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jpeyton

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?

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

I'm sorry, I don't see how being wrong in the face of international criticism is admirable.

But I guess if you think our American foreign policy isn't broken, then yes, a global test is a bad idea.

Again, others can think what they wish, but they get to elect their OWN leaders - not ours. Their leaders make decisions for THEM - not us. What they think is "wrong" and what America thinks is "wrong" won't always match up - but that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't make our own decision.


CsG

NO ONE is arguing that anyone other than America should make America's decisions. There is a big difference between considering other peoples' opinions and letting them make decisions for you. I find it truly mind boggling that you people can't seem to grasp that.

 

[Todd33]

Cad is just like the talking heads on the right, they get the RNC talking points, which usually consist of cropping two words like "global test" out of a five sentence answer and using it for weeks, totally twisting so they can mislead people. I find this a bit dishonest.

What if the left took Bush saying "We can't win it (war on terror)" and talked about it daily for a month, made ads, etc.? I guess we don't like to mislead as much.

 

[cwjerome]

What a great idea! You don't believe in America's foreign policy, then we should give it (foreign policy) to the UN.

Let's use a body that does not have America's interests in mind and is in fact anti-America in many ways. A nice little group full of dictators, fools, and appeasers who would glady see America crushed. Let's not worry about the needs of Americans, let's cater to the whims of the world. Let's put our lives into the hands of enemies.

Keep talking about how tye UN should have more power over us... it will remind normal Americans to reject internationalists like Kerry.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
NO ONE is arguing that anyone other than America should make America's decisions. There is a big difference between considering other peoples' opinions and letting them make decisions for you. I find it truly mind boggling that you people can't seem to grasp that.

Their opinions were considered for twelve years. Their opinion was considered when George H. was dissuaded from going into Iraq and taking out Saddam (which, in hindsight, would have been the better option. Their opinion was considered (and discarded) when Clinton decided to bomb Qadaffi. Their opinion was considered when we decided to go to the UN to give Saddam one final chance to stop dicking everyone around.

We considered their opinion and, at the time, the majority of Americans did not agree with their opinion.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Rainsford
NO ONE is arguing that anyone other than America should make America's decisions. There is a big difference between considering other peoples' opinions and letting them make decisions for you. I find it truly mind boggling that you people can't seem to grasp that.

Their opinions were considered for twelve years. Their opinion was considered when George H. was dissuaded from going into Iraq and taking out Saddam (which, in hindsight, would have been the better option. Their opinion was considered (and discarded) when Clinton decided to bomb Qadaffi. Their opinion was considered when we decided to go to the UN to give Saddam one final chance to stop dicking everyone around.

We considered their opinion and, at the time, the majority of Americans did not agree with their opinion.

We didn't consider it. Hell, I supported the Iraq War at the beginning, and I dismissed the foreign protests as uninformed words of stupid foreigners. I didn't listen, I didn't consider, and unlike some people I'm not going to go back and claim I did.

Turns out we should have listened a little more, we could have saved ourselves this huge fvcking mess we now have to deal with. If there is a better argument for listening than this war, I can't think of one.

 

[Tom]

repeating myself in a shorter more direct way..

In this statement Kerry is not drawing a distinction between UN approved actions and unilateral action by the USA..he is drawing a distinction between operations that could work and operations that won't.

There is no basis for the original article's premise. None.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Tom
repeating myself in a shorter more direct way..

In this statement Kerry is not drawing a distinction between UN approved actions and unilateral action by the USA..he is drawing a distinction between operations that could work and operations that won't.

There is no basis for the original article's premise. None.

You clearly aren't a Bush supporter then

 

[351Cleveland]

And in his opinion, an operation that works is one through the UN, and an operation that doesnt work is one that is NOT through the UN.

Either way you slice it, his final authority on military decisions is the international community.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Rainsford
NO ONE is arguing that anyone other than America should make America's decisions. There is a big difference between considering other peoples' opinions and letting them make decisions for you. I find it truly mind boggling that you people can't seem to grasp that.

Their opinions were considered for twelve years. Their opinion was considered when George H. was dissuaded from going into Iraq and taking out Saddam (which, in hindsight, would have been the better option. Their opinion was considered (and discarded) when Clinton decided to bomb Qadaffi. Their opinion was considered when we decided to go to the UN to give Saddam one final chance to stop dicking everyone around.

We considered their opinion and, at the time, the majority of Americans did not agree with their opinion.

Wrong. The majority of Americans were scared sh!tless from lies about WMDs and ties to al Queda, stop re-writing history. If it wasn't for 911 Bush would have never had any public support for invasion, he used the anger from 911 and lies to sell a war.

Given a rational choice between inspections and invasion without all the fear mongering, I'd say 70%+ would chose inspections. Let us remind you he had nothing, so inspections and sanctions worked. How's did that war for liberation turn out, are they still greeting us with flowers?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jpeyton

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?

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

I'm sorry, I don't see how being wrong in the face of international criticism is admirable.

But I guess if you think our American foreign policy isn't broken, then yes, a global test is a bad idea.

Again, others can think what they wish, but they get to elect their OWN leaders - not ours. Their leaders make decisions for THEM - not us. What they think is "wrong" and what America thinks is "wrong" won't always match up - but that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't make our own decision.


CsG

Well Kerry's global test wasn't meant for a situation like Afghanistan, where the enemy was harbored and the goverment was tied directly to them.

We're talking about Iraq...something that needed a global test. Where the threat wasn't immediate, where we could have taken our time.

Do you see the difference? 9/11 was a direct attack, demanding direct retaliation on the attacker. International laws protect the rights of a country to wage war against an attacker. Nobody is required to globally test that right.

But in Iraq, we weren't attacked. It was a preventative situation. The threat wasn't immediate. The global test would apply, so that we could find multinational cooperation on how to deal with a distant threat.

So why wouldn't a global test be a good thing for situations like Iraq?

WTF? The global test wasn't needed for Afghanistan but it is for Iraq? How exactly does that work? Why exactly would us sending troops into a sovereign country on one hand not need it yet for a different "sovereign" country it does? Because you say so? :roll: Sure, whatever you say.

Afghanistan didn't attack us -we had no reason to remove the Taliban via your logic since the attacker wasn't the Taliban government.
Also, who gets to decide what is imminent or not? Was the Taliban an "imminent" threat to the US?... don't you really mean that Al-Qaeda was the threat.

Again, the "global test" isn't a good thing for ANY decision. The President makes decisions based on what is in America's interest - not some two bit dictator or other foreign "leader". I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. It's a clear-cut issue - either America gets to decide or you allow others to decide. kerry has on multiple occasions espoused his intent to use a pro-globalist type policy when it comes to making decisions. IMO, the leader of America should have an pro-American type policy.

Rainsford- You obviously don't understand the situation if you think a globalist policy isn't giving the decision to others(ie the UN). The UN can do what it wishes but that doesn't mean we can't do what is best for us. This whole idea of a "global test" is BS because who gets to decide what passes and what doesn't? Oh heck, even better, like pointed out to jpeyton - who gets to decide when it is applied and when it isn't? jpeyton seems to think that it doesn't always need to be applied - but who makes that decision?

CsG

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Rainsford
NO ONE is arguing that anyone other than America should make America's decisions. There is a big difference between considering other peoples' opinions and letting them make decisions for you. I find it truly mind boggling that you people can't seem to grasp that.

Their opinions were considered for twelve years. Their opinion was considered when George H. was dissuaded from going into Iraq and taking out Saddam (which, in hindsight, would have been the better option. Their opinion was considered (and discarded) when Clinton decided to bomb Qadaffi. Their opinion was considered when we decided to go to the UN to give Saddam one final chance to stop dicking everyone around.

We considered their opinion and, at the time, the majority of Americans did not agree with their opinion.

We didn't consider it. Hell, I supported the Iraq War at the beginning, and I dismissed the foreign protests as uninformed words of stupid foreigners. I didn't listen, I didn't consider, and unlike some people I'm not going to go back and claim I did.

Turns out we should have listened a little more, we could have saved ourselves this huge fvcking mess we now have to deal with. If there is a better argument for listening than this war, I can't think of one.

Yep. Let's leave the Iraqis swimming in Saddam sh!t so we can save our own face and join that big European group hug once again.

Great solution.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
And in his opinion, an operation that works is one through the UN, and an operation that doesnt work is one that is NOT through the UN.

Either way you slice it, his final authority on military decisions is the international community.

That is horribly flawed logic. Your logic goes something like this:

UN action in Bosnia (A)
UN control (B)
UN Action in Bosnia is UN controlled (A is a subset of B)
Kerry supports A, therefore Kerry supports ANY B.

Why is that flawed? Lets look at another example.
A Dog (A)
Animals (B)
A dog is an animal (A is a subset of B)
Kerry likes A, therefore Kerry likes any B.
This would imply Kerry likes cats, since cats are animals. This may or may not be true, we need more information.

His opinion was that the UN operation would work and the US one would not. That does not even imply that he thinks UN operations work all the time and US ones never do. In that specific case, he thought the UN one would simply be a better option. How is this so complicated?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Rainsford
NO ONE is arguing that anyone other than America should make America's decisions. There is a big difference between considering other peoples' opinions and letting them make decisions for you. I find it truly mind boggling that you people can't seem to grasp that.

Their opinions were considered for twelve years. Their opinion was considered when George H. was dissuaded from going into Iraq and taking out Saddam (which, in hindsight, would have been the better option. Their opinion was considered (and discarded) when Clinton decided to bomb Qadaffi. Their opinion was considered when we decided to go to the UN to give Saddam one final chance to stop dicking everyone around.

We considered their opinion and, at the time, the majority of Americans did not agree with their opinion.

We didn't consider it. Hell, I supported the Iraq War at the beginning, and I dismissed the foreign protests as uninformed words of stupid foreigners. I didn't listen, I didn't consider, and unlike some people I'm not going to go back and claim I did.

Turns out we should have listened a little more, we could have saved ourselves this huge fvcking mess we now have to deal with. If there is a better argument for listening than this war, I can't think of one.

Yep. Let's leave the Iraqis swimming in Saddam sh!t so we can save our own face and join that big European group hug once again.

Great solution.

Perhaps we are talking about different wars here. If I recall correctly, the big debate at the time was if Saddam had WMDs and if he posed a threat and if the current inspections were working. No one said we were liberating the Iraqis as the primary reason. Who knows, maybe it THAT had been our reason we could have found more support.

And please keep your words in your own mouth, I didn't say what you seem to think I said. Read what I posted again, I'm not going to explain it for you. And by the way, keep that "saving face" argument and try it out on our 1000+ dead soldiers' loved ones, I'm sure they'd love to hear how the only thing bad about Iraq is we're "losing face".

 

[Jhhnn]

This whole "global test" fearmonger is easily one of the most deliberate and obvious misrepresentations in the ongoing arsenal of Bush distortions. As usual, the quote is taken out of context, isolated and then reapplied to an entirely different situation.

The only significance to the whole global test thing is that we'd damned well better have good reason to act unilaterally, something that will stand the test of global opinion, not the lies and distortions employed for the invasion of Iraq.

With few exceptions, the invasion of Afghanistan stands up to such inspection, although the diversion of resources to Iraq is an ongoing travesty...

But, go ahead, embarass yourselves, twirl your skirts way up high when you're not wearing any panties...

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

WTF? The global test wasn't needed for Afghanistan but it is for Iraq? How exactly does that work? Why exactly would us sending troops into a sovereign country on one hand not need it yet for a different "sovereign" country it does? Because you say so? :roll: Sure, whatever you say.

Afghanistan didn't attack us -we had no reason to remove the Taliban via your logic since the attacker wasn't the Taliban government.
Also, who gets to decide what is imminent or not? Was the Taliban an "imminent" threat to the US?... don't you really mean that Al-Qaeda was the threat.

Again, the "global test" isn't a good thing for ANY decision. The President makes decisions based on what is in America's interest - not some two bit dictator or other foreign "leader". I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. It's a clear-cut issue - either America gets to decide or you allow others to decide. kerry has on multiple occasions espoused his intent to use a pro-globalist type policy when it comes to making decisions. IMO, the leader of America should have an pro-American type policy.

Rainsford- You obviously don't understand the situation if you think a globalist policy isn't giving the decision to others(ie the UN). The UN can do what it wishes but that doesn't mean we can't do what is best for us. This whole idea of a "global test" is BS because who gets to decide what passes and what doesn't? Oh heck, even better, like pointed out to jpeyton - who gets to decide when it is applied and when it isn't? jpeyton seems to think that it doesn't always need to be applied - but who makes that decision?

CsG

You try hard to confuse, but it's not that effective.

There are DIRECT, PROVEN ties that linked the Taliban to al-Qaeda before and after 9/11. The Taliban harbored al-Qaeda in their country and had financial ties to them.

Saddam and the Iraqi government did not have financial links to al-Qaeda and they did not harbor al-Qaeda.

I actually support the Bush doctrine of seeking out terrorists and those who harbor and finance them. In the case of Afghanistan, the ruling government were the people doing the harboring and financing.

The US wages war with GOVERNMENTS...you failed Civics 101 if you think otherwise. The Taliban was the ruling Afghani govt. They financed and harbored al-Qaeda. Just like the US govt. finances and harbors our own army.

God, I know one thing for sure. I'll enjoy watching people like you retreat into your caves once Kerry wins in two weeks. This fearmongering has to end.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Wrong. The majority of Americans were scared sh!tless from lies about WMDs and ties to al Queda, stop re-writing history.

Americans were scared sh!tless? Prove it. I don't remember masses of Americans cowering in a corner or uttering phrases of fear and constantly paranoid.

Oh wait, I do remember that. Those same Americans are still doing it. Except it wasn't about Iraq, it was about our own government. They are called "liberals."

If it wasn't for 911 Bush would have never had any public support for invasion, he used the anger from 911 and lies to sell a war.

I agree that if it wasn't for 9/11 the public would never have given support for the Iraq invasion. I've stated that very thing myself in here. We can all thank bin Laden for creating such a seller's market.

Given a rational choice between inspections and invasion without all the fear mongering, I'd say 70%+ would chose inspections. Let us remind you he had nothing, so inspections and sanctions worked. How's did that war for liberation turn out, are they still greeting us with flowers?

Thanks for (in hindsight) reminding me Sadam had nothing. Let me remind you that the inspections went on for years and were never successfully completed because Saddam kept throwing roadblocks in the way and failed to comply as ordered to do. Enough was finally enough, and it was time to turn off the golden wellspring that France, Russia, and others had tapped into.

As far as liberation, the Iraqis are liberated. Nobody in the admin ever claimed they'd be "throwing flowers." That's another revisionist invention of the liberals. Another strawman claim.