Kerry's vision for a Global Test

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Csg, have you convinced anyone that Kerry wants to outsource our security yet?

Huh? "outsource our security"? WTF are you yapping about?
Try sticking to the issue here info, and answer the questions. Who gets to decide what is best for America if not America and America alone? Then try to answer the other questions I asked.

CsG

Who gets to decide what's best for America? Americans -- within the Constitution, laws and other limits they've placed on themselves (like the UN charter).

And we did decide within those parameters. The UN's input(or lack there of) was noted, Congress approved legislation allowing for the action - thus is was done....or do you think that the UN should have been able to trump the decision of our Elected officials?

CsG

Usually no but in this case if they had they would have prevented us from making a huge mistake. Of course if we had competent leadership with a viable foreign policy we wouldn't need an outside body to keep us from fscking ourselves.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Todd33
Come on Cad, be a man. Go get the transcript, paste the whole answer and then respond with something intellegent. You are regurgitating talking points based on two words, I doubt you even know what he really said or meant.

Nor does he want to know. It might momentarily dampen his enthusiasm for spreading Bush lies.

No, I'm talking about a concept here. Some here seem to think that there can/should be some limit or criteria that has to be met in order for the US to come to a decision. Clearly those who do - haven't thought the issue through enough before trying to claim such things.

The problem is - your boy is an "internationalist" and you can't hide it so you try to obfuscate and hide his positions.

CsG

So does that make the Dub a Nationalist?

If acting in the best interests of America is a "Nationalist" - then yes.

CsG

As it turns out, getting us involved in his ill advised excellent adventure in Iraq wasn't in our best interest. I guess that make him a "Unilateralist"

No, actually it doesn't. This so-called "excellent adventure in Iraq" was in our best interest but it most certainly wasn't "Unilateral".

CsG

Well it sure doesn't look like it was in our best interest. I also concede that it wasn't unilateral, we had to pay good money or promise the moon to get others to join us and by god we did thanks to the Dub.

Well, sure - some people don't think it was in our best interest now - but there have always been nay-sayers and there have always been isolationists. Our elected officials decide what is the best course of action for our Gov't(that's why they are elected ) and they obviously thought it was in our interest otherwise they wouldn't have authorized such use of force.
Other nations got to decide what was in their best interest. The British, Pole, and Aussie gov'ts helped this "Unilateral" adventure - plus many more supported it also. So sure, I guess the moon is now owned by them.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Csg, have you convinced anyone that Kerry wants to outsource our security yet?

Huh? "outsource our security"? WTF are you yapping about?
Try sticking to the issue here info, and answer the questions. Who gets to decide what is best for America if not America and America alone? Then try to answer the other questions I asked.

CsG

Who gets to decide what's best for America? Americans -- within the Constitution, laws and other limits they've placed on themselves (like the UN charter).

And we did decide within those parameters. The UN's input(or lack there of) was noted, Congress approved legislation allowing for the action - thus is was done....or do you think that the UN should have been able to trump the decision of our Elected officials?

CsG

No, the UN charter requires approval for wars that don't fall in the basic legit war categories. There was no approval. PS: What does this have to do with Kerry's vision? I just came in here to ask if you had changed any minds.

Ah, so your answer is "yes" - not "no". According to your post - the UN gets to decide.

This has everything to do with it - kerry (the "internationalist") seems to have this thing about globalism. Seems you have the same affliction. No country or Organization gets to decide for America - period.
Now before you start flapping - this doesn't mean their concerns aren't allowed to be taken into consideration - but they by no means make or break the decisions for us - we decide...and we did.

CsG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Well, sure - some people don't think it was in our best interest now - but there have always been nay-sayers and there have always been isolationists. Our elected officials decide what is the best course of action for our Gov't(that's why they are elected ) and they obviously thought it was in our interest otherwise they wouldn't have authorized such use of force.

Yeah they thought the same thing back in the 60's regarding that sh!thole called Viet Nam!

Other nations got to decide what was in their best interest. The British, Pole, and Aussie gov'ts helped this "Unilateral" adventure - plus many more supported it also. So sure, I guess the moon is now owned by them.

CsG

Hey when a carrot is dangled in front of you some think it's best to eat now and worry about the digestive distress later!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Well, sure - some people don't think it was in our best interest now - but there have always been nay-sayers and there have always been isolationists. Our elected officials decide what is the best course of action for our Gov't(that's why they are elected ) and they obviously thought it was in our interest otherwise they wouldn't have authorized such use of force.

Yeah they thought the same thing back in the 60's regarding that sh!thole called Viet Nam!

Other nations got to decide what was in their best interest. The British, Pole, and Aussie gov'ts helped this "Unilateral" adventure - plus many more supported it also. So sure, I guess the moon is now owned by them.

CsG

Hey when a carrot is dangled in front of you some think it's best to eat now and worry about the digestive distress later!

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.
Well, it sure would have been nice if Saddam would have taken a bite of the carrot - he let it sit there and rot for a dozen years.

CsG

 

[NeoV]

the funny, and sad thing about this Cad, is that I don't think anyone in the current administration disagrees with the actual statement Kerry made - that any military action we take should be justifiable to the citizens of the USA and to our allies - this isn't an issue of approval, or giving anyone authority over and above our own right to defend ourselves - it's a statement made about justification, period.

Bush, however, heard "global test", and used it all by itself as a soundbite, completely ignoring the context of what was said - and non-objective people just like you take it and run with it. Notice how you did not respond to any of the posts that completely shredded the "global test" myth - you just keep on asking "who gets to decide what is in our best interest", or "who decides what passes the test" - it really makes you look very simple, and I don't think you are, but it's how you look when you go on and on without realizing the basis for this entire discussion is bogus.

You can label me a horrible liberal if you want, but the fact is that there are plenty of democratic policies/beliefs that I don't agree with, and I've voted for R candidates as often as I have for Dem's - it is beyond me how extremists on the right and the left completely back whatever their side decides, regardless of whether or not it has any merit.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: NeoV
the funny, and sad thing about this Cad, is that I don't think anyone in the current administration disagrees with the actual statement Kerry made - that any military action we take should be justifiable to the citizens of the USA and to our allies - this isn't an issue of approval, or giving anyone authority over and above our own right to defend ourselves - it's a statement made about justification, period.

Bush, however, heard "global test", and used it all by itself as a soundbite, completely ignoring the context of what was said - and non-objective people just like you take it and run with it. Notice how you did not respond to any of the posts that completely shredded the "global test" myth - you just keep on asking "who gets to decide what is in our best interest", or "who decides what passes the test" - it really makes you look very simple, and I don't think you are, but it's how you look when you go on and on without realizing the basis for this entire discussion is bogus.

You can label me a horrible liberal if you want, but the fact is that there are plenty of democratic policies/beliefs that I don't agree with, and I've voted for R candidates as often as I have for Dem's - it is beyond me how extremists on the right and the left completely back whatever their side decides, regardless of whether or not it has any merit.

No, this discussion is quite needed - as can be shown by some people's replies here. There are those among us that think we as American's can't make decisions based on our own best interest, unless ____. That to me is the most irrational BS I've ever heard(well, not really - but close). Also, it seem as though you've subscribed to carterism and some other leftists here do also - do you know what carterism is?

You can continue to claim kerry meant this and meant that - but it still doesn't change his world view. It's about the only consistent thing in his campaign(besides being "not Bush").

I don't care if you consider yourself a "horrible liberal" or even just a "liberal" - this is about the concept of the US decision making. Who decided when this global test is needed? Who gets to decide if it's been met? What are the criteria? Who decides on what criteria is used? Whether or not you want to argue "justification", decisions, or even action is irrelevant to discussing concept of a global test - which people seem to be ignoring.

CsG

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
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.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: conjur

Whattsamatta Conjob? That cookie already has a few bites taken out. Full?

 

[conjur]

to Corn for the 3rd-grade insult.


You are teh l4m3

 

[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.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Ah, so your answer is "yes" - not "no". According to your post - the UN gets to decide.

This has everything to do with it - kerry (the "internationalist") seems to have this thing about globalism. Seems you have the same affliction. No country or Organization gets to decide for America - period.
Now before you start flapping - this doesn't mean their concerns aren't allowed to be taken into consideration - but they by no means make or break the decisions for us - we decide...and we did.

CsG

OK, so you do agree with Kerry. That's exactly what he said.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Ah, so your answer is "yes" - not "no". According to your post - the UN gets to decide.

This has everything to do with it - kerry (the "internationalist") seems to have this thing about globalism. Seems you have the same affliction. No country or Organization gets to decide for America - period.
Now before you start flapping - this doesn't mean their concerns aren't allowed to be taken into consideration - but they by no means make or break the decisions for us - we decide...and we did.

CsG

OK, so you do agree with Kerry. That's exactly what he said.

No, it's not exactly what he said. Try again bowfinger and this time don't ignore reality.

CsG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Ah, so your answer is "yes" - not "no". According to your post - the UN gets to decide.

This has everything to do with it - kerry (the "internationalist") seems to have this thing about globalism. Seems you have the same affliction. No country or Organization gets to decide for America - period.
Now before you start flapping - this doesn't mean their concerns aren't allowed to be taken into consideration - but they by no means make or break the decisions for us - we decide...and we did.

CsG

OK, so you do agree with Kerry. That's exactly what he said.

No, it's not exactly what he said. Try again bowfinger and this time don't ignore reality.

CsG

It's not exactly what he said but it's exactly what he meant when you read the text of his response. And, you know that. You just continue to bleat on for the purpose of arguing.

 

[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.

******

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: cwjerome
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.

Exactly.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Ah, so your answer is "yes" - not "no". According to your post - the UN gets to decide.

This has everything to do with it - kerry (the "internationalist") seems to have this thing about globalism. Seems you have the same affliction. No country or Organization gets to decide for America - period.
Now before you start flapping - this doesn't mean their concerns aren't allowed to be taken into consideration - but they by no means make or break the decisions for us - we decide...and we did.

CsG

OK, so you do agree with Kerry. That's exactly what he said.

No, it's not exactly what he said. Try again bowfinger and this time don't ignore reality.

CsG

It's not exactly what he said but it's exactly what he meant when you read the text of his response. And, you know that. You just continue to bleat on for the purpose of arguing.

No, it's not even close to what he said - nor is it close to his stance on things. Check his record(if you want to challenge his patriotism) - you'll see he most definately is not what you are trying to claim.

CsG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
It's not exactly what he said but it's exactly what he meant when you read the text of his response. And, you know that. You just continue to bleat on for the purpose of arguing.

No, it's not even close to what he said - nor is it close to his stance on things. Check his record(if you want to challenge his patriotism) - you'll see he most definately is not what you are trying to claim.

CsG

Yes, it's exactly what he meant:

"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."

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
It's not exactly what he said but it's exactly what he meant when you read the text of his response. And, you know that. You just continue to bleat on for the purpose of arguing.

No, it's not even close to what he said - nor is it close to his stance on things. Check his record(if you want to challenge his patriotism) - you'll see he most definately is not what you are trying to claim.

CsG

Yes, it's exactly what he meant:

"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."

Check his record conjur. kerry opposed Reagan during the cold war. kerry is calling this war "wrong" - yet he thinks Bush shouldn't have? We don't have to prove jack sh!t to the world - but thanks for showing us once again how kerry is saying we have to "prove" something to the world. Why the hell would we have to prove anything to the world? So they like us better, or don't hate us? Why? If we make a decision in our best interest - who cares what the world thinks. Is it still not our decision?

Sheesh - are you people really that blind to what he is saying here? Do you not understand the concept he has put forth time and time again?

CsG

 

[NeoV]

CAD "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."

Does the fact that the majority of the world doesn't trust us mean anything to you? Honestly, if our intelligence agencies came to Bush tomorrow and said "Iran has nukes, they are on warheads, they are going to launch them next week" - and they were 100% right about it - how do you think the world would react given our complete and utter failure to deliver on any of the things we said prior to the Iraq war? Our credibility is clearly important - we can't fight terrorism all over the world by oursleves - we need our allies - all of them, not just a select and/or bribed few.

Carterism - "do you know what that means?" You are far away no apparent expert on much of anything other than repeating phrases over and over, so please don't question what I do and don't know.

More quotes from Cad: "Who decided when this global test is needed? Who gets to decide if it's been met? What are the criteria? Who decides on what criteria is used? Whether or not you want to argue "justification", decisions, or even action is irrelevant to discussing concept of a global test - which people seem to be ignoring."

How many times do you have to be told before you get it - your use of the phrase "Global test" is wrong - why can't you at least admit to that? Kerry mentions using our allies and having good relationships with them as a contrast to many of the actions of the current administration - why is that so hard for you to grasp?

How many more times are you going to say "who gets to decide, who decided this global test is needed...criteria...blah blah blah"?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Check his record conjur. kerry opposed Reagan during the cold war. kerry is calling this war "wrong" - yet he thinks Bush shouldn't have? We don't have to prove jack sh!t to the world - but thanks for showing us once again how kerry is saying we have to "prove" something to the world. Why the hell would we have to prove anything to the world? So they like us better, or don't hate us? Why? If we make a decision in our best interest - who cares what the world thinks. Is it still not our decision?

Sheesh - are you people really that blind to what he is saying here? Do you not understand the concept he has put forth time and time again?

CsG

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?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Ah, so your answer is "yes" - not "no". According to your post - the UN gets to decide.

This has everything to do with it - kerry (the "internationalist") seems to have this thing about globalism. Seems you have the same affliction. No country or Organization gets to decide for America - period.
Now before you start flapping - this doesn't mean their concerns aren't allowed to be taken into consideration - but they by no means make or break the decisions for us - we decide...and we did.

CsG

OK, so you do agree with Kerry. That's exactly what he said.

No, it's not exactly what he said. Try again bowfinger and this time don't ignore reality.

CsG

It's not exactly what he said but it's exactly what he meant when you read the text of his response. And, you know that. You just continue to bleat on for the purpose of arguing.

You're right, of course. I did not mean that was literally what Kerry said. Only that this was exactly the message he communicated in his comment. Poor wording on my part.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Check his record conjur. kerry opposed Reagan during the cold war. kerry is calling this war "wrong" - yet he thinks Bush shouldn't have? We don't have to prove jack sh!t to the world - but thanks for showing us once again how kerry is saying we have to "prove" something to the world. Why the hell would we have to prove anything to the world? So they like us better, or don't hate us? Why? If we make a decision in our best interest - who cares what the world thinks. Is it still not our decision?

Sheesh - are you people really that blind to what he is saying here? Do you not understand the concept he has put forth time and time again?

CsG

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

 

[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.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: NeoV
CAD "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."

Does the fact that the majority of the world doesn't trust us mean anything to you? Honestly, if our intelligence agencies came to Bush tomorrow and said "Iran has nukes, they are on warheads, they are going to launch them next week" - and they were 100% right about it - how do you think the world would react given our complete and utter failure to deliver on any of the things we said prior to the Iraq war? Our credibility is clearly important - we can't fight terrorism all over the world by oursleves - we need our allies - all of them, not just a select and/or bribed few.

Carterism - "do you know what that means?" You are far away no apparent expert on much of anything other than repeating phrases over and over, so please don't question what I do and don't know.

More quotes from Cad: "Who decided when this global test is needed? Who gets to decide if it's been met? What are the criteria? Who decides on what criteria is used? Whether or not you want to argue "justification", decisions, or even action is irrelevant to discussing concept of a global test - which people seem to be ignoring."

How many times do you have to be told before you get it - your use of the phrase "Global test" is wrong - why can't you at least admit to that? Kerry mentions using our allies and having good relationships with them as a contrast to many of the actions of the current administration - why is that so hard for you to grasp?

How many more times are you going to say "who gets to decide, who decided this global test is needed...criteria...blah blah blah"?

Ah, so you don't know what carterism is -gotcha.
And no, it really doesn't matter what they think after a decision is made. However - if they agree(based on their own best interests) then they are free to join us in whatever it is that's being done.
Ofcourse our allies need to trust us and we need to be able to trust them. I'd say this would be at worst - a draw if I believed in this idea of a global test.
How many times are you going to ignore the concept of the "global test"? You can't just ignore it - it's there. Kerry believes that something needs to pass this "global test". I'm wondering what the criteria is, who decides if it passes? Does it change our decision?
I'll keep asking it until someone decides to address the issue instead of ignoring/diverting.

CsG

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: conjur
to Corn for the 3rd-grade insult.


You are teh l4m3

Yeah, that speaks for itself. Really.