Kerry's vision for a Global Test

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 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.

Well, again if you understood carterism - you'd understand what I'm talking about. And no, there aren't any talking points about carterism - it was a connection I made all on my own. Some of you should really try and do the same in regards to politics, instead of waiting for the talking points. Carterism is dangerous, especially in today's world.
If you don't think there is anything wrong with being an internationalist - fine - but support it - don't just try to claim kerry wasn't talking about it - because he was.
No, I'm not taking his statement out of context - I'm talking about the concept he has been putting forth. Kerry says there is a global test - so unless he's a liar - there is one. Why don't you all try to address that concept instead of continually trying to defend your boy's globalist statements by falsely claiming I'm taking them out of context.

Regarding Kosovo - Did it not meet your three questions? Seems your attempt to label the Iraq war wrong because of those three don't hold up, now do they?
Ofcourse the war has been and will continue to be justified. Playing monday morning quarterback is silly for you all to be doing. Regardless of how you think it was handled - the war is still justified.

Conjur - try to keep up. You keep falling back to your little anti-Bush tirades. They are childish - not to mention diversionary. Please address the concept your boy is spouting about by addressing my questions on it's implementation.

BBond - You, like conjur don't seem to understand this whole situation. YOU don't think it was clear or justified now - but our leaders did. They make the decisions and did so in this case. You conveniently didn't bold the important parts of what we are discussing here and again try to bleat your anti-Bush nonsense. Try understanding that your boy thinks there should be some test we need to pass after we make decisions. Please try to address the concept of that by answering the questions I've posed many times but are completely ignored. People need to understand this concept - and the only way for people to do so, is for them to understand how this issue works and how it's done.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 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.

Ah yes, the ever consistent gaard riding in on his highhorse(shetland pony) trying to make claims he doesn't understand. Go figure.
Do you understand the nature of this issue gaard? Are you not attempting to divert this into something about me instead of what your boy is saying?

Can you please take a stand on this issue gaard? How about any issue?

CsG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
BBond - You, like conjur don't seem to understand this whole situation. YOU don't think it was clear or justified now - but our leaders did. They make the decisions and did so in this case. You conveniently didn't bold the important parts of what we are discussing here and again try to bleat your anti-Bush nonsense. Try understanding that your boy thinks there should be some test we need to pass after we make decisions. Please try to address the concept of that by answering the questions I've posed many times but are completely ignored. People need to understand this concept - and the only way for people to do so, is for them to understand how this issue works and how it's done.

CsG

I understand what he meant. If we are going to do something as radical and as dangerous as invading a Soveriegn Nation we better make sure we are 100% right so that in the end it will be seen by the world communty as the proper action to take. Unfortunately our actions in Iraq didn't even come close to doing that as it turns out we were wrong about a lot of things, including our handling of the aftermath of the invasion!

 

[conjur]

LMAO!!

How long will CsG carry on this little charade? All other trolls should bow down before CsG as he knows how to really drag a point out beyond the edge of sanity but make it seem like an intelligent response.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
LMAO!!

How long will CsG carry on this little charade? All other trolls should bow down before CsG as he knows how to really drag a point out beyond the edge of sanity but make it seem like an intelligent response.

I'll continue to ask until you quit diverting or ignoring the issue here. The problem here is that you don't seem to want to understand more than the surface BS. That's fine - I don't expect you to try to understand anything more complicated than "Bush sucks". :roll:

CsG

 

[Siwy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Siwy
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

So basically you are against international law, and you think it should be a free-for-all on the international stage? Am I correct in this assumption?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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.

Ah yes, the ever consistent gaard riding in on his highhorse(shetland pony) trying to make claims he doesn't understand. Go figure.
Do you understand the nature of this issue gaard? Are you not attempting to divert this into something about me instead of what your boy is saying?

Can you please take a stand on this issue gaard? How about any issue?

CsG

Do you have a short memory or something CAD? It was me, my forgetful friend, who started the FIRST thread on this 'global test' thing.

Now, Mr. Irony, could you please...very please...share with me what claims I was trying to make?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Siwy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Siwy
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

So basically you are against international law, <BS removed> Am I correct in this assumption?

Who enforces these "laws"? Who makes them? How intrusive are these laws?
Too many questions for me to answer with a no, so yes.

Gaard - why did you come in here riding your pony? Do you have a point to make or was it just a diversion so as to change the subject to me?

Yes, mr short term memory - your claims that I've been more hypocritical lately. Now again is there some point to that or was it just a diversion from the topic of the concept behind the global test?

So gaard - what again is your take on this global test concept? Can you answer my questions? Who should decide if it passes a global test? What are the criteria used? Enforcement?(does it mean anything) Etc.
I eagerly await your response to these questions.

CsG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
BBond - You, like conjur don't seem to understand this whole situation. YOU don't think it was clear or justified now - but our leaders did. They make the decisions and did so in this case. You conveniently didn't bold the important parts of what we are discussing here and again try to bleat your anti-Bush nonsense. Try understanding that your boy thinks there should be some test we need to pass after we make decisions. Please try to address the concept of that by answering the questions I've posed many times but are completely ignored. People need to understand this concept - and the only way for people to do so, is for them to understand how this issue works and how it's done.

CsG

I understand what he meant. If we are going to do something as radical and as dangerous as invading a Soveriegn Nation we better make sure we are 100% right so that in the end it will be seen by the world communty as the proper action to take. Unfortunately our actions in Iraq didn't even come close to doing that as it turns out we were wrong about a lot of things, including our handling of the aftermath of the invasion!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
BBond - You, like conjur don't seem to understand this whole situation. YOU don't think it was clear or justified now - but our leaders did. They make the decisions and did so in this case. You conveniently didn't bold the important parts of what we are discussing here and again try to bleat your anti-Bush nonsense. Try understanding that your boy thinks there should be some test we need to pass after we make decisions. Please try to address the concept of that by answering the questions I've posed many times but are completely ignored. People need to understand this concept - and the only way for people to do so, is for them to understand how this issue works and how it's done.

CsG

I understand what he meant. If we are going to do something as radical and as dangerous as invading a Soveriegn Nation we better make sure we are 100% right so that in the end it will be seen by the world communty as the proper action to take. Unfortunately our actions in Iraq didn't even come close to doing that as it turns out we were wrong about a lot of things, including our handling of the aftermath of the invasion!

And so you think we can't act in our own best interest unless we are sure the world sees it as proper? That seems a bit dangerous - no?

Now back to the test issue. why on earth would a test need to be passed after a decision is made? And regardless of whether it is before or after - who gets to decide whether it passes? What criteria is used? How is it implemented?

CsG

 

[NeoV]

Cad, I gave you a chance, but sorry, your lack of any objectivity has made me add you to the list, along with Rip and HS, of people I'm not going to bother to debate with.

You may think this war is justified - completely your right to think so - but to simply continue to utter the same, already disproven questions over and over again - are you Sean Hannity? Your style of discussion is exactly like his - repeat it over and over again regardless of whether the point is valid.

You can question many of us - "do you understand Carterism, do you understand what your boy said, why are you ignoring the question" , etc, etc. It is quite clear now that it is you who is not capable of understanding anything but your own point of view.

Gaard, great quote in your sig! We could have a "disproven justification for going to war in Iraq" sig of the day, and not run out of material for quite some time.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: NeoV
Cad, I gave you a chance, but sorry, your lack of any objectivity has made me add you to the list, along with Rip and HS, of people I'm not going to bother to debate with.

You may think this war is justified - completely your right to think so - but to simply continue to utter the same, already disproven questions over and over again - are you Sean Hannity? Your style of discussion is exactly like his - repeat it over and over again regardless of whether the point is valid.

You can question many of us - "do you understand Carterism, do you understand what your boy said, why are you ignoring the question" , etc, etc. It is quite clear now that it is you who is not capable of understanding anything but your own point of view.

Gaard, great quote in your sig! We could have a "disproven justification for going to war in Iraq" sig of the day, and not run out of material for quite some time.

That's fine. Your continued refusal to address the issue won't make me shed a tear that you won't debate me.

Yes, continue to believe the concept isn't real and just divert to the same old BS. Try thinking NeoV - this is an important issue for people to understand.

No, I am quite capable of understanding other people's point of view. I understand yours, but you don't seem to want to allow yourself to understand mine. This is bigger than just the Iraq war - it's a concept that is silly and quite posibly dangerous. Carterism is another thing that goes towards this issue. kerry seems to have adopted this dangerous way of thinking.

See you on the flip side...:roll:

CsG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Siwy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Siwy
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

So basically you are against international law, <BS removed> Am I correct in this assumption?

Who enforces these "laws"? Who makes them? How intrusive are these laws?
Too many questions for me to answer with a no, so yes.

Gaard - why did you come in here riding your pony? Do you have a point to make or was it just a diversion so as to change the subject to me?

Yes, mr short term memory - your claims that I've been more hypocritical lately. Now again is there some point to that or was it just a diversion from the topic of the concept behind the global test?

So gaard - what again is your take on this global test concept? Can you answer my questions? Who should decide if it passes a global test? What are the criteria used? Enforcement?(does it mean anything) Etc.
I eagerly await your response to these questions.

CsG

Tell you what CAD. Even though you won't answer my questions, I'll answer all of yours....as I always do.
[*]what again is your take on this global test concept? I have a feeling that what you feel is the GT policy differs from what I feel it is. I may be wrong, but I don't believe Kerry stated that we must first present our reasons to the world if we ever you our military. (If I'm wrong, could you please show me where he said it.) My opinion is that, if/when we attack another country we should explain our reasons why we did so to the rest of the world. (Why do I feel the need to explain to you that this is not the same as asking for permission?) If the rest of the world scratches their head and gets a confused look on it's face after we do our explaining, we might want to go back and re-think what our reasons were for attacking someone else. (Again, why do I feel the need to explain to you that this isn't the same as saying if the rest of the world doesn't understand our reasons we should cease and desist)

[*]Can you answer my questions? Unlike you CAD, I always have.

[*]Who should decide if it passes a global test? Although I'm tempted to quote your oft used line of disagreeing with the premiss or something, I won't. The answer is simple...logic. Again, I have to explain (although why I don't know). If a majority of the world understands our reasons, it passes the "test". If not, it doesn't. Again I have to point out, I don't believe Kerry thinks this should somehow be a prerequisite for using our military. (If I'm wrong and Kerry has said otherwise, kindly show me where.)

[*]What are the criteria used? Criteria for what? Passing the "test"? The criteria would be if the world agrees with our reasons.

[*]Enforcement? ?? Enforcement of what?

Anything else? No? Then kindly answer mine, "Now, Mr. Irony, could you please...very please...share with me what claims I was trying to make?"

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
LMAO!!

How long will CsG carry on this little charade? All other trolls should bow down before CsG as he knows how to really drag a point out beyond the edge of sanity but make it seem like an intelligent response.

I'll continue to ask until you quit diverting or ignoring the issue here. The problem here is that you don't seem to want to understand more than the surface BS. That's fine - I don't expect you to try to understand anything more complicated than "Bush sucks". :roll:

CsG

Ask what? You've been given the answer dozens of times but you refuse to accept the truth. you are merely arguing for the sake of arguing.

I think I'll join NeoV in relegating you to the Riprorin bin.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
LMAO!!

How long will CsG carry on this little charade? All other trolls should bow down before CsG as he knows how to really drag a point out beyond the edge of sanity but make it seem like an intelligent response.

I'll continue to ask until you quit diverting or ignoring the issue here. The problem here is that you don't seem to want to understand more than the surface BS. That's fine - I don't expect you to try to understand anything more complicated than "Bush sucks". :roll:

CsG

Ask what? You've been given the answer dozens of times but you refuse to accept the truth. you are merely arguing for the sake of arguing.

I think I'll join NeoV in relegating you to the Riprorin bin.

Aww... too bad. I enjoyed bantering with trolls like you conjur. Ofcourse you continue to ignore the subject and just divert away from the issue at hand. It's amusing how easily you dismiss this issue as not important - yet the concept here is of great importance.

You may now join bowfinger under his bridge...

CsG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
BBond - You, like conjur don't seem to understand this whole situation. YOU don't think it was clear or justified now - but our leaders did. They make the decisions and did so in this case. You conveniently didn't bold the important parts of what we are discussing here and again try to bleat your anti-Bush nonsense. Try understanding that your boy thinks there should be some test we need to pass after we make decisions. Please try to address the concept of that by answering the questions I've posed many times but are completely ignored. People need to understand this concept - and the only way for people to do so, is for them to understand how this issue works and how it's done.

CsG

I understand what he meant. If we are going to do something as radical and as dangerous as invading a Soveriegn Nation we better make sure we are 100% right so that in the end it will be seen by the world communty as the proper action to take. Unfortunately our actions in Iraq didn't even come close to doing that as it turns out we were wrong about a lot of things, including our handling of the aftermath of the invasion!

And so you think we can't act in our own best interest unless we are sure the world sees it as proper? That seems a bit dangerous - no?

What's in our best interest is in the world's best interest, especially when it comes to something as provacative as invading a Soveriegn Nation. That's something we have never done before. It's usually countries like Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and Imperial Japan that do that, not the leaders of the Free World. If we are going to do something like that we need to be 100% correct in our reasons which we weren't with regards to Iraq!

 

[sandorski]

Add Cad to the Imperialist list. The Imperialists who say, "We can attack anyone, anytime, anywhere, for any reason!" Good luck with that, tell us how it turns out.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Siwy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Siwy
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

So basically you are against international law, <BS removed> Am I correct in this assumption?

Who enforces these "laws"? Who makes them? How intrusive are these laws?
Too many questions for me to answer with a no, so yes.

Gaard - why did you come in here riding your pony? Do you have a point to make or was it just a diversion so as to change the subject to me?

Yes, mr short term memory - your claims that I've been more hypocritical lately. Now again is there some point to that or was it just a diversion from the topic of the concept behind the global test?

So gaard - what again is your take on this global test concept? Can you answer my questions? Who should decide if it passes a global test? What are the criteria used? Enforcement?(does it mean anything) Etc.
I eagerly await your response to these questions.

CsG

Tell you what CAD. Even though you won't answer my questions, I'll answer all of yours....as I always do.
[*]what again is your take on this global test concept? I have a feeling that what you feel is the GT policy differs from what I feel it is. I may be wrong, but I don't believe Kerry stated that we must first present our reasons to the world if we ever you our military. (If I'm wrong, could you please show me where he said it.) My opinion is that, if/when we attack another country we should explain our reasons why we did so to the rest of the world. (Why do I feel the need to explain to you that this is not the same as asking for permission?) If the rest of the world scratches their head and gets a confused look on it's face after we do our explaining, we might want to go back and re-think what our reasons were for attacking someone else. (Again, why do I feel the need to explain to you that this isn't the same as saying if the rest of the world doesn't understand our reasons we should cease and desist)

[*]Can you answer my questions? Unlike you CAD, I always have.

[*]Who should decide if it passes a global test? Although I'm tempted to quote your oft used line of disagreeing with the premiss or something, I won't. The answer is simple...logic. Again, I have to explain (although why I don't know). If a majority of the world understands our reasons, it passes the "test". If not, it doesn't. Again I have to point out, I don't believe Kerry thinks this should somehow be a prerequisite for using our military. (If I'm wrong and Kerry has said otherwise, kindly show me where.)

[*]What are the criteria used? Criteria for what? Passing the "test"? The criteria would be if the world agrees with our reasons.

[*]Enforcement? ?? Enforcement of what?

Anything else? No? Then kindly answer mine, "Now, Mr. Irony, could you please...very please...share with me what claims I was trying to make?"

I already answered that question. You tried to make claims that I was being hypocritical. You obviously don't understand the issue if you feel that way. Care to try again though?

*I'm not arguing "permission" - I'm asking who gets to decide it the test is passed and such - whether before or after - the questions don't change.
*Wrong - you don't always answer. You sidestep with the best of them.
*So you are saying that the majority has to agree for it to pass this test? Since when do our decisions have to be accepted by the majority of the world(whether before or after the fact)?
*yes, criteria. Where is the line drawn? Is there a consistent guideline to be followed or is it just relying on their opinion of the day? So basically you don't think there needs to be any set criteria - right?
*enforcement of this "test"? What happens if it fails? Does it make a bit of difference? Should it?

Atleast you tried, which is more than I can say for the trolls.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Add Cad to the Imperialist list. The Imperialists who say, "We can attack anyone, anytime, anywhere, for any reason!" Good luck with that, tell us how it turns out.

:roll: And you ASSume this because of what? Oh, that's right...I'm not an "internationalist" so I must be an "Imperialist" - right?

:roll:

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
BBond - You, like conjur don't seem to understand this whole situation. YOU don't think it was clear or justified now - but our leaders did. They make the decisions and did so in this case. You conveniently didn't bold the important parts of what we are discussing here and again try to bleat your anti-Bush nonsense. Try understanding that your boy thinks there should be some test we need to pass after we make decisions. Please try to address the concept of that by answering the questions I've posed many times but are completely ignored. People need to understand this concept - and the only way for people to do so, is for them to understand how this issue works and how it's done.

CsG

I understand what he meant. If we are going to do something as radical and as dangerous as invading a Soveriegn Nation we better make sure we are 100% right so that in the end it will be seen by the world communty as the proper action to take. Unfortunately our actions in Iraq didn't even come close to doing that as it turns out we were wrong about a lot of things, including our handling of the aftermath of the invasion!

And so you think we can't act in our own best interest unless we are sure the world sees it as proper? That seems a bit dangerous - no?

What's in our best interest is in the world's best interest, especially when it comes to something as provacative as invading a Soveriegn Nation. That's something we have never done before. It's usually countries like Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and Imperial Japan that do that, not the leaders of the Free World. If we are going to do something like that we need to be 100% correct in our reasons which we weren't with regards to Iraq!

What is in our best interest CAN be in the world's best interest and likewise what is in the best interest of the world CAN be in our best interest. However they aren't always going to go hand in hand.
Again you assume that our actions weren't justified because the intel around the world wasn't up to snuff. IMO the removal of Saddam was quite justified - especially if you look at what we, the UN, or Nato has done around the world. Remember - Afghanistan was a "sovereign" country we invaded. Kosovo was "sovereign. Heck we never did have UN "permission" for that now did we?
It sure was a nice try to play the axis and Russia card though Red - I expected better from you. *shrug* oh well.

CsG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
BBond - You, like conjur don't seem to understand this whole situation. YOU don't think it was clear or justified now - but our leaders did. They make the decisions and did so in this case. You conveniently didn't bold the important parts of what we are discussing here and again try to bleat your anti-Bush nonsense. Try understanding that your boy thinks there should be some test we need to pass after we make decisions. Please try to address the concept of that by answering the questions I've posed many times but are completely ignored. People need to understand this concept - and the only way for people to do so, is for them to understand how this issue works and how it's done.

CsG

I understand what he meant. If we are going to do something as radical and as dangerous as invading a Soveriegn Nation we better make sure we are 100% right so that in the end it will be seen by the world communty as the proper action to take. Unfortunately our actions in Iraq didn't even come close to doing that as it turns out we were wrong about a lot of things, including our handling of the aftermath of the invasion!

And so you think we can't act in our own best interest unless we are sure the world sees it as proper? That seems a bit dangerous - no?

What's in our best interest is in the world's best interest, especially when it comes to something as provacative as invading a Soveriegn Nation. That's something we have never done before. It's usually countries like Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and Imperial Japan that do that, not the leaders of the Free World. If we are going to do something like that we need to be 100% correct in our reasons which we weren't with regards to Iraq!

What is in our best interest CAN be in the world's best interest and likewise what is in the best interest of the world CAN be in our best interest. However they aren't always going to go hand in hand.
Again you assume that our actions weren't justified because the intel around the world wasn't up to snuff. IMO the removal of Saddam was quite justified - especially if you look at what we, the UN, or Nato has done around the world. Remember - Afghanistan was a "sovereign" country we invaded. Kosovo was "sovereign. Heck we never did have UN "permission" for that now did we?
It sure was a nice try to play the axis and Russia card though Red - I expected better from you. *shrug* oh well.

CsG

With regards to Afghanistan we attacked a country that was harboring those who attacked us so it was in retaliation and justified and it was supported by most of the world. On the other hand the reason we invaded a Sovereign Nation that did not act aggressively towards us was shown to be faulty and it turn proven to be wrong, not matter what you Bush apologists say!

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Siwy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Siwy
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

So basically you are against international law, <BS removed> Am I correct in this assumption?

Who enforces these "laws"? Who makes them? How intrusive are these laws?
Too many questions for me to answer with a no, so yes.

Gaard - why did you come in here riding your pony? Do you have a point to make or was it just a diversion so as to change the subject to me?

Yes, mr short term memory - your claims that I've been more hypocritical lately. Now again is there some point to that or was it just a diversion from the topic of the concept behind the global test?

So gaard - what again is your take on this global test concept? Can you answer my questions? Who should decide if it passes a global test? What are the criteria used? Enforcement?(does it mean anything) Etc.
I eagerly await your response to these questions.

CsG

Tell you what CAD. Even though you won't answer my questions, I'll answer all of yours....as I always do.
[*]what again is your take on this global test concept? I have a feeling that what you feel is the GT policy differs from what I feel it is. I may be wrong, but I don't believe Kerry stated that we must first present our reasons to the world if we ever you our military. (If I'm wrong, could you please show me where he said it.) My opinion is that, if/when we attack another country we should explain our reasons why we did so to the rest of the world. (Why do I feel the need to explain to you that this is not the same as asking for permission?) If the rest of the world scratches their head and gets a confused look on it's face after we do our explaining, we might want to go back and re-think what our reasons were for attacking someone else. (Again, why do I feel the need to explain to you that this isn't the same as saying if the rest of the world doesn't understand our reasons we should cease and desist)

[*]Can you answer my questions? Unlike you CAD, I always have.

[*]Who should decide if it passes a global test? Although I'm tempted to quote your oft used line of disagreeing with the premiss or something, I won't. The answer is simple...logic. Again, I have to explain (although why I don't know). If a majority of the world understands our reasons, it passes the "test". If not, it doesn't. Again I have to point out, I don't believe Kerry thinks this should somehow be a prerequisite for using our military. (If I'm wrong and Kerry has said otherwise, kindly show me where.)

[*]What are the criteria used? Criteria for what? Passing the "test"? The criteria would be if the world agrees with our reasons.

[*]Enforcement? ?? Enforcement of what?

Anything else? No? Then kindly answer mine, "Now, Mr. Irony, could you please...very please...share with me what claims I was trying to make?"

I already answered that question. You tried to make claims that I was being hypocritical. You obviously don't understand the issue if you feel that way. Care to try again though?

*I'm not arguing "permission" - I'm asking who gets to decide it the test is passed and such - whether before or after - the questions don't change. Nobody...everybody. Don't you get it? It's like asking if fire is hot. Who decides if it is or not?

*Wrong - you don't always answer. You sidestep with the best of them. Prove it. Show me where.

*So you are saying that the majority has to agree for it to pass this test? Since when do our decisions have to be accepted by the majority of the world(whether before or after the fact)? Who said they did? Are you insane or just mixed up? They are two completely different things. Can you somehow fathom this?

*yes, criteria. Where is the line drawn? Is there a consistent guideline to be followed or is it just relying on their opinion of the day? WTF are you talking about? Can you not understand what I said? If not, just say so. Why do youi feel the need to make comments like this. They just make you look stupid. So basically you don't think there needs to be any set criteria - right? Hello? Criteria for what? Passing the "test"? Let me say it again, the criteria for passing the "test" would be if the rest of the world understands our reasons.
*enforcement of this "test"? What happens if it fails? Does it make a bit of difference? Should it?
If we fail the "test", it should make us think "Gee, why doesn't the rest of the world think that we have good enough reasons for attacking?" (Notice, I DIDN'T say "If we fail the "test", we should cease and desist all military operations.)

Atleast you tried, which is more than I can say for the trolls.

CsG

Now could you please show me where Kerry has said this should be some kind of prerequisite or 'permission' gathering "test"

And then after that, please show me where I have EVER not answered a question posed to me. Surely, you weren't just making a baseless claim.

Edit: One more thing CAD. When I said you were being more and more hypocritical, it wasn't neccessarily because of this thread.(Actually, your comment about someone not answering questions stood out to me as being hypocritical on your part. There have been other examples lately. Like you being adamant about others not making off-topic comments in your threads.)

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
BBond - You, like conjur don't seem to understand this whole situation. YOU don't think it was clear or justified now - but our leaders did. They make the decisions and did so in this case. You conveniently didn't bold the important parts of what we are discussing here and again try to bleat your anti-Bush nonsense. Try understanding that your boy thinks there should be some test we need to pass after we make decisions. Please try to address the concept of that by answering the questions I've posed many times but are completely ignored. People need to understand this concept - and the only way for people to do so, is for them to understand how this issue works and how it's done.

CsG

I understand what he meant. If we are going to do something as radical and as dangerous as invading a Soveriegn Nation we better make sure we are 100% right so that in the end it will be seen by the world communty as the proper action to take. Unfortunately our actions in Iraq didn't even come close to doing that as it turns out we were wrong about a lot of things, including our handling of the aftermath of the invasion!

And so you think we can't act in our own best interest unless we are sure the world sees it as proper? That seems a bit dangerous - no?

Now back to the test issue. why on earth would a test need to be passed after a decision is made? And regardless of whether it is before or after - who gets to decide whether it passes? What criteria is used? How is it implemented?

CsG

What this boils down to is that little voice in your head that tells you when you're doing something you know you shouldn't be doing. That there is no reason for taking the action you're taking. That in your heart you know it's wrong. Bush fooled many in America, you among them obviously, but he didn't fool the world and now that it is so blatantly apparent that his reasons for invading Iraq were all lies that America's reputation is mud.

Right now the rest of the world knows that America's idea of demcracy is 'the biggest gun rules'. We might have the strongest military but being able to destroy any nation we choose doesn't make us right in doing so. In fact, it makes us just another in a very long line of militarist goons who confuse right with might. That's the global test. When all is said and done were we right in invading Iraq? By all the evidence we now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that were wrong. We failed the global test. No WMD, no ties to 9/11, and no one in Iraq asked us to bring them freedom and democracy at the point of a gun while we kill and maim hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. What gives George Bush, or anyone, the right to choose which nation becomes homefield for his 'war on terror'? We have become no better than the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 because we chose to attack and destroy a nation that not only didn't threaten us but as we and the entire world are now aware, couldn't attack us. We just beat up the weakest kid in the schoolyard because George Bush told us a pack of lies. That's the global test. When all is said and done, how do you face mankind and how does history record your actions? That's the global test. Here is our grade: We are no better than the Nazis invading Poland. How do you justify the invasion of a sovereign nation when all the reasons Bush gave, the WMD, the grave and gathering threat, were all nothing more than a pack of lies?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Siwy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Siwy
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

So basically you are against international law, <BS removed> Am I correct in this assumption?

Who enforces these "laws"? Who makes them? How intrusive are these laws?
Too many questions for me to answer with a no, so yes.

Gaard - why did you come in here riding your pony? Do you have a point to make or was it just a diversion so as to change the subject to me?

Yes, mr short term memory - your claims that I've been more hypocritical lately. Now again is there some point to that or was it just a diversion from the topic of the concept behind the global test?

So gaard - what again is your take on this global test concept? Can you answer my questions? Who should decide if it passes a global test? What are the criteria used? Enforcement?(does it mean anything) Etc.
I eagerly await your response to these questions.

CsG

Tell you what CAD. Even though you won't answer my questions, I'll answer all of yours....as I always do.
[*]what again is your take on this global test concept? I have a feeling that what you feel is the GT policy differs from what I feel it is. I may be wrong, but I don't believe Kerry stated that we must first present our reasons to the world if we ever you our military. (If I'm wrong, could you please show me where he said it.) My opinion is that, if/when we attack another country we should explain our reasons why we did so to the rest of the world. (Why do I feel the need to explain to you that this is not the same as asking for permission?) If the rest of the world scratches their head and gets a confused look on it's face after we do our explaining, we might want to go back and re-think what our reasons were for attacking someone else. (Again, why do I feel the need to explain to you that this isn't the same as saying if the rest of the world doesn't understand our reasons we should cease and desist)

[*]Can you answer my questions? Unlike you CAD, I always have.

[*]Who should decide if it passes a global test? Although I'm tempted to quote your oft used line of disagreeing with the premiss or something, I won't. The answer is simple...logic. Again, I have to explain (although why I don't know). If a majority of the world understands our reasons, it passes the "test". If not, it doesn't. Again I have to point out, I don't believe Kerry thinks this should somehow be a prerequisite for using our military. (If I'm wrong and Kerry has said otherwise, kindly show me where.)

[*]What are the criteria used? Criteria for what? Passing the "test"? The criteria would be if the world agrees with our reasons.

[*]Enforcement? ?? Enforcement of what?

Anything else? No? Then kindly answer mine, "Now, Mr. Irony, could you please...very please...share with me what claims I was trying to make?"

I already answered that question. You tried to make claims that I was being hypocritical. You obviously don't understand the issue if you feel that way. Care to try again though?

*I'm not arguing "permission" - I'm asking who gets to decide it the test is passed and such - whether before or after - the questions don't change. Nobody...everybody. Don't you get it? It's like asking if fire is hot. Who decides if it is or not?

*Wrong - you don't always answer. You sidestep with the best of them. Prove it. Show me where.

*So you are saying that the majority has to agree for it to pass this test? Since when do our decisions have to be accepted by the majority of the world(whether before or after the fact)? Who said they did? Are you insane or just mixed up? They are two completely different things. Can you somehow fathom this?

*yes, criteria. Where is the line drawn? Is there a consistent guideline to be followed or is it just relying on their opinion of the day? WTF are you talking about? Can you not understand what I said? If not, just say so. Why do youi feel the need to make comments like this. They just make you look stupid. So basically you don't think there needs to be any set criteria - right? Hello? Criteria for what? Passing the "test"? Let me say it again, the criteria for passing the "test" would be if the rest of the world understands our reasons.
*enforcement of this "test"? What happens if it fails? Does it make a bit of difference? Should it?
If we fail the "test", it should make us think "Gee, why doesn't the rest of the world think that we have good enough reasons for attacking?" (Notice, I DIDN'T say "If we fail the "test", we should cease and desist all military operations.)

Atleast you tried, which is more than I can say for the trolls.

CsG

Now could you please show me where Kerry has said this should be some kind of prerequisite or 'permission' gathering "test"

And then after that, please show me where I have EVER not answered a question posed to me. Surely, you weren't just making a baseless claim.

First off, I'm talking about the concept of this little "test" which doesn't hinge on whether or not it's before or after a decision is made. This is about the concept of having this "test".
Second - Did you ever participate like you said? I don't remember if you did. However - that isn't the only place you never answered. Granted you many not have been repeatedly called out on it - I didn't do that until you and conjur perfected that trolling method.

Now to your nested replies.
*OK - So every nation's leaders weigh in? Majority passes?
*Again, like I stated earlier. I'll go back and look but regardless- you sidestep thing like the best of them.
*You don't seem to want to address this concept. Since when do our decisions have to be accepted by the majority. Or another way - "understood" by the majority. Where is the line drawn IYO between understood and accepted? How does one measure one's "understanding"?
*What part of "criteria" don't you understand gaard? You said - "The criteria would be if the world agrees with our reasons." but just previously you thought they had to "understand". What are the guidelines for something to be "agreed" or "understood"? Is there a consistent way of dealing with such issues?
*Ah, in this reply we're back to "understands". So again gaard which is it? Understand? or "agree"?
*So this test does what exactly then? And why would a majority matter? Is it the number of those that "agree" or "understand" that matter or is it "who"?

I understand your confusion gaard. It's hard to try to explain something as silly as this test - which is part of the greater issue here. For your boy to spout something like this is just absurd - because is all relativist and globalist nonsense.
Yes, the consequences of our decisions will be judged by the world - but to say one is legitimate because the majority agree(or understand depending on where you sliding scale is that day) or is illegitimate because they don't - is BS. I figured you Bush-haters were smart enough to not fall for this BS by kerry. I guess not.
But again, if you truly are a globalist - just say so. While I don't agree with that mindset - atleast I'll respect you for taking a stance and defending what you believe in. These attempts to try to hide it are pretty lame IMO.

CsG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
First off, I'm talking about the concept of this little "test" which doesn't hinge on whether or not it's before or after a decision is made. This is about the concept of having this "test".
Second - Did you ever participate like you said? I don't remember if you did. However - that isn't the only place you never answered. Granted you many not have been repeatedly called out on it - I didn't do that until you and conjur perfected that trolling method.

Now to your nested replies.
*OK - So every nation's leaders weigh in? Majority passes?
*Again, like I stated earlier. I'll go back and look but regardless- you sidestep thing like the best of them.
*You don't seem to want to address this concept. Since when do our decisions have to be accepted by the majority. Or another way - "understood" by the majority. Where is the line drawn IYO between understood and accepted? How does one measure one's "understanding"?
*What part of "criteria" don't you understand gaard? You said - "The criteria would be if the world agrees with our reasons." but just previously you thought they had to "understand". What are the guidelines for something to be "agreed" or "understood"? Is there a consistent way of dealing with such issues?
*Ah, in this reply we're back to "understands". So again gaard which is it? Understand? or "agree"?
*So this test does what exactly then? And why would a majority matter? Is it the number of those that "agree" or "understand" that matter or is it "who"?

You're absolutely correct. "Agree" and "understand" are not the exact same thing. I should've said "agree" wherever I said "understand".

First off, I don't understand what you mean when you say you are talking about the concept of this test. Are you, in a dumbed downed version of putting it (for me), questioning whether or not we should have this "test"?
Second - In that "participate" thread, did I ever not answer anything posed to me? You said above, "However - that isn't the only place you never answered.", so could you show me where that happened? Or is this yet another baseless claim?

*Yes. Majority passes. That's the way I would see it.
*Again, show me.
*You don't (or won't) get it. Just as 'agree' and 'understand' are not the same, nor is 'agree' and 'accept'.
*Addressed.
*The "test" does absolutely nothing but give us an answer to the question "Do others agree that we were justified?" Now, if you want to argue that we shouldn't bother with that question, that's fine. But, like has been said over and over, the "test" does not, DOES NOT, in any way, seek to provide permission. Do you understand this?