What's wrong with the 'global test' policy?

[Jhhnn]

What's wrong with the global test policy? Well, first off, it prevents starting wars on the basis of fearmongering, lies and innuendo, and demands a certain amount of intelligence from our chief executive vs strict adherence to a half-baked ideological agenda. And it's not about "asking Permission", but rather about considering the reaction of the RotW as we make our choices. It has always semed strange that an Admin so eager to embrace the whole "Global economy" scenario would be so eager to act capriciously and unilaterally on a military level- unless, of course, the whole thing is merely a resource grab.

The invasion of Iraq wouldn't even pass the sniff test in 1991, and all through the Clinton Admin. But, of course, Neocon foreign policy is predicated on the idea that 9/11 changed everything, when in fact it changed very little, other than public desire for r@ghead blood. That sentiment, which has nothing to do with reason, was ruthlessly exploited by Bush&Co. in pursuit of what has turned out to be an unjustifiable and irrational agenda.

I'm amazed that seemingly intelligent folks will still defend such actions, even though those actions have proven to have absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever. The notion that iraq ever posed an urgent threat to the US is almost laughable, and may well be the most tragic deception ever foisted off on the public.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
And it's not about "asking Permission", but rather about considering the reaction of the RotW as we make our choices.

Who gets to make this judgement on the reaction of the rest of the world?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: arsbanned

I'm not sure if you think you're clever or wtf you are doing, but Bush was WRONG in his reasoning for going to war! If he wasn't, then wtf are the WMD?
Your entire argument is shat based on the evidence of what has already taken place.

Yes, but he could have also been correct and not acted.



WITH THE ***** KERRY GLOBAL TEST POLICY***** WHO GETS TO DECIDE ?

You're being ridiculous. So, a "What if?" is a reason to invade?[/quote]


"it depends on the outcome ultimately"

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Quit being a dick, Ozoned.

Those whom you are trying to convince have to decide whether or not , in their opinion, it's a damn good reason. Nobody, including Kerry, has said that this would give anyone the power of veto, just that it's a good policy to have.

Did you ever respond to this post...

Who should get to decide? I think we should reserve the right to take whatever actions necessary to protect ourselves, but I think we should take a step back and think about it if the rest of the world thinks we're loony...don't you?

No,





















I didn't...

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: BBond


"But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the, 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 it is again:

"it depends on the outcome ultimately"

 

[Jhhnn]

From Ozoned-

" Who gets to make this judgement on the reaction of the rest of the world?"

Hopefully, somebody who'll actually listen to their reactions as a plan of action is laid out, somebody who'll make a case based on facts, rather than on cherry-picked intelligence, fearmongering and innuendo... Somebody who'll consider the other guys' pov, using something as basic as a sniff test...

Somebody other than GWB.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
And it's not about "asking Permission", but rather about considering the reaction of the RotW as we make our choices.

Who gets to make this judgement on the reaction of the rest of the world?

How about...our government?

Honestly, I can't see what's so hard about this. If we have our reasons, and the rest of the world thinks we're full of crap, I personally want a leader who's going to stop and think about WHY the rest of the world thinks we're full of crap. No veto power, no stuff like that, just a leader who will think about why the world thinks we're wrong.

What's the alternative? Just assuming the rest of the world is full of crap and tuning them out?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Here is the conundrum for the people defending the John Kerry global test position.

[*]As a matter of principle, John Kerry does not support a policy of pre-emption, let alone any sort of global test :roll:

And as president, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation.

I know what kids go through when they are carrying...



I know what kids go through when they're carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place, and they can't tell friend from foe. I know what they go through when they're out on patrol at night and they don't know what's coming around the next bend. I know what it's like to write letters home telling your family that everything's all right, when you're not sure that that's true.

As president, I will wage this war with the lessons I learned in war. Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say, "I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way, but we had no choice...


... we had to protect the American people, fundamental American values against a threat that was real and imminent."


So, lesson number one, this is the only justification for going to war.

And on my first day in office, I will send a message to every man and woman in our armed forces: You will never be asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace.


I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.


Here is the reality: That won't happen until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership so we don't have to go it alone in the world.

And we need to rebuild our alliances so we can get the terrorists before they get us.

I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as president.


Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response.

I will never give any nation or any institution a veto over our national security.

No Pre-emption, No choice, and certainly as noted ^ No Global test.

It's clear to me, jackschmittusa

Sorry, I'm having the same problem. He says that we should go to war only when we have to, when we have no choice. Somehow you read that as no pre-emption. I can see numerous situations where those things wouldn't be mutually exclusive...for example, if Iraq had actually had nuclear missles aimed at US cities or something.

As for the no-global test, all Kerry has said is that he wouldn't give other nations veto power over our national security. That is how YOU defined global test, but that's just Bush and Co spin crap. Global test means we should be able to convince people as a whole that we are right, not that they can veto our actions.

Perhaps Kerry could "define" his stance on pre-emption clearly instead of only giving me 50 positions related to the subject and leaving me to draw my own conclusion.

Got links to such a stance?

How about these two quotes from Kerry:

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.

That takes care of convincing America and the world that we are right.

I will never give any nation or any institution a veto over our national security.

And THAT seems to mean he won't take the "global test" all the way to giving anyone else veto power.

Putting two and two together seems to tell me that Kerry wants to convince people instead of flipping them the finger but he still wants to reserve the right to take action when necessary. I don't see what's wrong with this.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Rainsford


How about these two quotes from Kerry:

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.

Who decides what a "legitimate reason" is?

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Rainsford


How about these two quotes from Kerry:

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.

Who decides what a "legitimate reason" is?

Our EVIDENCE decides what is a legitimate reason. Something this administration didn't do. Is that clear for you? If you have rock-solid evidence that shows NK is about to attack us(intelligence, transmissions, eyewitnesses, photos) and the world still doesn't believe you then screw em. The evidence for Iraq was not rock-solid(the "key piece of evidence" were aluminum tubes which were circumstantial evidence and showed they had other purposes as rockets which Iraqi's showed the UN inspectors and the inspectors agreed) and so that led other nations around the world to question the legitamacy of our reasons to go to war.

Our EVIDENCE should leave no doubt that we are going for the reasons we stated. Simple as that. That's the "global test", to have EVIDENCE that leaves no doubt in anyone's mind that we are going for the reasons we are going. No other reasons. This did not happen before the Invasion of Iraq. There was doubt all over our Intelligence community but the administration ignored it.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
And it's not about "asking Permission", but rather about considering the reaction of the RotW as we make our choices.

Who gets to make this judgement on the reaction of the rest of the world?

How about...our government?

Honestly, I can't see what's so hard about this. If we have our reasons, and the rest of the world thinks we're full of crap, I personally want a leader who's going to stop and think about WHY the rest of the world thinks we're full of crap. No veto power, no stuff like that, just a leader who will think about why the world thinks we're wrong.

What's the alternative? Just assuming the rest of the world is full of crap and tuning them out?

That will do for jhhnn's version of the global test. :roll:

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Rainsford


How about these two quotes from Kerry:

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.

Who decides what a "legitimate reason" is?

Our EVIDENCE decides what is a legitimate reason.

Yes, legitimate to us maybe. What about the global test?

edit: n/m I got it.

screw em.

So, Kerry is going to do it the way Bush did it, just more better . :roll:

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Rainsford


How about these two quotes from Kerry:

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.

Who decides what a "legitimate reason" is?

Our EVIDENCE decides what is a legitimate reason.

Yes, legitimate to us maybe. What about the global test?

You keep on refering to global test as an entity. Jesus H Christ in a chickenbasket!

Global Test is a metaphor for EVIDENCE. Just like I said as soon as I heard Kerry say, "Global Test", I knew the GOP would jump on it. Forget everything else he said. Concentrate on these two words and lets make it mean a GLOBAL TEST. He refers to a Global Test as nothing more as having evidence to prove to the world that we pre-emptively striked for the legitamate reasons we stated. That is it.

Please stop refering to Global Test as it's own entity. It was a metaphor for rock-solid evidence nobody with a brain could disagree with. The Bush administration did not provide the rock-solid evidence to pre-emptively invade Iraq so it was no surprise that the majority of nations didn't believe us.

 

[jackschmittusa]

I don't think that Kerry will start a war on flimsy and contrived evidence. That's good enough for me on the subject.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Rainsford


How about these two quotes from Kerry:

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.

Who decides what a "legitimate reason" is?

Our EVIDENCE decides what is a legitimate reason.

Yes, legitimate to us maybe. What about the global test?

You keep on refering to global test as an entity. Jesus H Christ in a chickenbasket!

Global Test is a metaphor for EVIDENCE.

Who gets to weigh the metaphoric EVIDENCE and make the judgement about its validity?



a.) Those that agree with our charge.

b.) Those that don't agree with our charge.


:clock: is running out.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I don't think that Kerry will start a war on flimsy and contrived evidence. That's good enough for me on the subject.

And if he does "it depends on the outcome ultimately" to decide if he did,,,,,,,,or not. :roll:

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Rainsford


How about these two quotes from Kerry:

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.

Who decides what a "legitimate reason" is?

Our EVIDENCE decides what is a legitimate reason.

Yes, legitimate to us maybe. What about the global test?

You keep on refering to global test as an entity. Jesus H Christ in a chickenbasket!

Global Test is a metaphor for EVIDENCE.

Who gets to weigh the metaphoric EVIDENCE and make the judgement about its validity?



a.) Those that agree with our charge.

b.) Those that don't agree with our charge.


:clock: is running out.

I take it you haven't read the NYTimes article?

If we have rock-solid evidence there shouldn't be people that disagree. Simple as that. I can't believe that you are arguing about the validity of rock-solid evidence. If it's rock-solid evidence it has already been proven. Bush ruined the way people think of about our Intelligence and it shows in the way you are approaching our evidence in the future. Their were constant doubts about Iraq's program and the administration ignored those warnings. From our own Department of Energy. The evidence that they used in the UN to imply Iraq had started it's nuclear weapons programs should've never been evidence since it was just a GUESS, a theoretical possibility.

From the article:

Likewise, Britain's experts believed the tubes would need "substantial re-engineering" to work in centrifuges, according to Britain's review of its prewar intelligence. Their experts found it "paradoxical" that Iraq would order such finely crafted tubes only to radically rebuild each one for a centrifuge. Yes, it was theoretically possible, but as an Energy Department analyst later told Senate investigators, it was also theoretically possible to "turn your new Yugo into a Cadillac."

Those same tubes were the exact dimension of tubes that Iraq had been using for YEARS to build small rockets. The new coating they had asked to be on the tubes was for them to be anti-corrosive since a lot of their old rockets had corroded from being in the weather. The UN inspectors that were in Iraq before the invasion even saw these tubes and agreed that those tubes were for rockets and even saw the stockpiles of rockets that were corroded. We were misled because this administration and only this administration wanted to go to war for some reason other than what the evidence suggested.

 

[maluckey]

"Global Approval" or whatever it is vogue to call it, is a polite way of saying that you bow to polls, and popularity to do that which needs to be done. It also seems to be a polite way of saying that you will depend on foreign auxillaries to fight for you.

Modern political and military policy was basically cemented in 1516 by Machiavelli. Most all modern politics and nations follow the basic principle set forth by Machiavelli in his landmark work "The Prince".

His advice on using foreign nations to assist in war is very plain. Don't use foreign nations as troops in your war. He stated: "Auxillaries are fatal: theyconsitute a united army, wholly obedient to the orders of someone else;...." "Wise Princes have always shunned auxilaries, and made use of their own forces."

This cannot be more clear. Use foreign troops as a last resort, as their motives are suspect, and their loyalty is assured to not be to you, rather to their own countires, and all the politics that go with it.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Rainsford


How about these two quotes from Kerry:

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.

Who decides what a "legitimate reason" is?

Our EVIDENCE decides what is a legitimate reason.

Yes, legitimate to us maybe. What about the global test?

You keep on refering to global test as an entity. Jesus H Christ in a chickenbasket!

Global Test is a metaphor for EVIDENCE.

Who gets to weigh the metaphoric EVIDENCE and make the judgement about its validity?



a.) Those that agree with our charge.

b.) Those that don't agree with our charge.


:clock: is running out.

I take it you haven't read the NYTimes article?

[snip off topic crap]

NYTimes has the final word on the global test for pre-emption ? Some how, I don't think that this turkey will fly...:roll:

 

[jackschmittusa]

maluckey

So, we should abandon all of our mutual defence treaties, like NATO?

 

[Gaard]

Is it possible to tactfully ask someone to stop being an asshole?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Is it possible to tactfully ask someone to stop being an asshole?

We tried that with Iraq. It didn't work. So, we put it to the global test. Whatever the hell that means.....

 

[BBond]

I can't believe that today in America supposedly educated people can't read and comprehend a clear statement.

Re-read what Kerry said. NOWHERE does he say he will base his decisions on other nations' opinions. He said he will act when there is concensus among Americans then show the world America's evidence for what we DID.

Misquoting Senator Kerry or taking half a sentence and distorting it doesn't change what he said. It only proves how desperate the Republican Party is after Bush fell flat on his face in the first debate.

You Bush supporters should be worried about the second and third debates as well. Bush has the look of a man who has fallen off the wagon. I think he's slammin' down the Jack Daniels again.

I can't wait until Friday. I hear Bush doesn't do well under pressure.

LINK

 

[maluckey]

jackschmittusa,

Read the work and you will understand my friend. N.M. was a far better scholar than I, you, or most any other politico around before or since. Not much new has shown up since the 16th century as far as ploitics go.

Allies are useful, but only in small doses. You are at their mercy if they wish it so, which is something that should never happen to a sovereign nation. Far better to use you own troops who are faithful to your nation and your way of life. Do you truly believe that France or Russia can be trusted to be 100 percent on our side? No sane individual does...........

You use allies for short durations, necessary to your survival. As the Worlds only superpower, assistance is called upon mostly for show, not as a necessity. NATO is not truly useful to the U.S. anymore. It is mostly used for political gain. U.S. troops as a unit cannot be commanded by foreign forces, so even NATO is a joke in the big scheme of things. It is a good way for the U.S. t use political might in lieu of force though.

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Gaard
Is it possible to tactfully ask someone to stop being an asshole?

We tried that with Iraq. It didn't work. So, we put it to the global test. Whatever the hell that means.....

You know, I've sincerely tried to explain it to you but, you want to believe whatever you want to believe. And not remain objective. I'll just leave you with this.

If Kerry said, "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."

And then followed it up by saying, "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."

Anybody, with any reading comprehension could see he didn't contradict himself. How could "Global Test" mean he would ask permission if he just finished saying he would never give up the right to pre-emptively strike? It couldn't possibly mean that if you pre-empt make sure you are doing it for the reasons you are stating(backing it up with concrete evidence) and that others understand the reasons even though they might disagree. You are so blind that you want to take it that he changed his mind within 2 seconds because it paints the only picture that the GOP has created of Kerry. HE CHANGES HIS MIND!!! That's their only ammunition.

What ultimately matters is that Kerry won't pre-emptively strike unless it is his last resort and he has rock-solid evidence to back it up. Bush did not do this and it has been shown time and time again with the simple fact that there were no WMD's and no 9/11 connections.