Finally! The Global Test explained...

[Yonivore]

A Washington Post story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46225-2004Oct19.html) on John Kerry provides the following nugget that, having been picked up by Rush Limbaugh, may turn out to be a bombshell:


Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."
John Kerry claims that he will never give the U.N. a veto over our right to undertake a given military effort. It's just that the U.N. can determine whether it is worth it for Americans to die in that military effort.

Glad he cleared that up!

[Hook Dem]

I understood him when he said it. I thought he was fucked up then and I think he's fucked up now!

[whottt]

Well I owe Senator Kerry an apology...all this time I've been criticizing Kerry for being weak on defense...

It's not that he's anti-war, he's just anti-American. He's more than willing to watch American boys(Innocent Iraqi civillians as well) die in the name of corruption and elitism, and in the causes of those that hate America.

War for Oil is more than ok with the Senator...as long as the right countries are profiting.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

So American troops can die for Jacques Chirac, or Schroeder, or hell, even Assad or Kim Jong Il (assuming they got UN to provide troops to help with something), but they can't die for America's interests.

Just what I was looking for in a president.

[Nbadan]

John Kerry claims that he will never give the U.N. a veto over our right to undertake a given military effort. It's just that the U.N. can determine whether it is worth it for Americans to die in that military effort.

Nice gross oversimplification. Sean Insannity would be proud.

What Kerry is actually saying is that he is about using diplomacy to build real coalitions with our traditional U.N. allies instead of acting unilaterally when there is no solid evidence of a immediate or immenent danger to the U.S. or American interests.

Kerry has made it clear that the U.S. will retain the right to defend itself. That is why he voted to give W the authority to crack down on Saddam, given the intelligence that was coming out of the CIA and State Department at the time.

[Yonivore]

Nice gross oversimplification. Sean Insannity would be proud.

What Kerry is actually saying is that he is about using diplomacy to build real coalitions with our traditional U.N. allies instead of acting unilaterally when there is no solid evidence of a immediate or immenent danger to the U.S. or American interests.

Kerry has made it clear that the U.S. will retain the right to defend itself. That is why he voted to give W the authority to crack down on Saddam, given the intelligence that was coming out of the CIA and State Department at the time.
Eh, you say Teresa, Kerry says Terayza...

Since when did you join Kerry Campaign, Nbadanallah? I wasn't aware that you could devine what he was "actually" saying when he quite bluntly stated that American deaths were a greater tragedy if they were suffered under the U.N. flag.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

What Kerry is actually saying is that he is about using diplomacy to build real coalitions with our traditional U.N. allies

And what we're saying is that in '91, when the whole fucking world wanted to kick Saddam's ass, Kerry voted against military action. Past action trumps tired political rhetoric.

[Nbadan]

Past action trumps tired political rhetoric.

So there will be a special needs draft in 2005?

[Marcus Bryant]

That's a stretch. So will the little green men who control the world through the Neocons and the Illuminati make an appearance anytime soon?

[Nbadan]

So will the little green men who control the world through the Neocons and the Illuminati make an appearance anytime soon?

Probably the same SOB's who are hiding those WMD's in Syria and Iran, right?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

So there will be a special needs draft in 2005?

Yeah, because Bush has already done that once in his past :rolleyes

[Yonivore]

The only way there'll be a draft is if Kerry wins...and, well, he's gonna feel like Joe Torre does tonight on November 3.

[Clandestino]

Nice gross oversimplification. Sean Insannity would be proud.

What Kerry is actually saying is that he is about using diplomacy to build real coalitions with our traditional U.N. allies instead of acting unilaterally when there is no solid evidence of a immediate or immenent danger to the U.S. or American interests.

Kerry has made it clear that the U.S. will retain the right to defend itself. That is why he voted to give W the authority to crack down on Saddam, given the intelligence that was coming out of the CIA and State Department at the time.

the intelligence we had was saddam was a threat...all the intelligence said he was a threat. the duelfer report said he had every intent to go ahead with wmds as soon as sanctions were lifted. and he was gradually getting more and more in iraq by way of the oil for food program...

kerry voted for the war, but now acts like he didn't. he beat dean by acting like a war president and now is trying to be bush by acting like a peace president...

[mysterious_elf26]

It's not that he's anti-war, he's just anti-American. He's more than willing to watch American boys(Innocent Iraqi civillians as well) die in the name of corruption and elitism, and in the causes of those that hate America.

How the fuck could you say that?? Calling someone, especially a vietnam vet an ant-american is just totally uncalled for. This global test is not that hard to understand, it's just closed-minded people like you that make it difficult.

He's just merely saying that we wen't into this war without the support of our allies, was he wrong for saying that? Every war we have been in, we have won because of support of our allies. This war is not on one country, but on the entire world becasue guess what smart ass? Terrorist are harbored everywhere. Korea, china, canada, japan, russia, hell even in the U.S. How are we supposed to win this war without the cooperation of the entire world when every country harbors terrorist. IT CAN'T BE DONE.

And I don't know why the hell, your talking as if this war was started be him. He voted for the war because like the rest of the nation he was mislead by our president. He then did not support the war because evidence started to point that the President was wrong. How is this flip-flopping when he was lied to?

It was obvious he went into this war for personal agenda, not terrorism. He went in before he was 100% sure of WMD, he went in before there was any escape plan or support. Hell, he even mentioned Saddam as the man that was trying to kill his father. This is about revenge, not terrorism. After who else must feels the pain? Just only the thousands of families that lose their children and grandchildren in a sensless war as the president's kids are at a inpressive and expensive university with less than impressive grades and getting wasted every night.

I suggest you people think before you talk instead of letting you conservative little minds take over your actions.

[Marcus Bryant]

He voted for the war because like the rest of the nation he was mislead by our president

He reached the same decision as the president based upon the same evidence. Kerry "misled" us just as much as the president.

Again, based on the available evidence Bush made the responsible decision. If he hadn't, then Kerry would have spent this campaign lambasting Bush for not dealing with Hussein when he had the chance.

Also, you make the rather disingenuous leap from making the right decision based on inaccurate information to "misleading". In order to have 100% accuracy the United States basically would have needed unfettered access to Iraq and how do you get that as long as Hussein remained in power? If you think the weapons inspections were the way to go then as we found out with the Duelfer report Hussein was bribing some of the member nations of the UN Security Council in order to get the sanctions lifted and he had already had made preparations to start up his WMD production once he got the sanctions off of his back. Some chemical and biological WMDs don't require much time to produce.

[Useruser666]

I'm am neither conservative nor liberal. I do however believe removing Saddam was necessary. Yes there is much fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan today. Yes US troops die there every other day. In spite of that, we have created a future in a place where there was once none. I truly believe that both countries can grow and develope into great nations. I think this time we are living in will be a turning point in histroy. It will be talked about with the likes of the falling of the Berlin wall. No matter how much you support or would denounce what this country has done, I blieve we must see this through to the end. We can not back out now. We are pooriing the foundation for a peaceful world.

In talking with a coworker this morning. I had not really thought about this subject from another point of view. Has anyone else noticed that there have been no more terrorist attacks on US soil?

[Marcus Bryant]

How are we supposed to win this war without the cooperation of the entire world when every country harbors terrorist

The US did not act alone in invading Iraq. Granted, not every nation was on board, but if we make our decision to deal with threats to this nation contingent on the approval of the "entire world" how is that not surrendering to a "global test"?

[CrazyOne]

Speaking of thinking, you might try that yourself sometime.. :lol

When you consider the UN a more noble organization and worthy of the ultimate sacrifice than the USA, that is pretty scathing. As for the global test, in the first Gulf war, that met all the supposed criteria of the "global test", he still voted against it.
Allies? I suppose if the French are against it, because of their corporate corruption, all the rest of the world doesn't matter. More than 30 countries have put the lives of their own people on the line with us.
To say Bush misled Kerry about WMDs is to say that Bush knew they weren't there and went ahead anyway. Are you crazy enough to suggest that? The only person guilty of trying to mislead people was Saddam. He did have WMDs... just check the graves of the hundreds of thousands who died when he used them on his own people. The flip-flop comes in when he's for the war, then against it, then for the war again, then against it again, all depending upon the audience.
"It was obvious he went into the war for his own personal agenda." How the hell do you come up with that? What personal agenda? For big oil? Don't make me gag on that regurgitated lie. After 17 UN sanctions that were ignored and avoided by secret deals with the French and Russians, how could we let a madman with $billions and a hatred for the US and ties to terrorists just hang around and cause more trouble? How does that compare with Bosnia? Didn't we go in there for humanitarian reasons? Going into Iraq was a good thing on many levels: dealing with terrorists and going after their money trail, removing a potential source of more WMDs, as well as the humanitarian reasons. I guess liberating millions of people from a madman who liked to watch people get thrown off of buildings and whose family kept rape and torture rooms going isn't really important if the French lose money. I suppose it's no big thing to put little kids in prison because they or their parents wouldn't salute the Fuerher...
My boy spent a year over there, and fortunately, he made it through ok, so I know the pain of watching the news and praying that he didn't take the plane that was shot down...
If we played along with that stupid "global test", the entire middle east would be a hotbed of fanaticism, aided and abetted by all the "oil for food" money... soccer teams would still be tortured for losing, and mothers would be wondering if their daughters would live after spending the night with Ouday and Kousay, and Al Queda would be living out in the open, rather than hiding in caves watching out for drones.
Thinking... it's a good thing... you might like it if you try it. :rolleyes

[Hook Dem]

Kudos Crazy One! Thats a very well written piece! :elephant

[Nbadan]

More than 30 countries have put the lives of their own people on the line with us.

:bang

Only 13 countries have ever had combat troops in Iraq of any form.

[Nbadan]

When you consider the UN a more noble organization and worthy of the ultimate sacrifice than the USA, that is pretty scathing.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grichar/barris.jpg
{{{{{{{{{{{{{GONG!!!!!}}}}}}}}}}}}

Limpballs would be proud, but this fails the smell test

[Marcus Bryant]

Only 13 countries have ever had combat troops in Iraq of any form.

So what?

[EmerilLagasse]

What Global Test?

If you mess with the Us....BAM!, your're toast.

[Clandestino]

:bang

Only 13 countries have ever had combat troops in Iraq of any form.

so, japan didn't have any troops in desert storm I, but gave millions did that make them any less of a coalition partner?

[Clandestino]

the u.n. is pretty much about as good as this forum..just a place for debate...the un never votes military action.. when slobodan milosevic was committing genocide in bosnia all the un troops could do was observe...finally NATO, led by the US, said, enough was enough and pushed him out... and then again in 1998, when milo again was killing all the kosovars the u.s. and britain went against the u.n., france, russia, etc and launched a war against serbia... it got rid of them and later milosevic was toppled... we got no oil or anything from those two places... also, we fought for muslims in those wars...kosovars are muslim and so were the majority of bosnians being killed...

[whottt]

How the fuck could you say that?? Calling someone, especially a vietnam vet an ant-american is just totally uncalled for. This global test is not that hard to understand, it's just closed-minded people like you that make it difficult.

Close minded? I think not...I think it is you that are close minded if you buy into the popular leftist criticism and demonization of President Bush. Because calling Kerry anti-american is a lot more valid than much of the criticism aimed at Bush.


He's just merely saying that we wen't into this war without the support of our allies, was he wrong for saying that? Every war we have been in, we have won because of support of our allies. This war is not on one country, but on the entire world becasue guess what smart ass? Terrorist are harbored everywhere. Korea, china, canada, japan, russia, hell even in the U.S. How are we supposed to win this war without the cooperation of the entire world when every country harbors terrorist. IT CAN'T BE DONE.

Um...Germany wasn't on our side in WWII or WWI, and France was a liability in both and pretty much an enemy in WWII....Spain is always having an identity crisis. You should be happy the Italians are helping us...

We've done just fine historically with the British and Aussies as our allies...we have seldom had the support of the entire world in our wars.

And you piss on the contributions other countries have made in this effort.




And I don't know why the hell, your talking as if this war was started be him. He voted for the war because like the rest of the nation he was mislead by our president. He then did not support the war because evidence started to point that the President was wrong. How is this flip-flopping when he was lied to?

I'm sorry but this is why you are stupid...the allegations of Saddam having WMD were there before Bush was even in office. Those allegations, coupled with the determination of Al-Qaeda, made fucking around with Saddam any longer a stupid idea.




It was obvious he went into this war for personal agenda, not terrorism. He went in before he was 100% sure of WMD, he went in before there was any escape plan or support.


If he went into this war for a personal agenda why did he first try to get the support of the UN? He didn't have the luxury of being 100% sure.

Don't say Bush faked the fucking intelligence, Clinton said he was working on the them when he was President...John Kerry sat on the Senate Intelligence Commitee for the entire Clinton administration...he thought Saddam had them...as did Chiraq, as did just about every one.

You have not been paying attention if you think these accusations of Saddam and WMD were new, they were being made by Democrats before Bush was ever in office.

So I ask you...what kind of man tries to paint Bush as war profiteer in Iraq, and harm our soldiers efforts, to advance his political career?

Well, the same kind of man who lets(encourages) his fellow soldiers be sterotyped as baby killers, and who negotiates with our enemy for us to lose a war, to advance his political career. John Kerry is that type of man.




Hell, he even mentioned Saddam as the man that was trying to kill his father. This is about revenge, not terrorism. After who else must feels the pain? Just only the thousands of families that lose their children and grandchildren in a sensless war as the president's kids are at a inpressive and expensive university with less than impressive grades and getting wasted every night.

No, it's not about revenge...Clinton was saying the same things...Clinton didn't have the balls to act because he felt like he would be judged harshly for sending men into war when he himself was a draft dodger.




I suggest you people think before you talk instead of letting you conservative little minds take over your actions.


And I suggest you stop getting history lessons from Michael Moore and the Democratic Party...you are the one being lied to.

[JoeChalupa]

Kerry has made it very clear that he will not give any nation a veto over the US right to use force.

[Marcus Bryant]

Kerry has made it very clear that he will not give any nation a veto over the US right to use force.

"BUT...."

[Samurai Jane]

Kerry has made it very clear that he will not give any nation a veto over the US right to use force.

I'm sorry, Joe, but his actions speak much louder than his words.

[JoeChalupa]

Well, that's my view and I'm sticking to it, you know, "stay the course".

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

:bang

Only 13 countries have ever had combat troops in Iraq of any form.

And we all know that AQ is operating exclusively in Iraq, and has NEVER attacked outside its borders.

[mysterious_elf26]

Close minded? I think not...I think it is you that are close minded if you buy into the popular leftist criticism and demonization of President Bush. Because calling Kerry anti-american is a lot more valid than much of the criticism aimed at Bush.

How does calling kerry anti-american more valid. He fought for this country when his country was in need. Something our own beloved president did not do. How is he fit to be an kind of commander in chief when he wan't even available when he had a choice to serve?


I'm sorry but this is why you are stupid...the allegations of Saddam having WMD were there before Bush was even in office. Those allegations, coupled with the determination of Al-Qaeda, made fucking around with Saddam any longer a stupid idea.

Did I say these allegations were new? Yes, I agree that Saddam had to be dealt with because the bastard was pretty much comitting genocide. However, how was it good judgment on the part of Bush to begin the war on Iraq before even finishing the War in Afghanastan? He went into a country were he thought had WMD, but yet there are many countrys that clearly have them. i.e. Korea and Iran. Why didn't he go after them? Now, your telling me he doesn't have it out particularly for Iraq.


Um...Germany wasn't on our side in WWII or WWI, and France was a liability in both and pretty much an enemy in WWII....Spain is always having an identity crisis. You should be happy the Italians are helping us...

You are such a dumb fuck. Can't you realize this is bigger than any WW? In WW I and II, we did not need the support of the entire world because we know who are our enemys. Let me ask you this, who are the enemys in this war. You respond by saying terrorists. Well, which ones? The ones in canada, china, korea, mexico, U.S? where?? My point is in this particular war where we don't know who our enemy is, we need the support of all our allies.

I agree that it was part clinton's fault, but bush made things worst.

It seems to me that you back bush 100%. That's great, I could care less, but how could you love a president that has continued to lose jobs and outsource them to other countries, damage the american image, as well as be irrisponsible as he is.

He continues to send troops as if they were expendible while he and his family live the good life. Where are his kids in this war if he believes in it so much?

I didn't take lessons from any democrat because this is what I truly feel toward the current state of the u.s. I could care less if the president democrat, republican, green party, or independent. As long as they are a model of what America really is, I'm satisfied. However, Bush has been the complete opposite, yet in this election, people insist to vote for him just based solely that he's a republican.

[Useruser666]

However, how was it good judgment on the part of Bush to begin the war on Iraq before even finishing the War in Afghanastan?

I don't think it was necessary to "finish" in Afghanistan before going into Iraq. That move was based on a lot of intelligence I have not had the opportunity to review. Maybe there were key reasons for going at that time. I don't know. Maybe it was secretly thought to be where some AQ was hiding. That's just specualtion. Of course, even in hind sight, most of this discussion is just that. I still think it is remarkable that there have been no more attacks on US since 9/11. I think people are being very quiet about that fact and maybe they should. (Knock on wood.)

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

However, how was it good judgment on the part of Bush to begin the war on Iraq before even finishing the War in Afghanastan?

For the millionth fucking time........

The war on terror is not a linear war. Terrorists are fighting us on multiple fronts, and we'd be doomed to failure if we just fought in one place at a time.

We fought WWII on more than one battlefront, are you that dense that you think we should fight a much more global (given the proliferation of radical Islam worldwide) war on a linear fashion? Or do you just like losing?

[Clandestino]

How does calling kerry anti-american more valid. He fought for this country when his country was in need. Something our own beloved president did not do. How is he fit to be an kind of commander in chief when he wan't even available when he had a choice to serve? bush signed up for the military he didn't dodge the draft... if a person signs up for the military and serves for 20 yrs, but nevers sees combat that doesn't make him any less of a solider, sailor, airman or marine...


You are such a dumb fuck. Can't you realize this is bigger than any WW? In WW I and II, we did not need the support of the entire world because we know who are our enemys. Let me ask you this, who are the enemys in this war. You respond by saying terrorists. Well, which ones? The ones in canada, china, korea, mexico, U.S? where?? My point is in this particular war where we don't know who our enemy is, we need the support of all our allies. this is not bigger than WW I or II. When over 50 million people die, then you can say it is bigger.


It seems to me that you back bush 100%. That's great, I could care less, but how could you love a president that has continued to lose jobs and outsource them to other countries, damage the american image, as well as be irrisponsible as he is. unemployment is at the same rate it was during clinton's term. 5.4%... and outsourcing is enevitable. why would a company pay some american $20/hr, when some foreigner can do the same work, but will work for $3. that is like you paying me $40/hr, when you could pay the neighborhood kid $5. why would you do it???

[whottt]

How does calling kerry anti-american more valid. He fought for this country when his country was in need.

Actually, he joined the reserves to avoid combat just like Bush did. He got 5 deferments and tried to get a final deferment to study in Paris.

He just got fucked in that his branch of the reserves got called into the war, and his choice of duty was not supposed to be involved in the war, once he got fucked and was heavily involved in the war, he raped the rules and got out after only 4 months of active duty...he then came home, held private meetings with the enemy, while he was still a member of our armed forces, in itself a treasonous act. He negotiated terms for us to lose the war, he then came home and branded the US military as bunch of traitors and aligned himself with a group that was at one point considering going around and asassinating US politicians. He has written books that defame the American flag and IwoJima Marines on the cover...all this just to ride the political wave.

And he's doing it again right now.




Something our own beloved president did not do. How is he fit to be an kind of commander in chief when he wan't even available when he had a choice to serve?

Bush never sold out to the enemy, helped us lose a war, in which millions of Vietnames were killed after we pulled out and even more when Laos and Cambodia were later invaded by that same communist regime that he helped strengthen in power(along with our anti war movement).

Serving in our military does not excuse him from a lifetime of questionable activities in the international arena.

Even now, this fucking moron, belittles our allies that our fighting and dying alongside us..and sucks up to countries that have traditionally been the people we fought wars again, and who were arming Saddam Hussein illegally...and who opposed us because they were being bought off and many of those individuals are set to be indicted by congress...even the Democrats in our congress are set to indict them.

That is the fucking reality.






Did I say these allegations were new? Yes, I agree that Saddam had to be dealt with because the bastard was pretty much comitting genocide. However, how was it good judgment on the part of Bush to begin the war on Iraq before even finishing the War in Afghanastan? He went into a country were he thought had WMD, but yet there are many countrys that clearly have them. i.e. Korea and Iran. Why didn't he go after them? Now, your telling me he doesn't have it out particularly for Iraq.

Korean and Iran haven't invaded other countries, gotten their ass kicked, and negotiated a cease fire and then spent 12 years violating the terms of that cease fire.

By the way, don't be in such a hurry, technically we are still at war with North Korea. No one will argue it is harder to defeat a country with nukes than it is one without, which is why it was better to err on the side of caution with Iraq...ESPECIALLY WHEN EVERYONE THOUGHT HE HAD WMD DAMMIT.

Would you rather we find out the hard way that our intelligence was accurate, while we leave a brutal dictator in power? Then it would be Iran, Iraq and North Korea with Nukes. Is that better? Would you rather we wait until Saddam nukes us?

Bill Clinton was saying there needed to be a regime change in Iraq as far back as 1998.

You just don't hear it now because the Democrats are selling out our troops, and our country, in an attempt to regain control of the white house.






You are such a dumb fuck.

I'm sorry dude...it's you that are the dumbfuck here...do some research with an open mind.



Can't you realize this is bigger than any WW? In WW I and II, we did not need the support of the entire world because we know who are our enemys. Let me ask you this, who are the enemys in this war. You respond by saying terrorists. Well, which ones? The ones in canada, china, korea, mexico, U.S? where?? My point is in this particular war where we don't know who our enemy is, we need the support of all our allies.

The main countries who are our enemies? Those that promote Islamic fanatacism and or who have nuclear technology they are selling.

It's a hard and fast list...indeed some of them are our allies right now. But we can't attack all of them at once. We can't pressure all of them at once. I think the way the US is approaching this is very intelligent. And toppling Iraq in the face of world wide disapproval has sent those countries a clear message that we are not fuckiing around with this. That will be to our benefit when it comes time to negotiate.

But basically...Syria, Saudi Arabie, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, Jordan, France, China and Russia.






I agree that it was part clinton's fault, but bush made things worst.

It seems to me that you back bush 100%. That's great, I could care less, but how could you love a president that has continued to lose jobs and outsource them to other countries, damage the american image, as well as be irrisponsible as he is.

That's just it you don't get it...he didn't cause this anti-Americansim..it was always there...you guys were just too stupid to realize it. Read any European literature of the past 50 years.



He continues to send troops as if they were expendible while he and his family live the good life. Where are his kids in this war if he believes in it so much?

Our service is volunteer, those that serve take an oath..we don't force them to join...it's not the 60's, there is no draft, we were attacked...and liberals need to get their head out of 1968's ass. Bush's dad served by the way...doesn't keep liberals from labeling him as evil. If you aren't willing to die for this country, you should seek any other occupation other than the US military. That is a lousy career to have if you aren't willing to make that commitment.




I didn't take lessons from any democrat because this is what I truly feel toward the current state of the u.s. I could care less if the president democrat, republican, green party, or independent. As long as they are a model of what America really is, I'm satisfied. However, Bush has been the complete opposite, yet in this election, people insist to vote for him just based solely that he's a republican.

Dude, you sound like the DNC website. You propagate the same lies and myths they do.

I'd say you guys have demonized Bush for being the candidate of big oil about as much as you can...that was relevant in 2000, it's not any longer.

If you really want to protest, then STFU and stop driving a car.