yet another attempt to make themselves irrelevant...
JoeUser Forums
| Sure, yeah, right. Just what the U.S. wants, to let a bunch of hate filled, anti-semitic and terrorist filled nations to help determine when or if we can take action to defend ourselves or elminate a threat to us or our allies. That's gonna play very well in Washington. NOT! At least not as long as there's no President Kerry, and no President Clinton. |
| Your assertion that things would change with Clinton or Kerry bowing to UN pressure is off base. They would work with the UN to change their stances. The Bush administration dictates to the UN and of course they are resentful. This administration does not understand playing well with others, hence our all time low standing in world affairs. |
| This administration does not understand playing well with others, hence our all time low standing in world affairs. |
| Reply #3 By: Daiwa - 12/1/2004 1:57:00 PM This administration does not understand playing well with others, hence our all time low standing in world affairs. Care to quantify that with anything other than opinion? Cheers, Daiwa |
| I wonder if US is alone when it insists that its own interests outweigh those of the UN. |
| Honestly, it was very well documented that Kerry had taken positions that the U.S. military should only be used at the whim of the U.N. and/or with the blessing of the U.N. |
actually what i believe youre alluding to was kerry's statement that he would use military force only when appropriate...and that a factor in determining the propriety would be 'the global test'.
the global test has a long tradition in american history; the first instance being the declaration of independence in which jefferson's first paragraph states: a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation
the second paragraph which expands on the general principle that the colonists have a right to revolt against the tyranny of the crown concludes with this sentence: To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
what follows is a bill of 27 specific actions that combine to meet the global test for revolution...as well as 2 paragraphs detailing the colonists attempts at resolution to avoid using force.
since jefferson went to such lengths to justify the revolution and the declaration was signed by representatives of all the colonies, it's fair to assume they shared jefferson's concern about meeting that global test no?
| Jefferson & the signers weren't submitting a list of justifications for the approval of any external entity |
nowhere did i say they were.
| While it is the diplomatic & gentlemanly thing to "submit to a candid world" the reasons for a course of action, that's more along the lines of a public notice in the paper. Nothing about the language in the Declaration suggests we should be bound to submit any justification to that candid world for permission to take a course of action. |
nor was kerry saying anything more than his decisions to use military force would also take into consideration a decent respect to the opinions of mankind. i dont find that problematic; in fact it shouldnt need be articulated.
| And Jefferson did not say that declaring independence required a decent respect to the opinions of mankind, only that a decent respect to the opinions of mankind obliged them to explain their reasons. Those are two completely different things carrying completely different meanings. Do you really not see the difference? |
i think its possible im not being clear enough. this is exactly what kerry said:
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.
i totally agree that jefferson was saying "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind obliged them to explain their reasons." when you follow that up with the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph "To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world" there's really no substantial difference between kerry's statement and jefferson's as far as actual wording or meaning.
when kerry brought up the global test thing, i had two almost simultaneous reactions: a. i believed i knew what he meant b. i also saw how easily it could be misunderstood or misconstrued.
the disconnect is in the minds of those who seem to have heard more than was said.
| CAMBRIDGE, Mass. – Democrat presidential front-runner John Kerry called for U.N. control of the U.S. military in an interview 34 years ago with Harvard University's student newspaper. Kerry was a long-shot congressional candidate in Massachusetts when The Crimson interviewed him in February 1970, 10 months after he returned from a tour of duty in Vietnam. 'Internationalist' He described himself as "an internationalist," and said he wanted "to almost eliminate CIA activity." "I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations," Kerry said. "The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos, and nobody seems to care," he later said. As a presidential candidate, Kerry has said he supports the autonomy of the U.S. military and has not called for a reduction in CIA operations. "Through 20 years in the United States Senate, John Kerry has stood up for the strongest military on Earth and a muscular internationalism that makes America safe while winning the cooperation of allies," said Kerry spokesman David Wade. "Unlike George Bush, John Kerry knows that while the United States never gives veto power over our security to any international institution, multilateralism is a strength and not a weakness." Former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, who has endorsed Kerry, said Kerry's statements were appropriate for their time. "In the context of the Vietnam War, those comments are completely understandable," he said. |
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
PolMach Forums