John Kerry's Global Test

[bryanthompson]

This must be what he was talking about

[speeder]

Just keep on thinking that Dumbo is keeping you safe, dittosheep.


BAAAAAAAHHHHHHH..........

[MichiganMat]

lame.

You insult your own intelligence with stuff like this.
Anyone with half a brain cell knows what Kerry was saying: Its really easy, you just have to comprehend more than 1 sentence at a time.

[Tim Hancock]

Nice Bryan, I love the little "French tested" stamp. It looks like you may have hit a tender spot with this one. Don't you know it is not nice to pick on the Lib's guy after all you would never hear them talk badly about our president.

[Mule]

I think you touched a raw leftie nerve with that one.

Matt said:
"Anyone with half a brain cell knows what Kerry was saying"

I agree Matt. And anyone with a whole brain knows it's a crock of *****.

[island911]

Originally posted by MichiganMat
lame.

You insult your own intelligence with stuff like this.
Anyone with half a brain cell knows what Kerry was saying: Its really easy, you just have to comprehend more than 1 sentence at a time.

Yeah?

See, I think that it means that Kerry would sit-around doing NOTHING, unless the French (or any other country that uses ketchup) said it was okay. Then he could go ahead and . . .. wait.

Maybe you could 'splain to me real simple-like whaddit iz we'z missin?

[CamB]

Easy, it means you have to do what is reasonable.

What Bush did wasn't (hint - nearly everybody, even really rational nations with no axe to grind in Iraq or against the US, was pissed off).

To put it another way, I suspect the Global Test for imminent threat is to break it down into "imminent" (which it never was) and "threat" (which it transpired it wasn't really).

[island911]

so Kerry will ask other countries if any threat is imminent to us.

is that it?

[tabs]

I think Kerry would ask permission of Sadam if it was aright to invade Irock....

[speeder]

Kerry specifically has stated that he would not need "permission" from anyone else to defend us, what the statement means is quite simple: If we follow international law and act reasonably, (like we did going into Afghanistan), our allies will back us all the way. When we illegally and unilaterally invade someone, it obviously isn't going to pass the "smell test" w/ the rest of the world. Or the majority of Americans.

That is not the same as "asking foreign countries' permission" before acting, but then you already knew that.

[bryanthompson]

smell test? according to everyone's intelligence on Iraq (Britian, US, Russia, France, etc.), Iraq did have WMD, did have connections to al Qaeda, and was a source of instability in the region. Smells bad enough for me.

I tell ya, what doesn't pass the smell test is the UN and France being bought off by Saddam in the OFF (Oil For Food / Oil For France) program.

[CamB]

Actually, I understand it was mostly Oil For Russia.

Moreover, despite that intelligence, 100+ countries were against a pre-emptive war ---> doesn't pass the smell test.

[island911]

Originally posted by speeder
. . .unilaterally invade

.... pass the "smell test" w/ the rest of the world.
. ..

Name one country who claimed Saddam didn't .. umm . .Smell. (Iraq doesn't count)

Define "unilaterally" and then tell me how many other countries had soldiers with us.

[bryanthompson]

Unilaterally: 40 countries contributing to the effort.

??

[CamB]

Fine - there were 30 (not 40) in the Coalition. 3 sent combat troops. Two sent a material number.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2862343.stm

There are well over 200 countries in the world, and I seem to recall that a significant number of the 30 odd who were part of the "Coalition of the Willing" were (a) pip-squeak sized (even compared to NZ in some cases ; and (b) doing it to curry favour with the US.

Granted, (b) is pretty much editorial on my part.

Compare and contrast to the support in Afghanistan and you'll understand why only one invasion satisfies the smell test.

Saddam smelled a lot, but the "preemptive war" doctrine requires an imminent threat. There was major disagreement as to whether Saddam was an imminent threat (not that Bush used those exact words, but then again, what is the justification for a preemptive war if not to defend against an imminent threat?)...

[island911]

Originally posted by CamB
Fine - there were 30 (not 40) in the Coalition. 3 sent troops. Two sent a material number.
....

What happened to giving, as one can afford ?

[CamB]

And what do you mean by that?

Once you'd screwed up and invaded, we changed our tune (we weren't part of the Coalition of the Willing) and sent troops along to try and help clean it up. This is despite the pottery barn rule. We weren't the only ones in this category.

(edit - note I changed the first post to be "combat troops" a few nations sent support troops in the invasion).

[island911]

what do I mean by that? --hypocrisy They all helped, but here you are suggesting that the small countries contribute as much as the large one.


But what really is sad.. .
Here we've had a over a YEAR of this Iraq discussion. How is it the the Bush bashers still say crap like " we illegally and unilaterally invaded Iraq"?

Not only was it FAR from unilateral, but Saddam was FAR from following the terms of the cease-fire. (was it "illeagal" when Clinton sent a cruise missle or two into Iraq?)

The LIES, and the SPIN that the Bush bashers are throwing up are just pathetic . . .but telling.

[slakjaw]

this post is retarded

[CamB]

Island - I don't see it as lies and spin.

Strictly defined, it was a multi-lateral war. Strictly defined, it may have been legal.

Both those are open to criticism. While it might have been multi-lateral, it could have been considerably more multi-lateral. Moreover, the hypocrisy is pretending that even the two countries who sent combat troops did so on a proportional basis.

Proportionally, this is the US's war. It is not Poland's, or El Salvador's, or Latvia's war. It is barely Australia's war, and only partly the UK's war - and I'm talking proportionally.

Secondly, the widespread disagreement with the manner in which the US went to war - without concensus, without a general belief in immediate threat from Saddam - means that the legal basis is pretty thin. Saddam might have been in violation of 1441, but what right does a country which would ignore a vote from the UN on going to war because of a violation of 1441 have to rely on that resolution as a rationale for war?

Bottom line, the US should have waited, and different options been pursued if necessary ... and hindsight is only further weakening any reasons there might be for disputing this.

(edit - second last paragraph for clarity)