GLOBAL TEST

[Bruce G]

:rolleyes:

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

I'm really confused about some peoples reaction to this line. I understood what Senator Kerry meant perfectly. I would be happy to explain if you like.

[km gresham]

I got it. France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, Italy, Mars and Venus have to approve of us attacking a country if we are threatened by that country. Simple as that! :rolleyes:

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

No, I'm afraid, like many complex political issues, you have it wrong.

Senator Kerry was referring to the idea that unilateral military force as a first strike can be used as a method of defence for the United States if you are in imminent danger of being attacked. If the military force is to be used for overthrowing a regime, or reducing a threat, that the global community should be acting together. The idea of agreeing on sanctions, embargos and military action is not new. Both NATO and the United Nations are bodies designed to do just that.

Generally, this point of view would be encouraged and endorsed by those people in the world who want peace, and also want to avoid bloodshed and weapons proliferation.

[ 10-01-2004, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: Peter Malcolm Jardine ]

[Bruce G]

That's OK PMJ, I think Karen did it quite nicely ;)

Thank God Kerry is not going to win, for I would not like to see our president kissing France, Germany, or anyone elses @ss just to keep us safe :( What a piece of work this guy is :( :( :(

[km gresham]

Um, the United Nations, that great force couldn't agree on how to make Saddam comply with their resolutions - and they gave him 17 chances to do so! Had we continued to wait on them we'd be up to 4937 resolutions by now, While Saddam and the evil sons continued to rape, torture and murder Iraqis and plot our demise. No thank you. Why don't you let the UN tell you when you can protect yourself and we'll do things our way. Without a global test.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

I'd be happy to review the evidence that Saddam was planning an attack on the United States. Please provide the appropriate links or document names.

If you believe that KM Greshams explanation of the "Global Test" you didn't read my explanation. Take your time, I would be happy to elaborate on any part of that post with historic examples or current policy.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

the United Nations, that great force couldn't agree on how to make Saddam comply with their resolutions - and they gave him 17 chances to do so! In fact, history will probably concur that Saddam did in fact comply, since one of the largest issues around this war was WMD. The Bush administration was convinced that he had them, and the UN couldn't find them. That's because they didn't exist. ;)

[Bruce G]

That's because the coward countries like France, Germany and Canada gave him all the time he needed to get them out of the country with all their tactics to slow the process down with more debate.

PMJ~ you are unable to see the truth, because you are blinded by your hatred of this president. Why then would Clinton have used more bombs on Saddam during his 8 years as president than we did in all of the 1st Gulf War?

World Test???? :rolleyes:

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

I don't hate George Bush. I don't think his foreign policies are the right ones. I don't think he understands the "big picture". That's my opinion.

I'm sorry that you think our country is made up of cowards. It is not true of course, but I respect the right you have to your opinion.

[km gresham]

Careful, Bruce! That "global test" we have to pass - it's in French and German! :D And I studied Spanish!! :eek:

[Bruce G]

Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:
I don't hate George Bush. I don't think his foreign policies are the right ones. I don't think he understands the "big picture". That's my opinion.

I'm sorry that you think our country is made up of cowards. It is not true of course, but I respect the right you have to your opinion.I don't think your country is made up of cowards, I think the people you have in office are cowards. They rely on the WORLD TEST :rolleyes: Now France is a different matter~ they are not cowards! Cowards run, France just gives up ;)

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

I feel badly that the two of you have completely misunderstood the context of that remark. It seems to be some kind of joke to you. Is there anything else I could explain for you that might help you understand the idea of "Global" affairs?

[km gresham]

I think in the coming days/weeks that "global test" comment is going to sink in and folks aren't gonna feel like putting our security in Kerry's hands since he thinks we have to take a test to go to war. IMHO Kerry will spend the next 5 weeks explaining why he didn't mean it.

[ 10-01-2004, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: km gresham ]

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

think the people you have in office are cowards No, that would be wrong too. Canada sends peace keepers all over the world, and are respected in that role by most, except perhaps you.

You also might recall that six of our troops were killed in Afghanistan. US fighter planes bombed them. I think they were brave men too.

[Bruce G]

Ah, Wir sind auf die Probe stellen!

so

Naturlich, wir sind die Zeit uberdauern!!!!

I know there may be some errors, for it has been a very long time since I have used it!

[Ross M]

"Senator Kerry was referring to the idea that unilateral military force as a first strike can be used as a method of defence for the United States if you are attacked."

Forgive me, Norm - I am about to reply to a thread I have not digested in it's entirety.

I must respond before the ludicrous nature of this comment escapes me.

FIRST STRIKE MEANS PRIOR TO OPPOSITION ATTACK. That is why it is called "first strike". If you are attacked, your response, hopefully, will be the SECOND STRIKE.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

FREEDOM OVER FEAR™

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

I'm sorry, I don't read or speak German.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

I apologize for that error. I should have said first strike capability in case of an immediate and known threat of attack. (ie Cuban missile crisis ) My real point is that the idea of a global consensus on the use of military force is not new.

My apologies.

One technicality: a first strike could be construed as the first of two adversaries to actually damage a target of the other, as in a missile launch that is counterattacked, followed by a missile launch that is successful in hitting it's intended target.

[ 10-01-2004, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: Peter Malcolm Jardine ]

[Bruce G]

Originally posted by Bruce G:
[QB]Ah, Wir sind auf die Probe stellen!

so

Naturlich, wir sind die Zeit uberdauern!!!!

[QB]We are put to the test!

so

Naturally, we stand the test of time!!!!

[Again, I know there will be mistakes, because I have not used it in years]

[Bruce G]

Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
FREEDOM OVER FEAR™That is what Bush is advocating!!!!! Good job Joe for seeing that. You see he is advocating that the world should be free from the fear of terrorist! Glad to see you could make that connection! ;)

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

I have been put to the test without calling my neighbours cowards. Perhaps this is a difference between us ;)

[Bruce G]

PMJ you have called your neighbors many other things other than cowards. Plus, as my government has proven, their anything but cowards! That is the difference between us ;)

[alteran]

Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
FREEDOM OVER FEAR™Is what Lisa wants.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

PMJ you have called your neighbors many other things other than cowardsPlease feel free to provide examples. I have apologized for past comments, but I don't recall saying anything like coward.

[ 10-01-2004, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Peter Malcolm Jardine ]

[Ross M]

Peter

I appreciate your apology and accept the validity of your contradictory example.

I would like to add that I personally reject any suggestion of cowardice in the Canadian people expressed by others contributing to this thread.

20th century history is littered with evidence that Canadian - and to a similar extent, Australian - troops have performed with Vim, Vigor and Vitality when it really mattered.

Ross

PS: Paul Tracy is the bravest bastard on four wheels.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by alteran:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
FREEDOM OVER FEAR™Is what Lisa wants.</font>[/QUOTE]Yup and that is why she is also voting for Kerry. Stay on topic, as you get older and bitter your mind tends to wander ;) Soon you may end up USING a personal tragedy just to prove your point :(

[PeterSibley]

to paraphrase the pro preemptive strike position ...where does a 1000 pound gorilla sit ? anywhere he damn well wants.
Want to be the worlds gorilla ? look like a gorilla,act like a gorilla get respected like a gorilla. :D

[Alan D. Hyde]

Peter, there are strong Iraqi connections to the first WTC bombing: an entire book has been written on the subject.

Alan

[ 10-01-2004, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]

[Chris Coose]

Let's name some of the leaders who did not follow a Global Test in the last century.
I'll start.

Adolph Hitler
John Kennedy at the Bay of Pigs.
Pol Pot
Henry the K. and his buddy in Cambodia
Who was that in Russia? Stalin?

Try naming some who did.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
Peter, there are strong Iraqi connections to the first WTC bombing: an entire book has been written on the subject.

AlanYea and the book store has a section for it, it's called FICTION tongue.gif

[ 10-01-2004, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

[Harry Miller]

I watched the debate. Concerning "Global Test" Kerry talked about the Cuban missle crisis where Kennedy offered to show DeGaulle photos (presumably before Adobe smile.gif ) of the launching pads in Cuba and DeGaulle brushed them aside saying the word of the president of the United States was all he needed.
Your country has lost this trust. Many of you don't think it matters. I do.

[km gresham]

So, you're voting for Kerry then, Harry? ;)

[PeterSibley]

I have to second Harry on this .Australia is Americas ally, no doubt.WW2, (and we owe an enormous debt for the Pacific campaign)Korea,Vietnam,Iraq but the anti US feeling here is very sttrong.It doesn't need to be.This policy of pre emption has won no friends and worried a lot of countries...not just your enemies but your friends .It is very hard to see how alienating huge numbers of people,from most every country in the West,as has been done since Sept 11,is of any benefit to the US .Perhaps even the US needs friends.

[Nightmoves]

9/11....forgotten by the left in order to win the white house. :rolleyes:

Pacifists. :rolleyes:

Ever notice that it's the unemployed leftists/socialists with the most intelligence? :D

[Chris Stewart]

Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:
I'm really confused about some peoples reaction to this line. I understood what Senator Kerry meant perfectly. I would be happy to explain if you like.PMJ is right. It's not that hard to understand. An excellent example would be the coalition that Bush 41 put together for Gulf War I. The UN supported it. France and Germany supported it. Bahrain, Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, Qatar, Turkey supported it. Even Syria supported it.

Hell almost everyone supported it. Except John Kerry, of course, who voted against it.

They gave a global test, and Kerry failed it.

[JimD]

I think Karen did it quite nicely Well, she did fail to mention that in the absence of any actual threat it was necessary to first attack in order to create one, but the business of global domination is not for the quibling

[Keith Wilson]

Would somebody please post the exact quote with the words "global test", preferably also the paragraph before and after so we can see it in context? We can't talk rationally about what he really meant until we are sure what he really said.

And anyone who would call Kerry a pacifist obviously has never listened to him speak.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
Peter, there are strong Iraqi connections to the first WTC bombing: an entire book has been written on the subject.

AlanYea and the book store has a section for it, it's called FICTION tongue.gif </font>[/QUOTE]High-5's Joe! :D :D :D

[Ross M]

Keith - Transcript of question 13:

LEHRER: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.

What is your position on the whole concept of pre-emptive war?

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for pre-emptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.

No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

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.

Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.

I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle.

And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos."

And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."

How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way?

So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world. And Iran and Iraq are now more dangerous -- Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous.

Now, whether pre-emption is ultimately what has to happen, I don't know yet.

But I'll tell you this: As president, I'll never take my eye off that ball.

I've been fighting for proliferation the entire time -- anti-proliferation the entire time I've been in the Congress. And we've watched this president actually turn away from some of the treaties that were on the table.

You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations.

You have to earn that respect. And I think we have a lot of earning back to do.

LEHRER: Ninety seconds.

BUSH: Let me -- I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take pre-emptive action if you pass a global test.

My attitude is you take pre-emptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.

My opponent talks about me not signing certain treaties. Let me tell you one thing I didn't sign, and I think it shows the difference of our opinion -- the difference of opinions.

And that is, I wouldn't join the International Criminal Court. It's a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial.

And I wouldn't join it. And I understand that in certain capitals around the world that that wasn't a popular move. But it's the right move not to join a foreign court that could -- where our people could be prosecuted.

My opponent is for joining the International Criminal Court. I just think trying to be popular, kind of, in the global sense, if it's not in our best interest makes no sense.

I'm interested in working with our nations and do a lot of it. But I'm not going to make decisions that I think are wrong for America.

[Meerkat]

Here it is in simple language for our resident rightwing lemmings...

If you think someone is going to invade your house and you decide to take them out before they strike, you had better do it in a way, and for reasons, that pass a reasonableness test by your neighbors when they come asking what happened.

Kerry did not say one word, directly or indirectly, about asking permission before acting. He was just saying it had better be for the right reasons and not, as is the case with Iraq, global expansionism and a resource (oil) grab.

What the lemmings of the right are trying to avoid looking at is that Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, does not pass this "test".

[High C]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
...it had better be for the right reasons and not, as is the case with Iraq, global expansionism and a resource (oil) grab...I'm still waiting for that danged oil to come. When are we going to get all that oil the Dems have promised is coming as a result of this war? Prices are going up, up,up. I've already traded my nice Infiniti land yacht for a tiny VW diesel. What next, the Suburban?! :eek: Do you know how much I'm paying for Jet A for my King Air lately? It's an outrage!

When are we getting that oil Meerkat?

PS: Glad to see you among the living. ;)

[km gresham]

"...you prove to the world you did it for legitimate reasons" Kerry.

The day we have to prove to the world that we have legitimate reasons for doing something in our own best interest is the day we lose the ability to do anything in our own best interest.

[Shang]

"...I'm still waiting for that danged oil to come. When are we going to get all that oil the Dems have promised is coming as a result of this war?..."
HighCee

Well, heck, did those bad ol' Iraqis blow up the pipelines again...!
Do you suppose that they're pissed off about something...?

[Keith Wilson]

Ross, thanks very much for the transcript.


No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
Well, that's as clear as anything any politician ever says.


. . 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 . . . First part: that Americans fully understand our reasons. Anybody have a problem with that? Would anyone argue it's legitimate for an American president to preemptively order military action without fully and honestly explaining it to the American people?


. . . and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons. Second part: that that we can demonstrate to the rest of the world after the fact that we did it for legitimate reasons. Is anyone here arguing that we should go to war - again, preemptively, not after being attacked - for other than legitimate reasons, reasons which we can explain to the rest of the world? Of course, some folks will never see things our way, but that's just something we have to deal with.

When you look at what Kerry actually said, it seems so obvious that it's almost a platitude. One could even argue, although incorrectly IMHO, that Bush did exactly this with the invasion of Iraq. Those who have objected to Kerry's statement have objected to something distorted to the point where it no longer even resembles what he said.

[ 10-03-2004, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by km gresham:
"...you prove to the world you did it for legitimate reasons" Kerry.

The day we have to prove to the world that we have legitimate reasons for doing something in our own best interest is the day we lose the ability to do anything in our own best interest.Sheesh Karen... if you shoot somebody, you darned well BETTER be ready to prove you had a legitimate reason for doing it, otherwise, you're going to end up in jail and/or with a needle in your arm (or is "old sparky" still the murder weapon of choice in your jurisdiction?).

Think we're not immune to international opinion? You'd better think again. Imagine what would happen to this country within 3 months if Asia suddenly stopped buying US Treasury notes for starters. An ugly scenario for all sides, but in such a debacle, we're left with the means of consumption and they're left with the means of production. Guess who wins in that situation?

[George Roberts]

Peter Malcolm Jardine ---

You have Kerry's idea of a global test correct, but let's examine it.

In Europe in the past few years and in Africa even now there has been genocide. The UN argues about the definition of genocide. The US sits by and watches people die.

There seems to be something wrong when a global test is used to avoid helping people who are actually dying in large numbers. While abiding by a global test in Iraq.

But government is not tidy.

[Nightmoves]

:rolleyes:

Geez. Bleeding heart liberals....most of the world is governed by dictators, leftists/socialists...iron fists that could care less about America as long as their pockets are lined with whatever valuable they can stuff in them. You people are lost in space and time, a fairy tale place that you believe can become what you imagine. What a bunch of geeks right out of the sixties!

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

I would say that is a fairly narrow and relatively ill informed view of the world. There are a great deal of complexities in world affairs, and I believe Senator Kerry was alluding to those complexities.

I also think that he was referring directly to the events and actions that the United States took in invading Iraq. He is say those actions were not entirely responsible. I think he's right. A lot of other countries and American citizens think so too.

[Mrleft8]

Originally posted by km gresham:
I got it. France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, Italy, Mars and Venus have to approve of us attacking a country if we are threatened by that country. Simple as that! :rolleyes: Stupid people aren't required to take this test.

[PeterSibley]

Nightmoves, you forgot your medication :D

[Nightmoves]

People believing that speaking to 'fairly high up government Caribbean officials' and then believing they have the pulse of the international community aren't all that bright. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Furthermore, who cares what socialists think? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Keith Wilson]

. . . most of the world is governed by dictators, leftists/socialists...iron fists that could care less about America as long as their pockets are lined with whatever valuable they can stuff in them. Stan, this is truly bizarre, and shows considerable ignorance. Please go through a list of countries and look up their governments. I'd recommend the CIA World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/) as a good basic source. You will find that your vision of the US as a lonely beacon of virtue amid dictators is utter and complete nonsense.

With the exception of backwaters like Cuba, the entire western hemisphere has at least nominally democratic governments, and in almost every case genuine, if imperfect, functioning democracy. All of Europe and some of North Africa is in the same situation. India has been a messy genuine democracy since 1948. The Asian periphery from Japan down to Australia, with the nasty exceptions of North Korea and Burma, is either democratic, Confucian/authoritarian/semi-democratic like Singapore, or rapidly softening communism in Vietnam and Laos.

OTOH Sub-Saharan Africa is a mess, with the exception of South Africa, but it's not all dictatorships by any means. Russia is edging back toward authoritarian government, and the former Soviet republics are a mixed bag; some stuck in the bad old days, some much improved. China is certainly not democratic, but no longer really communist, and very far from the kleptarchy you describe.

In fact, your description best fits the old-style RIGHT-wing kleptarch/dictator, like Anastasio Somoza in Nicaragua, or Mobuto Sese Seko in Zaire. These are fortunately pretty rare these days.

Please test your worldview against facts. Things are not nearly as simple as you paint them.

[George.]

Originally posted by Keith Wilson:

. . 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 . . .

First part: that Americans fully understand our reasons. Anybody have a problem with that? Would anyone argue it's legitimate for an American president to preemptively order military action without fully and honestly explaining it to the American people?

. . . and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Second part: that that we can demonstrate to the rest of the world after the fact that we did it for legitimate reasons. Is anyone here arguing that we should go to war - again, preemptively, not after being attacked - for other than legitimate reasons, reasons which we can explain to the rest of the world?

Thank you, Keith. Now what part of that do you all not understand?

[Chris Stewart]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
Here it is in simple language for our resident rightwing lemmings...

If you think someone is going to invade your house and you decide to take them out before they strike, you had better do it in a way, and for reasons, that pass a reasonableness test by your neighbors when they come asking what happened.Yeah, that's about how I understand Kerry's "global test" statement. There are two critical issues, though. The first is what damage an intruder could do if he does invade your house. The cost of being hesitant could be very, very high. The second critical issue is how reasonable your neighbors are. With neighbors like France, who clearly wants to see the US humbled; and the UN, where Sudan has a seat on the Human Rights Committee, is it reasonable to hold back from protecting your house because you think they might not approve what you did?


Originally posted by Meerkat:
What the lemmings of the right are trying to avoid looking at is that Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, does not pass this "test".As I recall, the UN passed resolutions that said something about serious consequences if Iraq didn't comply. Leading up to the invasion, the US put a resolution before the UN, and the UN passed it. Perhaps the UN didn't really mean it, or didn't think that the US would actually enforce the UN's resolutions. Looks to me like Iraq actually did pass the test, its just that the neighbors are now saying, "wait, that's not what we meant."

edited to add:

They are also saying "But you said he had a gun. Where's his gun?" Which conveniently ignores the fact that they also thought he had a gun.

[ 10-04-2004, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Chris Stewart ]

[km gresham]

Exactly. Bush understands this. Kerry wants to play by their rules. :eek:

[Keith Wilson]

Karen, that's not what he said. Maybe you believe that he didn't mean it, but here's what he actually said:


No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
Once again, with feeling:

Is anyone here arguing that we should go to war - again, preemptively, not after being attacked - for other than legitimate reasons, reasons which we can explain to the rest of the world? Of course, some folks will never see things our way, but that's just something we have to deal with.

There appears to be a train of thought here on the right (although I really hope I’m wrong) that the US should be able to do anything we want without having to explain or justify it to anyone. We’re the 300-pound gorilla; we sleep anywhere we want. This is a position that would be agreeable to Stalin, or Saddam Hussein, just changing the country. God is in the side of the big battalions, right?

Obviously, we can’t please everyone, and we’ll never get everyone to agree that what we’ve done is legitimate. However, don’t we have a responsibility to behave differently than just another imperial power? To use our military force only when it can be justified as essential? One can argue about whether we has sufficient justification to invade Iraq, but I certainly hope no one is really arguing that we don’t need justification.

[ 10-04-2004, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Meerkat]

Chris Stewart; I didn't suggest, nor did Kerry, that it would be easy or that the neighbors whould or should be satisfied 100% of the time.

I think the UN thought that Iraq had a gun in large part because we passed them "intelligence" supporting that allegation. It's pretty clear at this point that the "intelligence" was fabricated by people in the US government out of the most dubious sources based on what they wanted to believe/have the evidence show and not what could be cooberated.

[Chris Stewart]

The evidence supporting the contention that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear program was weak and conflicting, and clearly the administration used the evidence that supported the war. Given that in nearly all other cases, intelligence agencies had seriously underestimated countries' nuclear progress, and Saddam's history of attacking neighboring countries with whatever weapons he had, I believe dual-use equipment should be treated as if it were intended for the more dangerous use.

Regarding chemical weapons. It is very clear that Iraq had them - after all, they used them against the Kurds and the Iranians. It was not at all clear that Iraq no longer had them. There was certainly no proof offered that they were all destroyed. There have been reports (I don't know how credible) that Iraqi chemical weapons were transferred to Syria. There have been reports from Iraqi intelligence service files that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons as recently as 2000.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archiv e\200410\SPE20041004a.html

It was pretty clear Saddam had a gun. We just don't know if he destroyed it, gave it away or just hid it.

[Nightmoves]

Mr Wilson sobbed: Stan, this is truly bizarre, and shows considerable ignorance.

Ignorance? You mean most of the world is progressing and values life and the pursuit of happiness? Such as...

China?
Russia?
The Middle East?
Africa?
Hot spots to numerous to mention?

How far down the road do you want to kick this can?

Geez. Bleeding heart liberals. AND since we're on the subject of bleeding heart liberals....your heart rendering explanation of Kerry's comments during the debate is touching, indeed. Except, most of us know that he sold out the military during conflict once, why do you think he should be given any notice as Commander in Chief?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Edited to reply for Stan. :D

[ 10-04-2004, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Nightmoves ]

[George.]

Originally posted by Keith Wilson:

I'd recommend the CIA World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/) as a good basic source. You will find that your vision of the US as a lonely beacon of virtue amid dictators is utter and complete nonsense.

Come on, Keith, everyone knows that is a biased liberal source!! ;)

[George.]

Doesn't CIA stand for Communist Information Agency? I am sure there was one of them under my bed last night!

[Nightmoves]

We have a dry drunk thread, may as well have a dry phart thread.

[imported_Daniel]

Originally posted by km Gresham


So, you're voting for Kerry then, Harry? Not unless he is a US citizen, but that is beside the point. Do you really want to become an isolationist country, that gives not a whit about the rest of the worlds perception? Sounds kinda like cold war era Russia to me (in terms of diplomacy).

[Keith Wilson]

Stan, do you know how to make ANY sort of argument other than an ad hominem one? (sobbed Mr. Wilson :rolleyes: ) YOU said this:


most of the world is governed by dictators, leftists/socialists...iron fists that could care less about America as long as their pockets are lined with whatever valuable they can stuff in them. You're wrong. Look it up. Get your facts right. Is that simple enough for you?

And my post which you found so "heart rendering" (it's heart rending, BTW) was merely an elaboration on what Kerry actually said, to counter the caricature that folks were attacking. Would you like to respond to the substance of what either he or I said, or just continue sneering? Rational argument requires a little more thought than insults, but it's your choice.

[ 10-04-2004, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[George.]

This is how spin works. Until Keith posted the actual transcript of the debate, I actually believed that Kerry had said he would submit a possible pre-emptive strike to a "global test," i.e., approval by allies. I wrote as much on another post, calling this a big screw-up by Kerry. And mind you, I watched the debate.

Now I realize that Kerry said no such thing, and that Bush actually started "spinning" what he really said in his own response during the debate. Add in Republican spinners, Karen, Stan, et al., and we actually en up thinking he said what he didn't say.

Democracy has no future if these spinning techniques keep improving... :(

[Nightmoves]

Mr. Wilson, calm down, it'll be over Nov 3rd.

You trying to convince anyone of Kerry's thoughts while his actions are well known are laughable. He has no leadership qualities....none. In fact, the argument has been made that he is in fact a liar and a girlie man. Tough to overcome even with your heart RENDING, sobbing overview. :rolleyes: He's a loser.

[Keith Wilson]

Stan, I have a challenge for you. For a period of 24 hours, keep up your political postings, but don’t use any insults. No “sobbing” no “girlie men”, no “losers”, none of it. Use only FACTS and LOGIC (if you can) to refute the arguments of those who disagree with you. If you make a generalization or judgment, provide facts to back it up. If you refer to a specific piece of information that’s not well known, provide a link to a relatively unbiased source.

I don’t believe you can do it. http://mindscraps.com/s/contrib/ruinkai/crazya.gif

In fact, Stan, from all the evidence, I don't think you actually like to discuss politics. It appears you just come here to call those who disagree with you insulting names. I could be wrong.

[ 10-04-2004, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[imported_Steven Bauer]

Why bother, Keith? Stan is just a loser who can't even post under his own name. Like Conrad and Foote. Just ignore the trolls.

Steven

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

There are several people on this forum that ruin a thread about any world issue simply by vigorous participation of their ignorance.

[Nightmoves]

Could be wrong? Anyone that thinks Kerry has gonads is living in a tree. Where do you on the left come up with the brass to point to him and expect Americans to believe you when you say that he has leadership qualities? From what facts do you find this? :rolleyes:

You simply can't stand the FACT that the world may disagree with America (most consistently on this forum) and I guess you think that by appeasing everyone in the world, somehow we will be better for it. From what fact do you find this?

[Keith Wilson]

Steven, you're right. I have this delusion that no one is unredeemable, but some appear to not be worth the effort. I'm heading home to my tree, secure in the knowlege that "gonads" are all that one needs to be president. :rolleyes:

[ 10-04-2004, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Nightmoves]

Gonads help. Keeps you from crossing your legs like a girlie man. :D

Oh, by the way....the lastest poll (ABC) shows W over Kerry 58-37 in leadership qualities. This after a debate most thought Kerry won. There's a fact to tear up over.

[ 10-04-2004, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: Nightmoves ]

[Harry Miller]

Hey at least Stan doesn't tell me what books I need to read. smile.gif

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Keith why bother? :rolleyes:
Stan is a waste of time.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Nightmoves:
Could be wrong? Anyone that thinks Kerry has gonads is living in a tree.
Basic biology Stanky - nuts come from trees. You have some particular way of knowing what's between kerry's legs? Peeping at the window or scampering up his leg? Maybe it's you that's living in the tree! :D
http://www.oz.net/~whisper/images/squirrel.jpg


Originally posted by Nightmoves:

You simply can't stand the FACT that the world may disagree with America (most consistently on this forum) and I guess you think that by appeasing everyone in the world, somehow we will be better for it. From what fact do you find this?So, when 9 out of 10 people disagree with you, they're all wrong and you're right? Is that what passes for logic in Buttsprung, Tx?

You asking for facts is hilarious! :D

[Nightmoves]

Ahhhhhh.....just like the good old days. Fearkitty coughing up fur balls, JCSOH...with nothing, and the libs in a tizzy with their main man 'not getting no respect'....and he's a war hero!

If the left ever fell for a war hero, this is the dude. :eek:

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Nightmoves:
Ahhhhhh.....just like the good old days. Fearkitty coughing up fur balls, JCSOH...with nothing, and the libs in a tizzy with their main man 'not getting no respect'....and he's a war hero!

If the left ever fell for a war hero, this is the dude. :eek: Oh, a few things have changed - you and your other scofflaw friends are guilty of theft of computer resources, a federal offense.

[Mrleft8]

Anyone ever do a study to find out how many Rhodes scholars came from Texas?

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

I've always loved to read Stanley's posts about the world at large. It convinces me the theory of evolution is correct. ;)

[George.]

Originally posted by Nightmoves:

You simply can't stand the FACT that the world may disagree with America (most consistently on this forum) and I guess you think that by appeasing everyone in the world, somehow we will be better for it. The "world" doesn't disagree with America - just with what some dumbass Texans are doing to America.

[Nightmoves]

Hehe.

Doesn't sound to me like the left is all enthused about the election results. Hey! Your man won the first debate! Come on....it ain't over till it's over!

(It's been over since day one) :D

America isn't electing a worm (or stuffed shirt that thinks it's all about him) that sells out the troops while in combat. And no one cares what Canadians (or..Brazilians!..think). And yes, we all know that you think you can think. tongue.gif The only line I remember during the debate is Kerry's 'because one is certain doesn't make them correct'. That applies to the left, big time. (what a great VP...Big Time Cheney) :D

[Domesticated_Mr. Know It All]

Quote by Stan/Nightmoves....."And no one cares what Canadians (or..Brazilians!..think)."

You only speak for the Neo-con's and really just for yourself. Certainly not for me. I'm a registered voter just like you. You're right about one thing though, it ain't over til it's over. ;)

You got it all wrong about Kerry selling out the troops too, that was Dubya with his fake war. :rolleyes:

You're gonna be crying in your beer, come November 3rd. :D

So when my pal Kerry is elected are you still gonna love the good old U.S. of A.? :D

[ 10-05-2004, 07:30 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Know It All ]

[Nightmoves]

MKIA, you know how much I love the USA. Kerry ain't winning nothing. Just another in a long line of liberals left whining on the ash heap of history.

W LANDSLIDE :D

Fake war? There you go again, using that intelligence that always gets the left in trouble. Why don't you pacifists just admit your shortcomings when it comes to the defense of America? How did you manage, in using your intelligence, to overlook Kerry's 1971 Senate appearance? That alone disqualifies him from assuming Commander in Chief responsibilities. His preferred position was posted yesterday, with a football. :D

[ 10-05-2004, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: Nightmoves ]

[Domesticated_Mr. Know It All]

Dubya lost the debate and is sinking in the polls,landslide my ass. :rolleyes: Never fear though Stan, there's still time to switch to the winning team. :D

[Nightmoves]

Good advice, sir. You can always switch to the winning team. ;)

[George.]

Originally posted by Nightmoves:

And no one cares what Canadians (or..Brazilians!..think). Everyone cares what Texans think. They can do such damage when they try to think...

[Keith Wilson]

At the risk of beating it to death, I'm going to go through a close reading of the transcript again, because the false distorted version of "global test" keeps appearing in other threads; High C, who ought to know better, repeated it, for one. The distortion - the lie, actually - first appeared in Bush's reponse, and has been repeated by a whole lot of people on the right since.

Kerry actually said this:

No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
Then he talks about the infamous "global test"

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 . . . Which has two parts, first:

your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing . . . and second:
. . . you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons. So, now Bush responds:

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," So what's not to understand? He explained it as clearly as any politician ever does. Is he being disingenuous or did he really not understand?

you take pre-emptive action if you pass a global test.This isn't what Kerry said, but rather a distortion; a standard rhetorical tactic. It fits well with the Republican tactic of trying to make Kerry seem weak on defense and terrorism because he objects to what Bush has done in Iraq, but it has little to do with Kerry's actual statements above.


My attitude is you take pre-emptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.
And precisely how is this different from what Kerry said?
No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
Then he goes off into a ramble about the International Criminal Court, which Kerry never mentioned, impying that the only reason we might want to join is to be "popular"
I just think trying to be popular, kind of, in the global sense, if it's not in our best interest makes no sense.
True enough, but entirely irrelevant.

This has been a consistent tactic in Bush's campaigning. He rarely engages the issues directly, but attacks a caricature of his opponent's position, and defends certain abstract virtues ("freedom" and "democracy") which sound good but are only loosely connected to the actual policies he's arguing for. It impedes clear thinking and rational discussion. It's contagious, unfortunately.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Well said Keith, thank you

[Domesticated_Mr. Know It All]

A really good post Keith. ;)
Reason, logic and the facts, will probably earn you insults from the Dubya supporters though. :D

[Keith Wilson]

Reason, logic and the facts, will probably earn you insults from the Dubya supporters though. Won't be the first time. Just another day pumping the bilge of the WBF. ;)

[Nightmoves]

How many branches do you climb to reach the top of your tree?

[Mark Van]

Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
And anyone who would call Kerry a pacifist obviously has never listened to him speak.Perhaps the person who called Kerry a pacifist looked at his actual voting records. Actions speek louder than words. (except maybe in politics?)