Kerry -- American Deaths ok as long as under UN flag.

As a veteran, who has shed his blood in defense of our flag, I find Kerry's remarks very disturbing. I could not support a President who cares more about the world than he does America.

----

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."


www.washingtonpost.com...

I think he meant that it wasn't the United States' place to decide alone what was going to happen in Bosnia, and that U.S. soldiers shouldn't be sacrificed to the recklessness of a U.S. administration bent on going it alone.

That's a ridiculous and irresponsible assertion. Furthermore, to think Kerry would give the UN power over our troops is giving in to hysterical paranoia. But then again, the BushCo. ship is sinking and his followers must be pretty desperate to propogate such fallacious crap.

What ECK, you don't take Kerry at his word? This is his Global Test. You may hate Bush, but he at least stands for the USA not the UN.

[edit on 20/10/04 by jrsdls]

Look at them dance, trying to rationalize Hanoi John's words.

He meant that if he got a permission slip from the U.N. then he could cover his own a** and escape blame. He's a coward and afraid to make a tough decision.

jsobecky, you might be on to something, I have heard that Kerry is not a good manager, that he agonizes over every little decision. That is why he took so long to respond to the swift boaters. Have you read Kerry's book, the one that he is trying to buy up so no one can read it.

Why is it when ever Kerry talks someone has to explain what he meant?

DrHoracid - maybe because conservatives hate Kerry's guts so much they're unwilling to see anything but proof of his wickedness and cowardice in everything he says, even how he speaks of his wife and kids?

Ooo, look, Kerry married Teresa for her money! He doesn't love her, he's just a self-serving liberal bastard. And he hates his kids too, he'd sell them to France to make money if he could!

GOD I can't wait till this election is over.

You forgot to post the first two sentences. You know, the parts before what you posted:

In Senate debates and media interviews over the years, John F. Kerry has repeatedly returned to three axioms on the use of military force: Win as much allied support as possible before going to war, listen to advice from the professionals, and, most significant, heed the many lessons of the Vietnam War.

NATO and the United Nations appear to be touchstones for the Democratic nominee, not just the troublesome hurdles that they appear to be to President Bush. In speeches over the years, Kerry repeatedly has denounced unilateral action.

See? Puts everything in context now. Knowing the whole story is a pain sometimes, huh? Nice try though!

Just for fun, let's surround your post with the parts you left out. You've seen what was before your part, let's see what was after it:

A more recent theme for the senator from Massachusetts has been the importance of listening carefully to military advice. It is a subject he touched on in the past but seems to have emphasized more in the current campaign as he discusses the stormy relationship the Bush administration has had with the Army, particularly with Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, who was that service's chief of staff until last year.

curme, nice links on hooked on phonics and reading is fundamental. I book marked them so I can send them to all my democratic friends.

The one thing that stands out in your whole statement is this. Kerry will not take action unless it is approved by the UN. He has held this believe before Vietnam, He has always prefered the UN over America. As Early as 1971, he stated that he thought that American troops overseas should be under the auspices of the UN. That they should control them. that's his words not mine. He said that the the Havard Review newspaper.

What about the 121 flag officers that support the President, What about Gen. Tommy Franks. Anyone can find someone to cherry pick for support. Wesley Clark was a General once and he supports Kerry, why not use him in your Argument.

Unfortunatelly, not everyone gets along, even Generals sometimes have problems with their commander in Cheif. Just ask Clinton.

Why is it when ever Kerry talks someone has to explain what he meant?

Why is it when ever Bush talks someone has to explain what he said?

That's because both of them are bonesmen. it must be in the code or something like that. gotta love all the skull and bones guys.

lol..

Under Section 3A. Article 4 Each Bonesmen shall....shall...

Dang... Hey Johnston What does this say?

The sad reality of it all is that when it comes down to it. We will have the same guy or type of guy in the White house. One wants to be for the world and one wants to be for the US. But they are both cut from the same cloth.

for those who want to see a link about Kerry's view on the UN running our troops. here ya go

www.thecrimson.com...

At Yale, Kerry was chairman of the Political Union and later, as Commencement speaker, urged the United States to withdraw from Vietnam and to scale down foreign military operations. And this was way back in 1966.
...
"I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

On other issues, Kerry wants "to almost eliminate CIA activity.

Nice job curme!

Context is a wonderful thing, no?

I think what kerry is saying, and I wish he would just come out and say it, is that had Bush tried to Lobby more with other countries, we would not be holding the brunt of the War. Since we basically did go in ourselves, and I am not taking away anything from the other countries involved, the Brunt is on us. Let's face it, Saddam was not ready to attack the US or our intrests. He was not an immediate threat. Sorry to tell everyone. Was he dangerous? Yeah in his past actions. Could he have done something in the distant future? Hell Yeah. Worse things are going on in Iran and North Korea, so by GW's 'rules' we should have invaded them years ago, but yet nothing.

If inspectors were given more time in Iraq, we would have found the same information we just learned, without loss of life. Again He Was Not threating, nor had the capability of attacking the US. In this scenario, IMHO, War should have been a last resort and was not. Maybe thats why I'm not President

This "Global Test", which is a horrible choice of words, seems to me to be Relationship mending. I think that our relationship with the rest of the world and their view on the US has changed significantly since the Iraqi invasion. I believe if he had the decision that Bush had, he would have given more time to inspectors and get more countries involved in dealing with Iraq, while we were persuing the "Real" reason Bush declared a "War on Terror", Osama Bin Laden, remember him? He was the one who attacked on 9-11 was he not?

Kerry has stated that he would not give Veto power over the safety and security of the US. It is at the point for me where I do not want to see the Likes of Germany, France, Russia get together with the likes of China and North Korea, because they are starting to see the US as invaders rather than liberators. It might not be that unfathomable.

The only problem with the UN is that Major corruption is starting to turn up. If this turns out to be True, then it would explain why some countries and the UN did not back the war. This could really help Bush as far as Americans are concerned, but it does not take away the reason for going to war.

Kerry really needs to come out and explain this "Global Test", and not beat around it.

Originally posted by Otts
I think he meant that it wasn't the United States'
place to decide alone what was going to happen
in Bosnia, and that U.S. soldiers shouldn't be sacrificed
to the recklessness of a U.S. administration bent on
going it alone.

Ah yes ... Bill Clinton ... going into Bosnia ALONE, without
any other country, without a version of the UN resolution
1441 like G.W. had, without Bosnia being a threat to
America at all.


(BTW Clinton was right to go into Bosnia. No one else
would stop the slaughter. I support him going in without
any other countries to aid us and without Bosnia being
a threat to us.)

Here is my problem with Kerry, he has not changed since day one on his stance that the UN should be in charge of our military.

In 1970, he stated "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.""

www.thecrimson.com...

in 1994, he stated that

CNN's FRANK SESNO: "Senator Kerry, it begs the question, what are the U.S. interests and the strategic interests in this place called the Balkans?"

SEN. JOHN KERRY: "Well, they are less than our interests in, perhaps, Haiti. They are greater than our interests in Somalia."

SESNO: "But worth dying for? That's the question. Are they worth fighting and dying for?"

KERRY: "Well, it depends what you mean by that, Frank. 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. So, I think it's a question of where you place the interest." (CNN's "Late Edition," 4/17/94)

media1.streamtoyou.com...

in the Debates he claimed that he would use a global test for his use of the military.

overstated.net...

The leapord has not changed his spots. One you can change the meaning. all togather, they can not be denied, he has the UN interest over the U.S.


[edit on 20/10/04 by jrsdls]

[edit on 20/10/04 by jrsdls]

I might accept a Global Test of, "How sincere can you be when you kiss my a** on the pitchers mound of Yankee Stadium, Kofi? If I see true love in your eyes, then I might not throw you and your co-defendants out of the US and over to France."

Originally posted by jrsdls
KERRY: "Well, it depends what you mean by that, Frank. 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. So, I think it's a question of where you place the interest." (CNN's "Late Edition," 4/17/94)

OH MY GOODNESS! That sounds like he'll only send troops if the
UN approves... even if America is at risk he'll have to get UN
approval and make it a fully UN effort. YIKES! The UN would never
approve. Not even for a frenchie like John Kerry.



[edit on 10/20/2004 by FlyersFan]