Our Troops vs. Kerry's Global Test; When American Power Meets the "International Community," Gues

This is an interesting article that I found and althought it helps explain some things is raises some very serious questions for ALL Americans.
Kerry and the Global test has some new meaning doesnt it?


Our Troops vs. Kerry's Global Test; When American Power Meets the "International Community," Guess Who Wins?


By Andrew C. McCarthy
National Review Online
October 29, 2004

The "global test," Senator John Kerry explained at the first debate on October 8, is the standard for judging presidential action in defense of American national security. It is the barometer by which the U.S. must "prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." In the final and most valuable week of the campaign, we learned that one group will never satisfy this "global test": the United States military.

The Kerry campaign has specialized in airy metaphors like "passing the global test" and "bringing our allies back to the table." These euphemisms mask unpleasant realities Senator Kerry and his allies, particularly in the mainstream media, prefer to leave unsaid. But say them we must. Much of the globe abhors American power. The alleged "allies" who have walked away from our table � France, Germany and Russia � especially resent American power.

If this is the world to which we must submit for a legitimacy check, it is difficult to imagine instances in which American power would pass Kerry's global test. And as the U.S. military is the principal symbol of American power, this week was the endless campaign's most significant because our troops confronted the global test head-on. The Democratic nominee went with the globe.

This was the week of the October surprise: a trumped up story about 380 tons of high explosives missing from Iraq's al Qaqaa defense installation. Patently timed to swing the election against President Bush, the tale allowed for only two possibilities. The globe's version of events, supplied by the International Atomic Energy Agency, held that IAEA had carefully inspected the facility and accounted for 380 tons of powerful RDX and HMX explosives in March 2003, the explosives were now missing, and this cache could only be missing due to gross negligence by the U.S. military in failing to safeguard it from post-invasion looting. The American military's version was that there was no clear evidence that such a high explosives cache was actually there when troops arrived in early April, Saddam had had plenty of time to move explosives prior to the invasion, and it was implausible that 760,000 pounds of explosives could have been "looted."

On this sketchy information, Senator Kerry � the candidate who has accused the president of making reckless decisions based on suspect intelligence � had the clearest of choices: the IAEA or the American soldier; the global test or American power. He went with the IAEA, leveling breathtaking charges of "incredible incompetence." Worse, even with the IAEA's fable now blatantly exposed, the Kerry campaign is still doing it. As late as Thursday, his running mate, Senator John Edwards continued railing about "380 tons of missing explosives," asserting: "They did nothing, nothing to secure them and now they're gone. And we don't know who has them. It's possible terrorists have them."

The problem, of course, is that the terrorist, Saddam Hussein, had them in the first place. We had to send our troops because the international community and the IAEA failed to disarm him, blithely permitting him to keep tons and tons of high explosives � components of long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons that were supposed to be denied Iraq under the resolutions that ended the 1991 Gulf War � on the ruse that they would be used for innocent civilian purposes. In this, the IAEA was simply following the lead of the "allies" Kerry is so anxious to bring back to the table, Saddam's co-conspirators in the Oil-for-Food scandal that may be the single most lucrative fraud in history.

It was our troops or these characters. On shockingly flimsy evidence, Senator Kerry sided with the enemies of American power. What would a President Kerry do with, say, the International Criminal Court treaty? Joining it would win him great plaudits in the international community and the mainstream media; it would also subject our troops to potential prosecution for war crimes at the whim of countries that equate American military force with aggression and terrorism.

In a Kerry administration, when American power and the international community inevitably collide, how well are our troops likely to fare under the global test?



Rest of the article:

www.defenddemocracy.org...

Buddy, I hate to break it to you, but if the things we were doing in the world over the past 50 years was moral and just more often than not, then we wouldn't NEED any global test, nor would other countries not like us.

We have our fingers in a whole lot of pies, and not all of them are bad countries.

Time to take a step back from the world and come back to our senses. But Mr. Bush nor Mr. Kerry would ever say something like that.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
.We have our fingers in a whole lot of pies, and not all of them are bad countries.

We definitly are not clean, but the Cold War is over and that drove much of that attitude.

I wonder if Bush could pass this Global Test?

I thought he used the word "Global" in the syntax as an all encompasing term relating to a set of national standards, not in the syntax as refering to anything with other countries.

Perhaps, overall, would have been a better word.

In the way it was used, global is a synonym with words such as whole, total, ultimate, complete, overall, and prime.

The fact that the root of the word is globe, has no significance to how it is used in this case.

Originally posted by edsinger
We definitly are not clean, but the Cold War is over and that drove much of that attitude.

And we were wrong to engage in such a distructive path to begin with, continue, and provoke. It is the cause of huge problems in the government, to include waste, corruption, etc.

But do we now not have to fix those problems? Seems like a big fat NO from Kerry and Bush.

Like we can just come out of a Cold War and keep steaming along with unlimited government and economic growth WITHOUT busting at our seems?

That is rediculous, and can only lead to collaps or imperialism (which seems to be the route of choice now).

Originally posted by curme
I wonder if Bush could pass this Global Test?

Dont know about him but if a hick like me is 6/6 I bet he could!