So now it has begun: The global test attack - Page 2  

Except that he later called it part of the War on Terror. Oh, I see...but it's not "the center". Gotcha. Sorry...That nuance taikes a while for us simpletons to figure out.

Right about Kerry? I have never made a single post about Kerry.
all I am expecting from him is to not fuck up everything, like bush has done. Hopefully he can restore some of USAs image in the world.

Only in the fake quote you made up.

So Kerry is saying:
• We need the right to use preemptive action.
• If we use preemptive action, we must do it in a way where people understand why we are doing it, and where people understand we are doing it for legitimate reasons.

So the "global test" is whether or not the rest of the world understands why you are taking preemptive action, and whether or not you are doing it for legitimate reasons. So it's not what you do, but how you do it. Let me say that again - it's not what you do, but how you do it.


So Bush is saying:
• Kerry told us we have to pass a global test before we can use our troops to defend ourselves.

However, that is not at all what Kerry said. Is it really so hard for some of you to see this?

Kerry's response to this most recent play on American ignorance: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

Hopefully Kerry will have the guts to actually air this one.

PRECISELY! These stupid ass conservatives are just trying to make politcal hey out of this. It's beyond intellectual dishonesty...it's stupidity.

The Hypocrisy Astounds!

That is the insult.

If I said right now that you were, in fact, not a real democrat nor a willing democrat - that you were simply in it for personal monetary gain. Would that be a little insulting?

You and Kerry alike are insulting those nations that, if he is elected will have to sit down with and negotiate with. I am a little curious how he will explain away the ""trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought, and the extorted." statement describing the members of the coalition. He basically said they are either criminals or stupid. I call that an insult to every country that has lost people in Iraq.

Am I missing something that makes those words mean something else?

'Insulting our allies?' This isn't a 3rd grade playground politics that's being discussed, naples.

BTW: do you mean allies like Poland, whose president said "That they deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride," or Spain, whose population was ~90% opposed to the war?

Only four or five of the nations with troops in iraq have more than a 1000 soldiersw there.
Many of the participants are not traditional US allies, but very new ones. 15 are east european countries.
More than ten have under 150 soldiers.
Several claim to only have forces doing UN requested "humantarian operations", and not participating in any "occupation".
Five or Six have already pulled out. More have said they will before 2005.
Several of the countries actually have a majority of their population being opposed to their troops being in iraq.

These are some of the factors that makes me perceive the coalition as "not to willing". It doesn't have anything to do with making insults. So adress the issue and stop putting words and opinions in my mouth.

I actually don't like Kerry. But I dislike Bush so much, that it really doesn't matter.

And, Kerry has been impressing me lately.

I can be very difficult for people like Mr. T. as this thread proves.

Mr. T: I'd love to help further what little education you have, but it's a complete waste of time as the ten people on here who are trying to explain something so simple can attest. Especially when you get cranky and start calling people "hurtful" names. lol

In the future I'll make sure I don't use "big" words like "transnational" with you. Or "global test" for that matter.

During the debate, Kerry related a little story :
During the Cuba missiles crisis, JFK send an emissary ( a state secretary) in Paris who met De Gaulle. The State secretary showed a picture of Cubas missiles, in order to explain why a pre emptive strike was necesssary. De Gaulle replied : I don't want to see this pictures, the word of the president of the united states are sufficiant for me.
Kerry added : who knows if it will be the same today ?

I think that this little story resume the point of kerry. There is no need of permission for preemptive attack, but it should be better to be able to give some serious proofs later, that this attack was necessary.
It was not the case of the Iraq war : no WOMD where discovered. Blair himself admitted lately that there was no WOMD.

Oh, sure, keep spinning it like that, Powerdoc. But we're onto your game. We know you just want John Kerry in charge so that he can be your little French-looking Euro puppet, so France can rule the world!

yeay Any support of Kerry coming from the french are the proof that Kerry is unpatriotic. Any blame coming from a french are thre ultimate proof that Bush is Da man.

You obviously didn't see the reply where I showed that it was indeed your lack of reading comprehension that led you to believe and claim that I didn't understand the word.

Nick

Wars have been started over less.

I know one off the top of my head too. The war for WMD...

LOL Ding ding ding ding ding ding. I shouldn't be laughing but I just couldn't help it.

I think with all that has been discussed, explained, and detailed here, we are still at square one with "Global Test" being anything but a useful buzzword. It is absolutely undebateable that it is impossible to get 100% consensus or acknowledgement on anything with your own populace let alone all the different nations of the world. You can have a stack of papers in hand as "evidence", and there will still be people who simply refuse to acknowledge it as evidence to them of anything. Doing so pretty much leaves you with what we already have at the UN. Nobody can agree on anything except scheduling another conference to discuss the matter. Ultimately, every party involved seeks to only further its self-interest, anyway. So nothing gets done, until somebody makes the decisive step to take action. Then there will inevitably be the incessant critics, 20/20 hindsight armchair experts, and alternate path temporal seesayers jumping in for their obligatory pound of flesh.

It's all a ridiculous circus. Most of all, it is pathetic to watch a group of people from one side see fit to bash and level ad hominen attacks upon the group from the other side, with all of the class of the worst out of Ars Battleforum or Slashdot. Most disheartening of all is to see the moderators themselves participate in and remain complicit with blatant ad hominen attacks here, when such was explicitly warned against beforehand. No longer are we discussing and sharing ideas as a community. We have marginalized each other as mere targets to vent utter disrespect and disdain in our remarks. Does any of this elevate or progress a discussion? Will demeaning your "opponent" make it any more likely to pursuade another to your viewpoint. It's pretty easy to see that it will not. So what is left then? What is the point? To quip back and forth day after day with rhetoric that has degenerated to the point of meaninglessness? (...and yes, it has degenerated) This is all pretty stupid. I can only suggest to those who have posted here in the most surly, facetious, and self-righteous tones to step back a bit, take it down a notch, gain some perspective. If you come here soley to bash heads, I can only suggest you find a more productive hobby. If you come here simply to have your point of view heard out, I hope we can all strive to conduct ourselves in a more modest and classy manner.

I would have thought that as Mac users we would have a unique skill in practicing open mindedness and enlightenment. What we have now is utterly devoid of valor or meaning, in what we say as well as how we have been treating each other. If this is the pinnacle of enlightened discussion which Mac users can bring to bear, I'd say the rest of the world is pretty well fucked. Imagine if an advanced race was watching us from their spaceship? What would they think? Frankly, if I were one of them, I'd push the button, nuke this planet, and plant some corn in place of humanity. For the worst that humanity harbors in itself century after century, the corn would certainly be the better alternative, imo.

You either need to relax a bit or you have forgotten your medication for hyper tension. Just wait a few more weeks and we will be more civilized ... *cough*

2 pages of this back and forth bullshit, and you got the nerve to tell me to relax?! Save it.

Please could you elaborate ?
I am interested by the ad hominem attacks I did.

By letting them happen at all here (regardless if it is coming from the left or the right), you have been complicit. See the forest for the trees.

Nice. I could reply to you, that by participating in this thread you contribute to this attacks, and thus, you are also complicit.

But I will not say that : I will just say : relax and keep cool. It's just political outsider, a place where nobody should stay to long.

Jesus, what a circus. Lemme know anytime when I gain user rights to start locking/editing threads...

You know what, this whole "global test" controversy is a pristine example of Republican hypocrisy at its richest.

It was only days ago that Dick Cheney and Charles Krauthammer said that John Kerry was being disrespectful of our traditional allies and acted all indignant about Kerry's remarks toward Allawai. Now they're basically saying we don't need to the approval of the world do what we want, when we want, how we want.

So which is it? Be respectiful of our allies or not? Make up your fucking mind people!

The Hypocrisy Astounds!

With apologies to George Orwell:

Bushspeak means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to the Administration, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Bushspeak, in short, means protective stupidity.

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



No fucking permission slip needed or sought.

What part of "your countrymen, your people" don't Republicans get? Global doesn't mean the world. It was used as in "universal". If he had said "universal test" would Republicans be mocking him for seeking permission slip from Martians and Andromedans? This coy stupid act of the Bush crowd is insulting.

The Administration is therefore saying fuck what the countrymen, the people think, fuck making America's reputation something for us to be proud of.

We lead the world, not the other way around. But we must lead the world, not trample on it.

This intentional (I'm being generous) stupidity of the Bush crowd is a sleazy way to twist Kerry's words.

Ouch. Someone just got owned big time.

John Stewart addresses the "Global Test" issue. This is a must watch!!!

It's too bad that the Daily Show is basically alone in calling out the admin on their lies.

At least today there were enough outlets explicitly pointing out that Duelfer's report contradicted the admin's primary justification for war. But to the loonies that makes them 'liberal.'

I'm going to be nice to you and the others here because English might not be your first language.

There is this thing in English called a conjunction. Kerry's sentence contains the conjunction "but" which is used to combine two sentences with OPPOSITE ideals.

Here are some nice examples.

I was in love with you, but now I am not.

I was going to the store, but I decided to sleep in.

I would vote for John Kerry, but he can't be clear on Iraq.

Now let's take a little look at that John Kerry comment using your new found ability to understand English.


If the ideals were the same, he could have simply used the conjunction "and." However Kerry is smart, he set up the ideal, so lapdogs who don't read complete statements could argue on his behalf, and then purposefully spoke to the opposite of it by saying "But.....new criteria that is not the same as the first ideal."

Kerry did propose a global test. He acknowleged that he would not give up the power of preemptive strikes. However when he listed the criteria for use, he clearly gave the world a veto. He also clearly understood that the ideal was the opposite, or at a minimum, very different from from the initial statement.

Nick

Yeah, like is someone is getting beat up by the police and they do something besides lie there and take it, they are just getting owned and shown what a fool they are to expect rights.


Nick

Please look at a map of the world. Note that France and Germany are not "the world."

Thanks
Nick

Nick, you're wrong.

And you know it...

But I think you want to misunderstand... don't you?

That's what happens when you run out of arguments...

I don't see why the notion of the US having to provide some sort of justification to its allies and trading partners when taking preemptive military action is such a difficult thing to accept. If there had been some veracity to the positions the Bush admin took regarding WMDs and links to al Quada, there would have been greater support (financial and military) and Iraq wouldn't be the burden to the US taxpayer that it currently is. It might have been worth the cost of the lives lost.

The US can't exist independently of the rest of the world, so it is sometimes going to have to explain itself to the rest of the world. What's the problem with that?