Senator Kerry stated he is not going to use military force unless the United Nations sanction this use.
Now this means that Paris, Moscow and Beijing, they have a veto right, will ultimately decide about the use of force by the United States military in case of a crises. Kerry gives those countries a right to veto EVERY military action the US would like to undertake if he would become President.
The question is who will be the one(s) to determine the US foreign policy, if Kerry becomes President ? The US or other countries ?
If Kerry gives away the possibility to act on his own he will give away a means to put military pressure on countries that need to be pressurised (ok,ok. I know !). Paris loves to see this happening. It fits perfectly well in their new (?) foreign policy of forming a counterweight to the US on the world's political, diplomatic ànd military stage.
Is this a wise or simply a stupid foreign policy Kerry is advocating?
What are your thoughts ?
Originally posted by ivanhoe
Is this a wise or simply a stupid foreign policy Kerry is advocating?
What are your thoughts ?
Simply a wise policy to increase his votes. We know that if France has an interest in another country , lets try , Iraq, they would veto everytime anyone wanted to address that situation. That Kerry claimes wishes to adhere to UN resolutions is a farse, but he cares little, he wants votes.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIt's certainly far more diplomatic than what the US has been doing recently.
Senator Kerry stated he is not going to use military force unless the United Nations sanction this use.
Now this means that Paris, Moscow and Beijing, they have a veto right, will ultimately decide about the use of force by the United States military in case of a crises. Kerry gives those countries a right to veto EVERY military action the US would like ...[text shortened]... s a wise or simply a stupid foreign policy Kerry is advocating?
What are your thoughts ?
You see, honoring international law tends to make you friends, whilst breaking it tends to make you enemies. And let's make two things very clear:
1. The US has enough enemies as it is.
2. If the US was really pushed to the limits of their tolerance they would still act without UN sanctioning.
So, Kerry is basically behaving like a Statesman. Making friends and influencing future choices.
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhen did Kerry say this?
Senator Kerry stated he is not going to use military force unless the United Nations sanction this use.
Now this means that Paris, Moscow and Beijing, they have a veto right, will ultimately decide about the use of force by the United States military in case of a crises. Kerry gives those countries a right to veto EVERY military action the US would like ...[text shortened]... s a wise or simply a stupid foreign policy Kerry is advocating?
What are your thoughts ?
Originally posted by bbarrIn 1971!!!! This is a common talking point of the right-wing, but they neglect to mention it was said 33 years ago when GW was still driving drunk and doing blow. For a collection of Right wing untruths regarding Kerry see Lies, Damned Lies and Convention Speeches by Fred Kaplan in the 9/2 online issue of Slate magazine.
When did Kerry say this?
Originally posted by no1marauderExactly. No US president will agree to always wait for UN authorization before employing the military. This is a non-issue; another right-wing distraction.
In 1971!!!! This is a common talking point of the right-wing, but they neglect to mention it was said 33 years ago when GW was still driving drunk and doing blow. For a collection of Right wing untruths regarding Kerry see Lies, Damned Lies and Convention Speeches by Fred Kaplan in the 9/2 online issue of Slate magazine.
1. Countries are never friends with other countries. They make alliances that shift back and forth but they are never friends.
2. Every other country in the world wants a piece of the USA, and the bigger the piece the better. It's only our military that prevents the dismantling of the USA.
3. Kerry is an Internationalist first and an American second. That was his stand in 1971 and it is still his stand.
Originally posted by DelmerIf 'internationalism' means taking the international community seriously, and preferring diplomatic to military solutions, then yes Kerry is an internationalist. But Kerry has repudiated his claim from 33 yrs. ago that UN authorization should be a prerequisite for US military action. So, his views now differ from those he held as a young man. It is shameful (though unsurprising) that the right-wing would try and employ this claim, repudiated by Kerry, in such a cynical manner.
1. Countries are never friends with other countries. They make alliances that shift back and forth but they are never friends.
2. Every other country in the world wants a piece of the USA, and the bigger the piece the better. It's only our military that prevents the dismantling of the USA.
3. Kerry is an Internationalist first and an American second. That was his stand in 1971 and it is still his stand.
Originally posted by ivanhoeHe said it in 1971 in an interview with the Harvard Crimson, which I believe was (is?) a student newspaper at Harvard. It does not reflect his position today so the premise of your statements in the first thread is false although I'm sure you won't admit it.
I don't know, but CNN has broadcasted his statement several times now.
Originally posted by ivanhoeseems to me that if you have a UN then it needs backing as well as teeth.
Is this a wise or simply a stupid foreign policy Kerry is advocating?
What are your thoughts ?
i don't see the point of 'supporting' the UN and then going ahead and doing whatever you feel like.
the question to decide may be between short-term national policy vs long-term international policy.
if the actions of a country is going to affect another country, then perhaps since is has become an international matter, it should be handled at an international level.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by bbarrI'm just curious. Have you ever felt that something raised by the "right wing" as you call it ever not been a non-issue or a distraction?
Exactly. No US president will agree to always wait for UN authorization before employing the military. This is a non-issue; another right-wing distraction.
Originally posted by bekiekeSure. I thought that during the leadup to the war in Iraq, the right-wing was correct when they offerred as justification for invasion Saddam Hussein's crimes against humanity. I don't think this was the administration's reason for going to war, but I think that many right-wing commenters were correct that it was a good reason nonetheless.
I'm just curious. Have you ever felt that something raised by the "right wing" as you call it ever not been a non-issue or a distraction?
Originally posted by bbarrDo you believe that the commission of crimes against humanity by the leadership of Country A makes it permissible for Country B to invade A? Is it impermissible for B not to invade A in this situation?
Sure. I thought that during the leadup to the war in Iraq, the right-wing was correct when they offerred as justification for invasion Saddam Hussein's crimes against humanity. I don't think this was the administration's reason for going to war, but I think that many right-wing commenters were correct that it was a good reason nonetheless.