But - and here's the key - you're still assuming that those countries could somehow veto the action. You're still working on an assumption that this phrase translates into concrete policies and some type of checklist. It doesn't.
Assume that there were WMDs: Our reasons for going would be legitimate and they would be defensible. (I personally still feel that the threat may not have been immediate and that we should have completed operations in Afghanistan first, but that's just me.) Would everybody agree with them? No. However although France, Russia and Germany may not have supported the war themselves there's little doubt that they could claim it was unwarranted or illegal. That action would have passed the "global test", it would have been legitimatized and defensible. It could be clearly and reasonably argued that in our position any of the dissenting countries would have taken the exact same action. While they may have disliked our decision for any number of political reasons there would be precious little for them to criticize. That's the global test. It's nothing more than that. Yes, America first. And placing America first means considering the values and opinions of the world community: our allies, our trading partners (both current and potential). Putting America first and respecting the world community are not incompatible goals. Jim Davis -----Original Message----- From: Sam Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 1:31 PM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: Bin Laden shows his ugly face America first and then the global community. If Iraq did have the WMDs and nuclear weapons and we had even more proof then we had last year, France, Russia and Germany still would not have supported the war. Most Arab nation still wouldn't have supported the war. -sm --- Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Again I greatly prefer a leader that considers the > defensibility of his > actions. Of course consideration for global > reaction is part of the > process, it should be part of the process. That's > the most simple aspect of > being a member of a global community. > > When considering something as serious as war you > should ALWAYS be able to > defend your actions upon the world stage. > > That's all Kerry's statement meant and I personally > agree with it. We know > that's what it meant because that's what he's said > it meant. > > Bush also obviously agrees with the idea as he spent > a great amount of time, > before and after the war, defending the action to > the global community. > > The republican campaign did indeed paint the > statement repeatedly as if > other countries would be given veto power over our > military decisions. That > was not the case. > > Jim Davis > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Purchase from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=38 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:133687 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
