[typoon]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct19.html

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."

So Dying for the UN is okay but Dying for the US isn't? Maybe I'm not understanding his quote but that is what i get from it.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by typoon:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct19.html

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."

So Dying for the UN is okay but Dying for the US isn't? Maybe I'm not understanding his quote but that is what i get from it.

I think he is saying that there is a greater chance of success if you act with world support and that it is sanctioned by the UN.

If there is less chance of success acting unilaterally, then perhaps the cause is unjust?

[warmspit]

Originally posted by typoon:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct19.html

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."

So Dying for the UN is okay but Dying for the US isn't? Maybe I'm not understanding his quote but that is what i get from it.

so what does Bush use as justification for the troops deaths thus far? Does he think they are "worth it"?

Also, I think you're narrowly interpreted that quote. I interpret it to mean that the mission has a better chance of success with allied support, and therefore is not just a pointless quagmire of lost troops for a failed effort with no chance of success, which is what we have now.

[itai195]

Originally posted by typoon:
So Dying for the UN is okay but Dying for the US isn't? Maybe I'm not understanding his quote but that is what i get from it.

He's referring specifically to Bosnia.

[nredman]

[Millennium]

Originally posted by warmspit:
so what does Bush use as justification for the troops deaths thus far? Does he think they are "worth it"?

Does the concept of "worth it" even apply?

But yes, I think it's pretty clear that Bush considers these deaths to be worth it. I can't say I blame him, either.

Also, I think you're narrowly interpreted that quote. I interpret it to mean that the mission has a better chance of success with allied support...

There was no talk of success in that quote, only of dying.

...and therefore is not just a pointless quagmire of lost troops for a failed effort with no chance of success, which is what we have now.

Please send your magical +5 Wand of Instant Bloodless Nation-Building to the White House, or better yet, use it yourself. I can assure you, the Bush Administration would appreciate the geature.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by typoon:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct19.html
So Dying for the UN is okay but Dying for the US isn't? Maybe I'm not understanding his quote but that is what i get from it.

As everyone else has pointed out, you misunderstand the quote. He's saying that if they die in a project with a good chance of success, it's worth it. If they die in a project without a good chance of success, it's not worth it.

And in Bosnia/Kosovo, as he saw it (and I agree), a multilateral effort had a good chance of success, while a unilateral effort did not.

It's a logic thing, you know? A implies B, B implies C.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Mithras:
As everyone else has pointed out, you misunderstand the quote. He's saying that if they die in a project with a good chance of success, it's worth it. If they die in a project without a good chance of success, it's not worth it.

And in Bosnia/Kosovo, as he saw it (and I agree), a multilateral effort had a good chance of success, while a unilateral effort did not.

It's a logic thing, you know? A implies B, B implies C.

Is this why kerry voted against the UN authorized, very-multilateral Persian Gulf war? It had a much better chance of success than Bosnia. Clinton promised he'd have US troops out of Bosnia in a year. That was in 1995, but they are still there.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Is this why kerry voted against the UN authorized, very-multilateral Persian Gulf war? It had a much better chance of success than Bosnia. Clinton promised he'd have US troops out of Bosnia in a year. That was in 1995, but they are still there.

There were rich oil fields between the Iraqi and Kuwaiti borders. Iraq and Kuwait formed a treaty so neither one could start mining on the border. The treaty was created specifically to avoid that type of conflict. However, Kuwait broke the treaty, so Iraq attacked them. It wasn't some baseless attack by Iraq, they had a legitimate reason.

The only reason the U.S. got involved was because if we helped Kuwait, Kuwait would gain control of those oil fields.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
There were rich oil fields between the Iraqi and Kuwaiti borders. Iraq and Kuwait formed a treaty so neither one could start mining on the border. The treaty was created specifically to avoid that type of conflict. However, Kuwait broke the treaty, so Iraq attacked them. It wasn't some baseless attack by Iraq, they had a legitimate reason.

The only reason the U.S. got involved was because if we helped Kuwait, Kuwait would gain control of those oil fields.

Are you suggesting that Kerry didn't support the Persian Gulf War because he thought that Iraq was right?

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Is this why kerry voted against the UN authorized, very-multilateral Persian Gulf war? It had a much better chance of success than Bosnia. Clinton promised he'd have US troops out of Bosnia in a year. That was in 1995, but they are still there.

I'd like to see Kerry address the rationale behind this 1991 vote. But it's funny how so many people have already forgotten that the vote in the Senate was pretty close, 52-47.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Is this why kerry voted against the UN authorized, very-multilateral Persian Gulf war? It had a much better chance of success than Bosnia. Clinton promised he'd have US troops out of Bosnia in a year. That was in 1995, but they are still there.

I agree that Kerry's vote against the first Gulf war was a mistake. I supported that war.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Are you suggesting that Kerry didn't support the Persian Gulf War because he thought that Iraq was right?

*SMACKDOWN*

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Are you suggesting that Kerry didn't support the Persian Gulf War because he thought that Iraq was right?

No. We were going to war to protect investments in oil, not because Saddam Hussein is a bad person. His main concern was that we were coming up with reasons for going to war before exhausting peaceful alternatives (yes, this is still in regards to the first war.) American troops and innocent civilians dying for a war that has nothing to do with the reasons we're there. He supported the deployment of troops to prevent further intrusion by Iraq into Saudi Arabi; but what he didn't want was an outright war with Iraq over just oil.

Saddam Hussein ordered the invasion of Kuwait partly because of the broken treaty and border disputes, but it was more of an opportunity to have a legitimate reason to invade Kuwait (might not've even been Kuwait, could've been anyone) only to protest Israeli occupation of certain territories. He was willing to recede his position in Kuwait if Israel would do the same in some of its own occupied areas.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
No. We were going to war to protect investments in oil, not because Saddam Hussein is a bad person. His main concern was that we were coming up with reasons for going to war before exhausting peaceful alternatives (yes, this is still in regards to the first war.) American troops and innocent civilians dying for a war that has nothing to do with the reasons we're there. He supported the deployment of troops to prevent further intrusion by Iraq into Saudi Arabi; but what he didn't want was an outright war with Iraq over just oil.

Saddam Hussein ordered the invasion of Kuwait partly because of the broken treaty and border disputes, but it was more of an opportunity to have a legitimate reason to invade Kuwait (might not've even been Kuwait, could've been anyone) only to protest Israeli occupation of certain territories. He was willing to recede his position in Kuwait if Israel would do the same in some of its own occupied areas.

Could you provide a link that demonstrates that this is what Kerry thought. Has Kerry said any of this, or is this just what you think/thought about the Persian Gulf war?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by itai195:
I'd like to see Kerry address the rationale behind this 1991 vote. But it's funny how so many people have already forgotten that the vote in the Senate was pretty close, 52-47.

*SLAPBACK*

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
*SLAPBACK*

Not really, the fact that the Senate vote was so close in 1991 just reminds people that the Democrats have a long history of being wrong on defense issues.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Please send your magical +5 Wand of Instant Bloodless Nation-Building to the White House, or better yet, use it yourself. I can assure you, the Bush Administration would appreciate the geature.

actually, according to Pat Robertson, Bush thought he already had that magic wand...he assured robertson there would be no casualties.

Now lets see if you think its AS ridiculous that your president thought so.


and--I thought Bush ran on NOT being a nation-builder. Flipflop.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Not really, the fact that the Senate vote was so close in 1991 just reminds people that the Democrats have a long history of being wrong on defense issues.

Is the breakdown of that vote across parties known?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Is the breakdown of that vote across parties known?

Yes. here is the roll call. The names don't have the parties attached and you might not know them off hand, but basically, it was Republicans voting to authorize the president to use force in persuant to the UN mandate with a few Democrats crossing the isle and voting with them. I don't see any Republican names voting against, although one didn't vote. So it was almost party line, with the Democrats on the wrong side of the issue.

And just to underscore something important: this was a vote after the UN had voted to authorize force, and after the first President Bush had assembled the kind of coaltion Kerry now says is a prerequisite for his support. We had both those things in 1991, and Democrats including Kerry still voted no.

This vote ended up hurting a lot of Democrats. Al Gore in the Democratic primaries touted his vote for the war as one of the reasons why he was qualified to be president and other Democrats in the Senate (including Kerry) were not. That by itself probably explains why Kerry voted for war in 2002.

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Not really, the fact that the Senate vote was so close in 1991 just reminds people that the Democrats have a long history of being wrong on defense issues.

It was a bad vote on Kerry's part, I agree 110%. I'd like to hear him explain it today, thirteen years and a major terrorist attack on US soil later.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by itai195:
It was a bad vote on Kerry's part, I agree 110%. I'd like to hear him explain it today, thirteen years and a major terrorist attack on US soil later.

I also agree that it was the wrong vote. But what people here fail to understand is that NO ONE is perfect. No one has a "perfect" voting record. After 20 years in the Senate, you are going to have some votes you might change if you could do it again. And this goes BOTH ways. A republican vote is not ALWAYS right. A democrat vote is not ALWAYS right. At least Kerry has some kind of record to look at. Let's look at Bush's record of 4 YEARS.

Blown surplus
Deficits
Terrible economy
Lost jobs
War on "terror"
Education
Health care

A senate vote does not make or break policy. A lot of things Kerry may have voted against happened anyway. A lot of things he voted for didn't. The President has a lot more control over the Nation's policies than a Senator. And THIS President has done a terrible job.

[OldManMac]

Don't go bringing logic into this, Mrjinglesusa.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Could you provide a link that demonstrates that this is what Kerry thought. Has Kerry said any of this, or is this just what you think/thought about the Persian Gulf war?

Do a search on google, you can find literally hundreds of websites on Kerry's position on the first gulf war. I just extracted from various places. Here's a good quote from Kerry that about sums up what happened:

“This administration, having likened Saddam Hussein to Hitler, having committed troops in the war against him, actually sided with Hussein in the aftermath of the war. That is a disgraceful chapter.”

[typoon]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
I also agree that it was the wrong vote. But what people here fail to understand is that NO ONE is perfect. No one has a "perfect" voting record. After 20 years in the Senate, you are going to have some votes you might change if you could do it again. And this goes BOTH ways. A republican vote is not ALWAYS right. A democrat vote is not ALWAYS right. At least Kerry has some kind of record to look at. Let's look at Bush's record of 4 YEARS.

Blown surplus
Deficits
Terrible economy
Lost jobs
War on "terror"
Education
Health care

A senate vote does not make or break policy. A lot of things Kerry may have voted against happened anyway. A lot of things he voted for didn't. The President has a lot more control over the Nation's policies than a Senator. And THIS President has done a terrible job.

While you are correct in that neither side is ALWAYS right. IF you look at Kerry's record you get a good idea of how he will run the country. I mean he talks about giving the troops the body armour and necessary materials they need yet he voted for a supplimental that was going to do just that. How can someone who says that will will do something once they get elected as President do something different when they are currently an elected Senator? The President can only make policy. It's up to the congress to vote on it. ALso I doubt Kerry would change any of his votes.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Do a search on google, you can find literally hundreds of websites on Kerry's position on the first gulf war. I just extracted from various places. Here's a good quote from Kerry that about sums up what happened:

“This administration, having likened Saddam Hussein to Hitler, having committed troops in the war against him, actually sided with Hussein in the aftermath of the war. That is a disgraceful chapter.”

As much as it would be political dynamite to find out that Kerry opposed the Persian Gulf War because he sided with Saddam and thought that Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was a legitimate response to a border dispute, I don't think that is the case. According to the Washington Post, his reasons were all tied up with Vietnam.

In a lengthy speech, Kerry touched on most of the arguments that other critics made against going to war: Sanctions had not been given enough time to work; the American people were not prepared for the heavy casualties that might result; the war might spawn further instability in the Middle East. But it was Vietnam -- especially fighting a war that did not have the full backing of the American people -- that appeared to influence Kerry as much as anything else.

"The question of being ready and certain is important to many of us of the Vietnam generation," Kerry said. "We come to this debate with a measure of distrust, with some skepticism, with a searing commitment to ask honest questions and with a resolve to get satisfactory answers so that we are not misled again."

Kerry said he was "willing to accept the horror that goes with war" but only "when the interests or stakes warrant it." He added: "My belief is, though, that our impatience with sanctions and diplomacy does not yet warrant accepting that horror, and my fear is that our beloved country is not yet ready for what it will witness and bear if we go to war."

However, this kind of begs the question that began this thread. In 1991 he opposed a war that was authorised by the UN and supported by more allies than you can shake a stick at. Even the Soviet Union was basically for it. But Kerry was against it. Just a little later, however, he said that a war is worth fighting if the UN supports it. As he said in one of the debates, Bush's campaign has a word for that.

However, I think that it is unfair of you to project your opinions about the Persian Gulf War onto Kerry. He wasn't one of the "no blood for oil" crowd. He was one of those who saw everything as another Vietnam. But of course, we already knew that about him.

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
However, this kind of begs the question that began this thread. In 1991 he opposed a war that was authorised by the UN and supported by more allies than you can shake a stick at. Even the Soviet Union was basically for it. But Kerry was against it. Just a little later, however, he said that a war is worth fighting if the UN supports it. As he said in one of the debates, Bush's campaign has a word for that.

I think it's fair to change an opinion on something like that over time. After all, isn't 9/11 cited as the reason for Bush's complete reversal on the subject of nation-building? I can accept that, nobody has all the right answers all the time.

I don't have the context regarding the original Kerry quote, but it sounds to me like he's referring specifically to Bosnia. A unilateral US effort would not have been successful there.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by itai195:
I think it's fair to change an opinion on something like that over time. After all, isn't 9/11 cited as the reason for Bush's complete reversal on the subject of nation-building? I can accept that, nobody has all the right answers all the time.

I don't have the context regarding the original Kerry quote, but it sounds to me like he's referring specifically to Bosnia. A unilateral US effort would not have been successful there.

I don't know the context of the Bosnia quote either. It is true that Clinton came in talking about a unilateral, forceable intervention to separate the two sides. I know that because my division got the warning order for the mission. So maybe that is what Kerry was talking about.

OK, so leaving aside the Bosnia quote, what about simply comparing Kerry's opposition to the first Gulf War (which he voted against) with his critique of Iraq (which he voted for) but now kinda sorta says he regrets?

In the Persian Gulf War, there were no shortage of allies to go with us. France was there. Germany wasn't, but at the time their constitution (which we wrote) forbade it. Much of the Arab world was there. The Soviet Union discreetly signalled its approval, and so did China. The invasion was explicitly under the United Nations flag. But none of that was good enough for Kerry.

Given that, what would Kerry require to support a war? It's clearly not a matter of alliances or of UN approval even though those are the things that he critiques Bush for on Iraq. So what is it? I think he should tell us.

[thunderous_funker]

I don't think Kerry is talking about simply having a UN approval stamp or official paperwork before military action becomes legitimate or "worth it". I think he is talking about a much more moral, ethcial and philosophical measure.

I think it has to do with attempting to find some objective sense of the Righteousness of our cause before committing the inevitiable horrors of even the most necessary and justified of wars.

To paraphrase McNamara: if we can't convice nations who share a common sense of morality as ourselves of the rightness of our cause, then maybe we need to re-examine our reasoning.

There will be times when the UN will fail to recognize the right course of action and it may become necessary to act without the cooperation or solidarity of the world community, but as a general rule I think we can say that any proposed action that is based on real rightness, real morality, real need and real soundness of judgement will be a cause that is easy to find allies for--even if the risks or potential costs are high.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I don't think Kerry is talking about simply having a UN approval stamp or official paperwork before military action becomes legitimate or "worth it". I think he is talking about a much more moral, ethcial and philosophical measure.

I think it has to do with attempting to find some objective sense of the Righteousness of our cause before committing the inevitiable horrors of even the most necessary and justified of wars.

To paraphrase McNamara: if we can't convice nations who share a common sense of morality as ourselves of the rightness of our cause, then maybe we need to re-examine our reasoning.

There will be times when the UN will fail to recognize the right course of action and it may become necessary to act without the cooperation or solidarity of the world community, but as a general rule I think we can say that any proposed action that is based on real rightness, real morality, real need and real soundness of judgement will be a cause that is easy to find allies for--even if the risks or potential costs are high.

So you are saying the first Gulf War didn't qualify as a righteous cause?

And remember, we did have allies in the first Gulf War. Lots and lots of them -- including countries that normally are allied against us. So that can't be the source of Kerry's objection.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I don't think Kerry is talking about simply having a UN approval stamp or official paperwork before military action becomes legitimate or "worth it". I think he is talking about a much more moral, ethcial and philosophical measure.

I think it has to do with attempting to find some objective sense of the Righteousness of our cause before committing the inevitiable horrors of even the most necessary and justified of wars.

To paraphrase McNamara: if we can't convice nations who share a common sense of morality as ourselves of the rightness of our cause, then maybe we need to re-examine our reasoning.

There will be times when the UN will fail to recognize the right course of action and it may become necessary to act without the cooperation or solidarity of the world community, but as a general rule I think we can say that any proposed action that is based on real rightness, real morality, real need and real soundness of judgement will be a cause that is easy to find allies for--even if the risks or potential costs are high.

exactly, in the case of the war in Iraq, if Bush had LISTENED to the UN, instead of ignoring him, they would have convinced him of what, ultimately was true: there were no WMDs, no connectiond to Al Quead, and no legitimate justification for invasion.

funny, how if ONLY Bush had bothered to pass the "global test", we wouldn't bein the stinknin mess we are now?? funny, funny, funnyl.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So you are saying the first Gulf War didn't qualify as a righteous cause?

And remember, we did have allies in the first Gulf War. Lots and lots of them -- including countries that normally are allied against us. So that can't be the source of Kerry's objection.

I'm unaware of Kerry's objection to that particular item on the Senate floor. I can't possibly answer for him.

I will say, however, that I find it rather disingenuous to be constantly talking about "Kerry voted against this or that" without recognizing the obvious fact that most items of Senate business are hardly black and white. Every peice of legislation is lot more complicated than one sentence or paragraph advocating a clear agenda.

It is possible to support a cause but still vote against a particular resolution on the subject because you disagree with its language or approach to the problem.

Just because you disagree with a proscribed solution doesn't mean you don't agree there is a problem. That kind of nuance seems to have utterly disappeared from the current political discourse.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'm unaware of Kerry's objection to that particular item on the Senate floor. I can't possibly answer for him.

I will say, however, that I find it rather disingenuous to be constantly talking about "Kerry voted against this or that" without recognizing the obvious fact that most items of Senate business are hardly black and white. Every peice of legislation is lot more complicated than one sentence or paragraph advocating a clear agenda.

It is possible to support a cause but still vote against a particular resolution on the subject because you disagree with its language or approach to the problem.

Just because you disagree with a proscribed solution doesn't mean you don't agree there is a problem. That kind of nuance seems to have utterly disappeared from the current political discourse.

War authorizations are pretty black and white. You either go to war, or you don't.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
War authorizations are pretty black and white. You either go to war, or you don't.

Got a link to the resolution in question? I would be honestly curious to see it. I've never heard Kerry talk about it so I have no idea what his objection was. I can't condemn or defend him on it.

But I would be curious what the resolution said. Perhaps that would offer some clues to why.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
War authorizations are pretty black and white. You either go to war, or you don't.

only in your mind. What Kerry authorized, for example, was that when conditions were met that justified invading Iraq, to give Bush power to do so. Bush did so, but only by lying that he had met the conditions.

see:? not so black and white.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Got a link to the resolution in question? I would be honestly curious to see it. I've never heard Kerry talk about it so I have no idea what his objection was. I can't condemn or defend him on it.

But I would be curious what the resolution said. Perhaps that would offer some clues to why.

Here

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Here

Thanks. Seems fairly straight forward. There is language that all diplomatic means had been exhausted that I suppose might cause some to balk, but I don't know if its enough.

Has Kerry ever offered an explanation of his vote? I'd be curious to hear it.