Bush "Global Test" "Sensitive War" - eeesh

[rjung]

@John Mace

Is what Kerry is advocating, if we assume that "globa"l does not mean “international”, consistent with International Law or the UN charter?

Beats me. I simply took Kerry’s statement as an indication of his personal moral feelings on the matter. That is to say, if you’re going to risk an international incident with a pre-emptive war, you had better make damn sure of your reasons for doing so.

I’ll let the resident lawyers comb over the laws and bylaws for compliance.

[John_Mace]

@rjung

I’ll let the resident lawyers comb over the laws and bylaws for compliance.

I’ll remind you of that the next time you declare Bush’s actions to be illegal.

[blowero]

@John Mace

One thing I find interesting in all this talk. If Kerry did, in fact, mean that he would use preemtive force (and he **DID **use the word preemt) without the approval of the UN, where is the indignation about that from the Kerry supporters who claim that any preemptive use of force is a violation of International Law and illegal under US law as well (since the UN charter is a signed treaty by the US)?

Since I was one of the ones who participated in threads about the relevance of international law, I guess this is at least partially directed at me. I see where you’re going with this, but as I recall, the consensus was that the UN Charter definitely has an exception that allows countries to act in self-defense. I’m no expert on international law, but I would think that whether or not a pre-emptive strike could be considered self-defense or not would depend on the particular facts of the situation.

Perhaps I’m remembering wrong, but I thought the point I and others made in those threads was that Iraq did NOT meet the criteria for self-defense. I believe that Bush tried to make such a case, but it was an exceedingly weak case. Just hypothetically, let’s say Iraq did have nuclear missiles, and they had the range to reach the United States, and they were pointed at us. I suppose in a case such as that, a pre-emptive strike could be considered self-defense. But of course, the actual situation wasn’t anywhere close to that. But I’m pretty sure most of us acknowledged that it IS acceptable under international law to act in self-defense.

And I was under the impression that that’s what Kerry is talking about. He’s saying that yes, if it were necessary to launch a strike against another country, he wouldn’t hesitate to do so, so long as it’s necessary to protect the United States. I interpret the “global test” to mean that it’s clear that we are acting to defend our country, and not simply engaging in “nation-building”, or simply trying to expand our influence globally through conquest. Is that not how you would interpret it?

I am not in any way trying to imply that Kerry would be as eager to go to war as Bush. Let’s not make this about who is more of a cowboy-- I’ll concede in advance that Bush is. But I do find it ironic that folks like **Diogenes **have gone on and on about how the Iraq war was illegal, and yet defend Kerry’s remark, which (if we take it to NOT mean UN approval of the preemtive use of force) endorses essentially the same disregard of Interational Law and the UN Charter.

What am I missing?

I think you’re missing the fact that the UN Charter exempts actions that are self-defense.

I suppose you’re right to an extent. Kerry’s stance is maybe a little more hawkish than I would like (I voted for Kucinich in the primaries), but it’s certainly preferable to Bush’s “because we can” doctrine.