info & opinions needed on Kerry/U.N.

[vanilla]

I would like someone to explain Kerry’s position, especially on the U.N.
Did he imply that he, as President, would need U.N. collaboration, or many other countries agreement to go to a war?

If so, I certainly will not vote for him, the U.N. is filled with mostly countries which hate America and wouldn’t help us or want us to be helped, even defending ourselves.

I think the American president, and congress,m should decide without any other countries premission on this issue.

The U.N. is a lousy, ineffectual organization and I do not support it in any way.

[lno]

vanilla, I believe this comes up due to Senator Kerry’s mention of a “global test” during the presidential debate.

@vanilla

Did he imply that he, as President, would need U.N. collaboration, or many other countries agreement to go to a war?

What he said: (my emphasis is in bold)

LEHRER: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.

What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.

No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Does this make it a little clearer for you?

[Voyager]

To follow up, I believe what he said is that we have the right to do it without permission, but we have the moral obligation to not pre-emptively strike without a solid and legitimate reason, that we are able to explain to others. He mentioned the Cuban missile crisis, where we had solid photographic evidence.

I think the opposite of his position is not that we need UN approval, but that we would attack without a legitimate reason. This being IMHO I won’t go further.

[NurseCarmen]

In a nutshell, we can act however we want. It’s just that we have to face the world in the morning.

[vanilla]

Thanks for making it clearer, I was getting worried there that I might have to vote for Nader
I AM KIDDING.

Actually, in U.S. News & World Report magazine, there is this quote apparently from Nader:“If I could only go through the ducts and leap out onstage in a cape-thats my dream.”
about the debates.

Okayyyyyyy

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@vanilla

If so, I certainly will not vote for him, the U.N. is filled with mostly countries which hate America and wouldn’t help us or want us to be helped, even defending ourselves.

The U.N. is a lousy, ineffectual organization and I do not support it in any way.

There are 191 UN member states- which represent about 97% of all the entities on earth which can realistically call themselves nation-states.

So, what you’re saying is the planet Earth is filled with mostly countries which hate America, etc.

You can’t get a new planet, and I consider it highly unlikely that you or anyone else is going to come up with a better forum for improving international relations than the United Nations.

Your options, then, are as follows:-

1. Vote for a President who barely acknowledges the UN, and when he does, doesn’t tell it the truth;
2. Vote for a President who thinks it might be worthwhile to work with it, rather than pretending the other 190-odd countries which share the planet don’t exist until they need bombing.

[rjung]

@vanilla

Ithe U.N. is filled with mostly countries which hate America and wouldn’t help us or want us to be helped, even defending ourselves.

It’s hardly Kerry’s fault that Bush has pissed off the rest of the planet.

I mean, I remember when the majority of the UN was on our side – it feels like it was four years ago…

[roger_thornhill]

I didn’t get to see the first “debate”, but not from the transcript provided above that Kerry addressed some of his comments to the moderator, “Jim”.

Did Bush also indulge in the same “Jimming” tactic? Kerry’s use struck me as odd, given that he was addressing his points to the TV audience.

[roger_thornhill]

Should be “…note from the transcript…”

[AskNott]

Despite the clear position Kerry gave in the quote lno supplied, Mr. Bush has been saying, in campaign stops since the debate, that Kerry would not take international action without permission from France. That’s a bald-faced lie.

[Czarcasm]

Moving this from IMHO to Great Debates.