With the TKH recent gaff, and this, is there a conpiracy? Or can the Dem candidate REALLY be this bad. Sheez.

Mark

If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no

if you take out the first part of the quote, and look at the last part quoted above, which, to me reads that you don't just hurl crash test dummies at the wall, you try to break through it, or build a better safety harness, I don't see a problem.

Even in context, it seems, at worst, equivocal, not doveish. At best, it seems like you're reading "UN Booga! Booga!" here.

It seems I'm missing something, is it the goofy Kerry syntax? If not, then help.

Think of that quote in the context of Iraq. Either time.

Dying for the UN = yes
Dying for the US = no

MM, his context suggests that if the UN is behind it it's worthwhile, but anytime we talk about "unilaterally going in" it can only be with "some false presumption that we can affect the outcome", and therefore a waste of American lives.

MM, here's my translation.

Dead U.S. soldiers are acceptable only if the U.N. approves of the cause, because without the U.N. impramatur, the U.S. cannot hope for victory.

Put more simply, Kerry thinks that the U.S. not only shouldn't act without international approval, but is even incapable of success without it.

Not only is this position factually wrong, it is morally reprehensible.

Classis globalist liberal thinking. The UN is the only legitimate government and the World Court is the only legitimate justice he and his 'worldly' wife live in.

I wish this were not true. But it really is if you look at John and Teressa behavior and language over the years. If you thought Hillary was an unelected president, you ain't seen nothing yet if these two get power.

Very scary for the Soverign Nation of the United States of America.

MM - it's a pattern going back to 1970:

"I'm an internationalist," Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. "I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

Kerry said he wanted "to almost eliminate CIA activity. The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos and nobody seems to care."

-----

He hasn't changed.

Let's see here. A far Left senator who earned his "useful idiot" bonafides in the early 1970's (and ever since then) has the typical Leftist world view pertaining to American military might and deployment. Is anyone surprised?

MM -- "Even in context, it seems, at worst, equivocal, not doveish."

Maybe, maybe if this quote was alone within a context of other speech and action indicating a firm belief in the US's right, as a sovereign nation, to take military action on its own, then you would be right.

That, however, is not Kerry's record. It is truly remarkable the mental contortions his supporters are willing to go through to pretend that Kerry is some sort of hawk. Look at the sum of his statements. Although he tries to hedge once in a while, depending on the political breezes, Kerry has never unequivocally supported the US acting alone militarily.

And chalking it up to "goofy syntax" doesn't cut it. It's happened enough that it's not a grammatical quirk. Besides, isn't Kerry supposed to be some supergenius, and Bush the one who can't put a sentence together?

Sandy: "He hasn't changed."

You're right Sandy. John, like he says, has been very consistent. What he left out was "..over my career."

Over the short term, John is nuanced and looks indecisive (flop-flop label) because he must hide his long term, heart felt, real John views. They just won't win elections.

I hate to defend Kerry, but look: this was clearly a comment on the situation in Bosnia, an ethnic-religious Euromess in which we had no compelling national interest (and therefore, a very fragile political will).

There he was probably right: we had no reason to believe we could wade in there unilaterally and make it all better. It wasn't the difference between dying for the UN and dying for the US, it was the difference between dying for a (possible) success and dying for a (very likely) failure.

I agree that Kerry's UN fetish is wrong and dangerous in today's context, but in the context in which he was speaking, in 1994, he was right.

Angie: "...it was the difference between dying for a (possible) success and dying for a (very likely) failure."

The question I am asking myself, Angie, is this a pattern of John's thinking on all conflict? It seems to me it is. I could be wrong.

I did't like Bush's 'rush' into Iraq when it happened, but I do believe he didn't lie about his concerns for WMD there ending up in Islamic terrorists hands, the intel was wrong worldwide. I didn't think it was and imminent threat and could have been dealt with 'after' Osama.

But I didn't have to live with the consequences if wrong, and neither did any other of Bush's critics, including John Kerry.

So if this is how he feels for all conflicts, then maybe he should be asked this question:

How come he voted against the first Gulf War which had UN approval and a complete coalition, but then voted for the War in Iraq where there was no UN approval?

I'd be interested to hear Kerry explain his way around that.

Ms. Schultz:

Your interpretation seems to illuminate JK's _incorrectness_.

In fact, the US (and NATO) did execute military operations in Yugoslavia without UN approval or involvement, and the NATO forces were successful in achieving their goals.

Mr. Harsher,

In fact, the US (and NATO) did execute military operations in Yugoslavia without UN approval or involvement, and the NATO forces were successful in achieving their goals.

Ah, but the key word in your post is "NATO". I guess it depends whether you see Kerry as insisting on the participation of the sainted, the holy, the untouchable UN, or as insisting that we must have allies of some sort. I was assuming the latter. Maybe there's an answer in the rest of the speech/interview/whatever from '84. In the quoted snippet, he's setting up a false dichotomy between UN and unilateral.

Why do liberals always insist on having UN approval? I think its part and parcel of their personal aversion to accepting individual responsibility for difficult decisions.
If you can hook in the UN and things go wrong you can't, personally, be held accountable. Leaders accept the fact that sometimes they have to make unpopular, unpleasant, painful decisions. Cowards always look to pass off responsibility.
You're poor, uneducated, drug abusing, criminal? Its not your fault according to liberal teaching. Why? I think it is simply projection. Liberals aren't comfortable with taking responsibility so they look incessantly for the means to avoid it in public, social, issues as well.

angie...

you obviously weren't following matters much, but NATO involvement impinged on US action, decreased the success of the mission, killed civilians and let war criminals go free.

Dutch wouldn't make a stand, instead vacated a city and let its inhabitants be slaughtered (under UN but still). All targeting and mission decisions had to be approved by consensus amongst NATO countries, rather than by military/unified chain of command. French officers (likely under direction from French politicians and senior command, though this is disputed) were caught and convicted of aiding Serb war criminals in evading patrols and raids by tipping them off (officers admitted but said that they were under French orders, this was denied by senior command). They may have also provided intelligence that led to deaths of US and allied forces. Inability of NATO troops to communicate with or perform same missions as US forces degraded US ability to provide combined arms for allied missions (cant do combined arms without communication or you get blue on blue, which is bad). This inability to perform also led US to perform on the order of 90% of all aviation missions.

Balkans was the US operating unilaterally with some small face saving presence by NATO forces. Though the cosmetics were applied for domestic EU consumption, as the governments couldn't admit that they had neither the men, the training, the equipment, the will, the courage nor the character to stop genocide and ethnic cleansing in Europe on the front steps of several EU countries.

Sparta had 300 men lay down their life to hold a pass to simply buy time to organize resistance to the Persians ( several other cities also had men die in a lost cause, but the Spartans are the famous of that lot). The Dutch left a city filled with refugees who they knew would be massacred (it was mostly the men, but they had every reason to suspect that it would have been the entire city), despite having very good defensive positions, superior equipment to Serb (ir)regulars, and the massive backup that comes when someone does a frontal assault on allied positions.

THEY LEFT THE CITY AND THE BOSNIANS TO THEIR DOOMS.

Dutch PM cries for help, that his forces are encircled by Serb forces laying siege to a city full of civilians. Brits, French, Americans could immediately provide air support against massed troops in the field (also know as easy targets/ target rich environment), with then world and NATO support for immediate and swift reinforcement.

They would not have suffered 100% losses. They would have suffered very few losses (we're talking about a siege of a few days... its not hard to hold a city for that long... see stalingrad, berlin, etc) for a city full of people. Not 100% losses in simply a blocking manoeuvre.

This is why the US should always act "unilaterally" i.e. in an ad hoc coalition of the willing, which should include most (and hopefully soon all) english nations.

Fundamentally, you'd want to have international approval if you were planning to invade another country. I think logically a nation would want to have international support so that the peace process afterwards ran smoothly.

Great history lessons in these responses!I'm glad that there are people still awake out there-but the key word here is BLAME. Without a UN resolution nor a vote of Congress Kerry was free to say what he felt withot fear of BlAME. You see BLAME is what he heaped on the Nixon administration fresh from Vietnam,BLAME is what he placed on his compatriots and commanders.BLAME is what he fears most because he witnessed the effects of his.A military disgraced and in disarry,Westmoreland forever tarnished,Nixon so paranoid that ,even though he won in a landslide felt he had to have all the cards.He has seen what BLAME does;hense the UN.Kerry feels that if the US enters an action without the UN blessings and falls on tough times,BLAME will come his way.UN blessings will enable him to deflect any BLAME of failure. This is why Kerry will not act unilateraly to defend America,because just as his democratic predessor was and is obessed with his place in history Kerry is paranoid about BLAME.

It seems to me that participation in UN sanctioned actions has caused a lot of grief for the United States. The Beirut Marine barracks bombing and the Blackdown incident in Somalia, as well as, I would argue, 9/11 and the Cole bombing and the other al Qaeda attacks of US personel and facilities abroad. If the UN (meaning foreign governments) had not been so corruption and feckless, Saddam would have been dealt with sooner if not during the first Gulf War. Containment would not have lasted a decade and we would have been out of harms way, and bin Laden would have fewer excuses and recruiting tools for his war against the US.

Let's face it being involved in the world is risky business. Since our military power can't be challenged directly by most nations and groups, our foes have to resort to terrorism. Isolationism would of course reduce our exposure to these threats, but no doubt would increase the likelihood of another catalysmic war like WWII. Sometimes, I feel like I would take those chances, because saving the ingrates of the world from the consequences of their feckless appeasement is becoming less appealing.

-- I think logically a nation would want to have international support so that the peace process afterwards ran smoothly.--

Kevin, the UN's been running Kosovo for 7 years.

Check it out.