Should America's actions pass "the global test"?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think he meant it in both usages of the term. It is important that our countrymen and others understand why we are doing what we are doing.

Cycloptichorn

and that would not be a bad thing.

"more flies with honey than vinegar" and all o' that...

0 Replies

roger wrote:

"Should America's actions pass "the global test"?" seems to be the question. I suppose it implies that other nations are passing some global test on their own actions, whether it be to the detriment of their own interests, or not. Do they really?

Democratic nations do, generally speaking. I mean, when's the last time a democratic state went to war against the clear will of the UN and the expressed judgement of most countries, even of most allies? Perhaps when the UK went to that tiny group of islands, the Falklands, twentyone years ago?

That's not the global test Kerry was talking about though, mind you - he never went as far as saying that one shouldnt go to war against the clear will of the UN and the judgement of most countries. He merely said that one shouldnt go to war if one can't "prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons".

Considering the lack of all evidence pertaining to the rationale the US claimed when defending going to war to the world community - WMD, links to Al Qaeda - and the fact that this lack of convincing evidence was as clear then as it is now - the US failed his "global test" in any case.

But if we're talking something that goes a little bit beyond that, as we seem to be here, then yes, democratic nations this last decade or two have also pretty much generally refrained from going to war without broad support of the other democratic nations of the world. The only exception I can think of is Israel, if you can call their military actions against Palestinian groups a war.

0 Replies

Here's a story from last week, about Bush's UN speech. It's related to this thread, so I thought I'd throw it in here.

World leaders react to Bush U-N speech

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - President Bush didn't get much reaction from world leaders -- either during or after his speech to the U-N General Assembly. In the speech, he defended the U-S invasion of Iraq.

Bush's comments were met with polite applause after they were over.

Spain's prime minister was among the few reacting to Bush's talk. Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero (zah-pah-TEH'-roh) said he agreed with the president's take on defending liberty and democracy, saying fighting terror is a part of all nations' shared goals.

But Zapatero said he disagreed on other issues -- though he wouldn't elaborate. He did say earlier that Spain wouldn't provide troops to the U-S-led force in Iraq.

Many international officials refused public comment on the U-S presidential election -- calling it an internal American matter.

Polite applause, no real reaction either during or after the speech. Yep, they sound like they're all fired up about helping Bush and the U.S. right now.

0 Replies

Grand Duke wrote:

So he was using "global" and "world" to mean the US?

Nah, you just gotta read the rest of the sentence, beyond where DTOM applied a bold font, as well:

"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."

Thomas wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
How does "Iraq supported terrorism" make all these nice conclusions for your arguements? I did not imply anything or add anything to the statement.

Because "terrorism against the US" is the only interpretation of your use of the word "terrorism" on which America was even possibly justified in attacking Iraq. When a country -- say, Germany -- supports terrorism against, say, France, America doesn't get to defend itself -- France does. And France only gets to defend itself against Germany. It doesn't get to defend itself against Spain, if it hasn't attacked it. Therefore, if you don't believe Iraq supported terrorism against the US, your argument about defense against terrorism is dead in the water. We were simply giving your argument the benefit of the doubt.

Nice ;-)

0 Replies

Interesting point about the Falklands, nimh. By nature of my birth I've only had "our" side of the story: The Falklands belonged to the UK, the Argentinians thought they should have them, invaded, we sent troops & ships to reclaim, won, and reclaimed. Is there something I'm not aware of? (which is entirely possible!)

One thing we didn't do was to was decide to protect "our rights as a sovereign nation" and bomb the crap out of Buenos Aires, which might for example be the reaction of the US if some country claimed and invaded, say, Guam or even Hawaii.

0 Replies

Oh I dont remember the exact story anymore, GD - it's long ago, and the Falklands are hardly Iraq ... ;-)

I remember the war wasn't too popular internationally, but it wasn't in any ways "pre-emptive", there for sure you are right.

0 Replies

I might start a Falklands thread and see if anyone can shed some light into my puzzled mind... Cheers!

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Does anyone question the triumvirate of Iraq, Iran and N. Korea being an "axis of evil"? They have the ability to threaten the American society. Therefore it is up to the US to defend itself.

That basically still comes down to a blanket authorisation to attack any enemy at any time regardless of whether they actually did anything to you or not ...

That's the problem with the concept of so-called "pre-emptive attack". Just imagine if every country starts attacking any of its enemies at any time they please without any further immediate cause then, "well, they're an enemy, and they've got weapons, so who knows what they could have done if we hadnt done it first" ...

I wished Kerry could have rejected the entire concept of pre-emptive attack without committing political suicide - I wished he would have wanted to, in the first place ...

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

I mean, when's the last time a democratic state went to war against the clear will of the UN and the expressed judgement of most countries, even of most allies? Perhaps when the UK went to that tiny group of islands, the Falklands, twentyone years ago?

I may be wrong, but I don't think so. As I remember the Falkland conflict, the Falklands were officially part of Great Britain, and it was Argentina who attacked. Sure enough, Argentina wasn't a democratic state at the time, which makes your point even stronger.

nimh wrote:

That's not the global test Kerry was talking about though, mind you - he never went as far as saying that one shouldnt go to war against the clear will of the UN and the judgement of most countries. He merely said that one shouldnt go to war if one can't "prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons".

Considering the lack of all evidence pertaining to the rationale the US claimed when defending going to war to the world community - WMD, links to Al Qaeda - and the fact that this lack of convincing evidence was as clear then as it is now - the US failed his "global test" in any case.

You made my point better than I did. The only thing to add is that this shouldn't even be controversial between Democrats and Republicans. Colin Powell knows he failed the "international test", though he probably wouldn't use those words, and he has apologized for the presentation he made to the UN in the run-up to the war. (As an aside, one of the most frustrating part of this US history episode is how the voices of the grown-up Republicans like Powell get crowded out by the Djangos and their cheerleaders.)

0 Replies

Looks like Iraq failed a global test of some sort.

0 Replies

Centrus wrote:

Looks like Iraq failed a global test of some sort.

It did, and nobody is defending it for that.

0 Replies

John Kerry wrote:

They're misleading Americans about what I said. What I said in the sentence preceding that was, 'I will never cede America's security to any institution or any other country.' No one gets a veto over our security. No one.

And if they were honest enough to give America the full quote, which America heard, they would know that I'm never going to allow America's security to be outsourced. That's the job of the president.

But I can do a better job of protecting America's security because the test that I was talking about was a test of legitimacy, not just in the globe, but elsewhere. "

link

0 Replies

"not just in the globe, but elsewhere"?

<frowns>

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Thomas Jefferson et. al. did not need to worry about the instant death of millions as a result of a terrorist attack.

nimh wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Does anyone question the triumvirate of Iraq, Iran and N. Korea being an "axis of evil"? They have the ability to threaten the American society. Therefore it is up to the US to defend itself.

That basically still comes down to a blanket authorisation to attack any enemy at any time regardless of whether they actually did anything to you or not ...

That's the problem with the concept of so-called "pre-emptive attack". Just imagine if every country starts attacking any of its enemies at any time they please without any further immediate cause then, "well, they're an enemy, and they've got weapons, so who knows what they might do if we don't do it first" ...

Hmm .. thinking about this ...

I'm reading this book about the Gulag right now, and it observes a seachange (one of many seachanges) in the year 1936. In that year, "a secret letter", presumably written by Stalin,

Quote:

went out from the Central Committee to the Party organizations in the regions and republics. The letter explained that while an enemy of the people "appeared tame and inoffensive," he did everything possible to "crawl stealthily into socialism," even though he "secretly did not accept it." [..] A later NKVD boss, Lavrenty Beria, would also frequently quote Stalin, noting that "an enemy of the people is not only one who commits sabotage, but one who doubts the rightness of the Party line." Ergo, an "enemy" could mean anybody who opposed Stalin's rule, for any reason, even if he did not openly profess to do so."

Ergo (he continued the train of thought after taking a moment to wonder at the sheer lunacy of the above logic), no longer did you actually have to do anything against the state to become an enemy of the people, like the "saboteurs" whom the terror had focused on in the years immediately before were presumed to have done. Just harbouring an intention (or being presumed to harbour an intention) to do something against the state at some unspecified time in the future - or even just being considered able to do something against the state in the future - was enough, wholly regardless of whether you were actually already planning or preparing to or not.

One could reasonably argue, thus, that in 1936 at the latest, Stalin officially launched the doctrine of 'preemptive strike'.

The newly unleashed campaign against the "enemies of the people" (a kind of internal "axis of evil", so to say), was of course accompanied with much emphasizing of the urgency of the situation, culminating in the show trials, stressing how much was at stake here. I mean, if these saboteurs - or saboteurs in waiting, sleeper cells so to say - were to actually succeed in eventually committing the sabotage they could be presumed to be able to perpetrate, the prospect of socialism itself, the entire project of the better society everybody had been forced to sacrifice so much for, might be shattered. Instead of the bliss of communism there would be war and destruction.

So much was at stake, one could say, that they couldn't afford to wait until the saboteurs-to-be would actually strike, too much damage would be wrecked: they had to be stopped before they actually even got round to doing - or even planning to do - something!

Hhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmm ....

0 Replies

And that relates to the current times how?

0 Replies

I'll leave identifying the parallels in logic (if not, obviously, in scope or degree) up to you.

Edit: well, I guess I already pretty much pointed them out.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn, I may have to beg out of our little digression. Unless I'm reading to late at night, we seem to be saying the same thing, and disagreeing all more.

0 Replies

Grand Duke wrote:

Revel - I'll send some big burly Scotsmen, Welshmen and Northern Irishmen round to explain why the difference is important! :wink:

Why, you big bully, you!

0 Replies

Should America's actions pass "the global test"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know