Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 10/21/2004 View Wed 10/20/2004 View Tue 10/19/2004 View Mon 10/18/2004 View Sun 10/17/2004 View Sat 10/16/2004 View Fri 10/15/2004
1
2004-10-21 Home Front: Politix
Kerry: Our Soldiers Dying for UN Good; Dying for US Bad
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-10-21 11:36:22 AM|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Maybe he thinks he's running for Kofi Annan's job, not W's?
Posted by Desert Blondie 2004-10-21 11:52:42 AM||   2004-10-21 11:52:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Desert Blondie - I think it's more likely he thinks they should be the same job.

Kerry thinks the UN should run the US.

I think we should run the UN out of the US. Send the bastards to the Sudan; according to them, there's nothing going on

And send the Kerrys with them. Or they could go back to Mozambique - I hear it's lovely this time of year.
Posted by Barbara Skolaut  2004-10-21 12:05:14 PM||   2004-10-21 12:05:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Barbara -- There's no four star restaurants in the Sudan! How do you expect them to continue their very important work if they can't get foie gras? ;)
Posted by Desert Blondie 2004-10-21 12:18:17 PM||   2004-10-21 12:18:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Or they could go back to Mozambique - I hear it's lovely this time of year.

Actually, M'bique is moving toward Summer and the skitters and crocks are a pain.
Posted by RN  2004-10-21 12:19:00 PM||   2004-10-21 12:19:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Let's be very clear about Kerry's statement:

- for US soldiers to die in the course of a United Nations effort is justified

- otherwise, US soldiers should stay in the US

In other words, the UN is entitled to decide where and why US soldiers should die. ONLY the UN. Which would mean Kofi Annan de facto being commander-in-chief of US forces.
Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2004-10-21 12:28:22 PM|| [http://radio.weblogs.com/0103811/categories/currentEvents/]  2004-10-21 12:28:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Great post Barbara! Appreciated your comment, Kalle.

I've said it before: John Kerry is a closet totalitarian. His love affair with the UN, and his close associations with the Bildeberger group (those billionaire guys from all over the world who believe nationalism is the number one impediment to business, and who want to bring about a world government system that would benefit their investments) are dead giveaways in and of themselves. Of course his voting record on banning firearms is another at this National Rifle Association link. What a doof. He was even goose "hunting" in Ohio today, trying to trick people and get votes. He'll do ANYTHING to get elected--another earmark of despots.

This election seems to be a contest between the citizens who are able to be deceived--and thus will vote for Kerry, and those who can see through Kerry, and who will vote for Bush and the continuance of our nation, and for freedom.

Posted by ex-lib 2004-10-21 12:54:43 PM||   2004-10-21 12:54:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Worshipping at the altar of the UN. For shame, for shame.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-10-21 1:13:15 PM||   2004-10-21 1:13:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but...we didn't get involved in Bosnia, true? We got involved in Serbia which the UN did NOT approve.

So, according to Kerry, Clinton fought the wrong war at the wrong time, no?
Posted by AlanC  2004-10-21 1:18:05 PM||   2004-10-21 1:18:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Man, this is everywhere. This is the comment I left at VodkaPundit.
----
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.
----
Someone brought up the same thing AlanC did: we didn't go into the Balkans with UN approval. But NATO was there. It depends on whether you see Kerry as calling for the UN specifically, or whether he just thought we needed allies, and should not go in unilaterally. (As opposed to Bush in Iraq, who went in "unilaterally", meaning, without France and Germany.)
Posted by Angie Schultz 2004-10-21 1:59:55 PM|| [http://darkblogules.blogspot.com]  2004-10-21 1:59:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Angie,

The Balkan adventure was a farce that is of almost no relevance to the security challenges we face in this century. That war involved no US strategic interest and properly should have been fought by the Europeans, whose incompetence forced our involvement. That war was fought at 10,000 feet and was in the words of one of our generals, an "88-day campaign that lasted 87 days too long."

By contrast, our global war on islamofascism is a US-led affair in crucial regions that directly affect our economic survival, and this war can only be fought with large numbers of troops on the ground. It will take not 88 days but decades of effort, blood and treasure. There is utterly no comparison between this paramount challenge and the absurd little freak show that was the balkan episode.

For Kerry to use that irrelevant little non-war as a prime example of his thinking is highly revealing. It's as if the only war he considers legitimate is one in which there's no US interest at stake. Pathetic.
Posted by lex 2004-10-21 2:55:04 PM||   2004-10-21 2:55:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Part of liberal dogma: use of American power is only acceptable if it does not benefit the USA.
US out of the UN and UN out of the US.
Posted by SR71 2004-10-21 3:08:31 PM||   2004-10-21 3:08:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Taking a different tack…let’s say Kerry gets his wish and the USA becomes the “police force” of the UN. Does that mean that when the UN calls…the US hauls!

Or taken a different way…in most UN sponsored deployments, the blue beanies, while armed (with small arms) are precluded from taking aggressive action to save locals being massacred, or defending themselves.

For example: In 1994, the Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR) and the Hutu Militia, systematically worked together; setting up roadblocks, and going from house to house killing Tutsis and temperate Hutu politicians. Thousands of innocent Rwandans were killed on the first day of the genocide because UNAMIR (United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda) troops were forbidden to intervene, due to the nature of their "monitoring mandate".

The former peacekeeping commander during the Rwandan genocide told a U.N. tribunal that world leaders allowed the deaths of more than 500,000 people by feigning ignorance of what was taking place.


Retired Canadian Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire told the court he could do little to stop the killing because his U.N. force had a limited mandate and an insufficient number of troops and weapons, and that his appeals for reinforcements were rejected.

He specifically mentioned France, Belgium and the United States "as being uncooperative ... I did not get intelligence information from them."

Belgium ordered the withdrawal of its peacekeepers, the backbone of the operation, shortly after Rwandan troops killed 10 of its soldiers.

Shades of things to come should Kerry be elected!

But at least the US deaths would be honorable.
Posted by RN  2004-10-21 3:15:47 PM||   2004-10-21 3:15:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 That's J. Forbes Kerry voted in favor of Desert Storm, which was UN approved.

Oops. He voted against it. So, even with UN "authorization," if it is in our interest, he is opposed to it.

Yes, I do question his patriotism.
Posted by jackal  2004-10-21 3:38:33 PM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]  2004-10-21 3:38:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 For Kerry to use that irrelevant little non-war as a prime example of his thinking is highly revealing.

Unless I have misunderstood, he made that remark in 1994, at which time it was relevant.

I share the fears of most people here, that Kerry will surrender (or at least lend) our sovereignty to the UN. But this quote does not make that point, when seen in the context of the times, and it's dishonest (or just dumb) of Kristol to suggest that it does.

(I tried to get to the WaPo to look at the original article, in case he had repeated this statement recently. But three bugmenot registrations didn't work, so to hell with it.)
Posted by Angie Schultz 2004-10-21 4:06:41 PM|| [http://darkblogules.blogspot.com]  2004-10-21 4:06:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Great picture, mercy bowcup.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-10-21 4:15:15 PM||   2004-10-21 4:15:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Yes, you have misunderstood both the point of the article and the deeper truth about the continuity in Kerry's thinking over the past several decades.

Here's the assertion in the sentence preceding the quote, for which the 1994 quote is offered as illustration (my emphasis is added): "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."

Note the present tense used in "runs so deep": the crystal-clear assertion here is that this not only was Kerry's view in 1996 but also remains his view, indeed is a "deep," core belief of Kerry's.

If you have evidence that Kerry has changed his mind, or that this is not a deep conviction of Kerry's, then you should bring it forth, and direct your ire not at Kristol but at the author of the WaPo article.
Posted by lex 2004-10-21 4:20:56 PM||   2004-10-21 4:20:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Kerry likes to work with allies because he's a weenie. On each debate he was practically glued to the moderator--looking for personal approval and liberal "team-manship." During the second debate he mentioned McCain over and over (his fellow puke Vietnam POW betrayer) to the point that Bush had to remind everyone that McCain--the senator from Arizona--has endorsed the Republicans and Bush for President (at least publicly). The point is, Kerry can't do anything without getting others' approval, and when he does do something on his own, he goes around burning Vietnamese villages with his Zippo lighter for no reason, or he tells a story about a phantom dog that would pee on him during battles in Vietnam (I think to cover up him peeing on himself), or about "secret missions" to Cambodia. Think you saw recklessnes and idiocy regarding military action/ nonaction, and social/psychological dysfunction, during the Clinton years? Ya ain't seen nothin' yet--if Kerry gets elected, that is.
Posted by ex-lib 2004-10-21 4:49:50 PM||   2004-10-21 4:49:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Re: Angie #9

Your comment only reinforces the view that Kerry is only in favor of the US taking action if it is of no direct concern to the US and is requested by someone else i.e. NATO or the UN.

My personal position is that we should never have gotten involved in the Balkans as we had no "dog in the fight". I bent, grudgingly, in favor due to the genocide argument (see Rwanda). Of course we now find out that the genocide was not much more real than the Israeli "genocide" in Jennin.

Given the "selflessness" of our old "allies" I would never do anything at the behest of NATO without a direct attack on one of them from an outside power.

I would not be at all unhappy for the US to leave NATO and form smaller alliances in our interest with the East European states and those in our Iraqi coalition.
Posted by AlanC  2004-10-21 4:53:39 PM||   2004-10-21 4:53:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 lex:

This is the journalists' spin. They are using this quote as an illustration of their own assertions. In doing so, they have taken a quote out of the context of its times.

It's exactly the same as when journalists imply that Bush is a hypocrite because, in his first election campaign, he disdained "nation building" -- exactly what he's doing now in Iraq. They have removed those campaign statements from their pre-9/11 context.

My point is not about what Kerry believes. It's about journalistic honesty, and the fact that this spin has given some people, who ought to know better, the vapors.
Posted by Angie Schultz 2004-10-21 5:09:58 PM|| [http://darkblogules.blogspot.com]  2004-10-21 5:09:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Fair enough.
Posted by lex 2004-10-21 5:11:43 PM||   2004-10-21 5:11:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 close associations with the Bildeberger

watchem out! Master 4doo loiks! You could set him off and he would be thinging that thong of his and that would be ludacriss.
Posted by Ambassador Tyson 2004-10-21 5:16:51 PM||   2004-10-21 5:16:51 PM|| Front Page Top

16:00 Crerert Ebbeting3481
17:02 Crerert Ebbeting3481
18:01 2b
12:17 Ptah
12:00 Ptah
10:55 Jules 187
10:49 Mrs. Davis
10:47 Jules 187
10:37 Frank G
10:33 lex
10:26 Jules 187
10:12 Mrs. Davis
10:05 Mrs. Davis
10:04 Frank G
09:59 lex
08:32 Tom
08:20 Frank G
06:51 Shipman
01:17 eLarson
00:54 Kalle (kafir forever)
00:52 Sock Puppet of Doom
00:50 Asedwich
00:20 Sock Puppet of Doom
00:18 Sock Puppet of Doom









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com