Well articulated. Please forward to Bush Campaign. They could use this.
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Munn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 5:28 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: POLL:
He means that we should be able to convince other nations, primarily our
allies, that we are doing the right thing for the right reasons when we
undertake military action against another country. What he fails to
acknowledge or possibly to understand is that the right thing for us may not
be the right thing for our allies. He also fails to acknowledge that there is
a shift of power in Europe.
The whole premise of Kerry's argument is that other nations will agree with
us because of two factors- their interests are aligned with our interests, and
their leaders will make rational decisions based on their interests. It is
very clear that the interests of France, Germany, Russia, and China were
different from our interests in respect to Iraq. These four countries had
extensive economic ties with Iraq and were minting money from those ties.
Their leaders acted rationally in opposing the war because they knew they
would lose those substantial investments. And guess what, they have lost those
investments, so their judgement in the narrow scope of rational economic
decision-making was correct.
If you look at the picture in Europe, the entire experiment with a
constitution for Europe is on the verge of collapse because the interests of
France and Germany are not aligned with the interests of the rest of Europe.
There was a recent issue of The Economist with a great breakdown of the
situation.
The Central Europeans want to become part of the global club. Poland is
lobbying us to move our armed forces from Germany (high cost) to Poland (low
cost). It would save US taxpayers lots of money and it would be a big boon for
Poland's economy, but it would be a huge blow for parts of Germany. So it is
in Poland's interest to support us in Iraq in the hopes of bolstering their
chances in the military base sweepstakes.
Because of differing national interests, we are bound to fail a global test
in respect to action in any location of consequence. That is the reality of
today's multi-polar world.
>I've listened to the first debate again and the part about passing the
>"global test."
>
>Having heard it again, it seems clear to me that Mr. Kerry meant "full
>test" or "all encompassing test" versus a test on just a few factors.
>This would be opposed to what some are saying, that he meant
>"worldwide test."
>
>Anybody else agree?
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
