GLOBAL GARBAGE

"What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?" asks Jim Lehrer, moderator of the first presidential debate. Says Senator Kerry, "The president always has the right, and always has had the right for preemptive strike… you have to do it in a way that passes the test, 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."
Sure, so next time we get terrorized and we decide to take the offensive in defending ourselves, we have to ask permission from the world’s nations before we execute our plan? It will be weeks or months before they can be persuaded of our just cause, and by then every terrorist on the face of the earth will have heard of the news and had the time to prepare for our "awe-full" action. Then, you must consider what happens if we do not obtain their approval. The time if and when we are attacked again will be out of our hands and in those of the enemy.
Consider for a moment the powers that would review our intentions of preemptive attacks:
Certainly the United Nations would have a say in things. But we can’t expect it to O.K, much less support our attacks on terrorism when it won’t even enforce its own legislation.
On September 28 of 2001, the Security Council passed Resolution 1373, establishing the Counter –Terrorism Committee, which is commanded by the resolution to "Deny all forms of financial support for terrorist groups; suppress the provision of safe haven, substance or support for terrorists …and criminalize active and passive assistance for terrorism in domestic laws and bring violators of these laws to justice." Twelve days before the resolution came into play, John Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, testified that Syria sponsors terrorists and possesses or is working toward possession of WMDs, yet the UN allows the state that broke the resolution to continue to sit in the Security Council. It is mind-joggling that John Kerry would pursue consent for our national actions from such an unstable organization.
Other countries whose leave would be sought are France and Germany. It has been confirmed that France aided in the escape of Iraqi war criminals from coalition forces. I do not think a country in that position would assent to a plan for the hunting down and elimination of terrorists and their benefactors. I see no light in Germany either. BBC reported that recently elected Germany chancellor Gerhard Schroeder won his race by spouting anti-americanisms i.e. accusing President Bush’s America of "playing around" with the war against Iraq.
Additional countries would tend to let their disparaging jealousy of the U.S. interfere with their good judgement. Therefore, it would be foolhardy to allocate ourselves as clients under the authority of alien nations!
Now, let me clarify myself. It is absolutely to our advantage when we can work with other countries to achieve success; but when a man who wants to be commander-in-chief and leader of this nation proposes that we restrain ability to decide on when and if we should make moves concerning our national defense - so we can make world happy (yeah right) – It absolutely blows my mind.
As Connecticut columnist Joe Bell said it, "The United States should always work with allies and seek cooperation between nations. But America cannot survive with a president who is answerable to someone other than ‘we the people’ in matters of national security and defense."