This is taken from www.townhall.com
Townhall.com 's The ConservativeLog
: "From an article in today's Washington Post on John Kerry's approach to foreign policy:
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. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, 'If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no.'"
For a concrete example of how this might play out, we turn to Park Sang-seek, a Korean "peace studies" academic, who writes (with apparent approval) in the Korea Herald:
"Kerry is likely to rely on the United Nations in dealing with any future crises in Northeast Asia and the Korean Peninsula. Take a hypothetical situation in the Korean Peninsula: it is discovered that North Korea has experimented with nuclear weapons or exported nuclear materials to hostile nations or terrorist groups. Bush may make a surgical strike without consulting South Korea and the United Nations. Kerry is likely to try to solve the issue through multilateral forums, particularly the United Nations."
The first part of this is directly from the man who would wish to be our President. He seems to think that the UN knows best how we Americans should protect ourselves, or die in the name of the greater world good. So I was just wondering what Sen. Kerry would say if terrorists from, say, Syria attacked us in the US, and the UN said we couldn't retaliate. If he listened to the UN, like he says he would, then how could he say that he has the best interests of America at heart. He would probably be the first president to be impeached (fully kicked out of office) if that happened. I don't think Americans would stand for it. If he didn't listen to the UN and retaliated anyway, then he reveals himself as lying to get the vote. Of course he would have to retaliate, and so just by simply saying what he is saying shows how he is trying to mislead us.
Kerry says no unilateral action, and no action without prior UN approval. Well if the above situation happened (very unlikely since Bush is fighting this War in the terrorist’s house instead of letting them come here), Americans wouldn't give a damn if we had a single ally, we would demand action. Even if our great allies in Britain wouldn't go with us, and I believe they will be the last nation to ever turn its back on us, retaliation would be the priority, second only the rescuing of any survivors.
I will let you all in now on what I think will happen if Kerry gets into office. As you can tell I don't like him. I think of him as a liar who takes whatever stand he thinks will help him best politically. If Kerry gets into office the US would quickly fall into a pit unfulfilled promises, allies we turned our backs on (Kerry has already called our current allies bullied and coerced nations, another outrageous lie), and terrorist taking new liberties with our lives. He has not the backbone or moral strength needed to control this situation let alone bring it to a favorable end. In other words if Kerry wins it will not only meet with UN approval, but terrorist approval as well.