Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[hap0206]

or maybe he was thinking of a scenario like this:
=============
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."

So the U.N.--that club of dictators and anti-Semites--is worth dying for, but America isn't? This quote sharply summarizes why the thought of waking up two weeks from today to the news that Kerry is president-elect invokes in us a sense of utter dread.

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.

If North Korea gives nukes to terrorists and this is how a President Kerry responds, soldiers may not be the only Americans to die for the U.N.

BY JAMES TARANTO
Wednesday, October 20, 2004 3:28 p.m. EDT

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005784