| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| ANOTHER VIETNAM? |
| 2004-10-05 |
| JOHN KERRY is famously hard to pin down; you can reach out to grasp his opinion only to find that it has flitted away like a bashful butterfly, or a goldfish you are trying to catch with your bare hands. But nowadays his pronouncements and campaign ads are easy to read. They suggest that Iraq is like Vietnam; that our top priority is accordingly not to win but to get out. John Kerry evidently believes, a propos Vietnam, that we should have run away sooner. Many Americans disagree. Many Americans believe that we should have stood by our friends until a free and stable South Vietnam had taken root. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #15 "I just wonder why don't we develop neuclear energy." Because leftist Greenies oppose it. The excuse given for their opposition is safety, but the real reason is they don't want us to have energy. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-10-05 8:45:23 PM |
| #14 Wondering, None, except fear itself. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-10-05 8:22:13 PM |
| #13 many seamstresses and dentists employed when the leftists rend their garments and gnash their teeth....so, no downside |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-10-05 8:16:13 PM |
| #12 Oil is a legitimate business. I just wonder why don't we develop neuclear energy. It will deprive Saudis and others from the funds for their hate education and hate charities. It will save this country $400bh per year. It will increase employment in this country. It will reduce our trade deficit. It will further promote technology development. Any downside? |
| Posted by: Wondering 2004-10-05 8:13:18 PM |
| #11 Others believe we should have bombed Hanoi into a smoking ruin, then told the Soviets to STFU if they didn't want to catch a first strike right in the ass... |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-10-05 2:48:07 PM |
#10 Kerry on the other hand is a socialist feltching liar, a man who has spent his entire senate career trying to disarm the USA.Badanov, you left out "gigalo," "traitor," and "wanker." ;-) |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-10-05 10:17:45 AM |
| #9 Muslim terrorists will make another 9-11 move, early in the Kerry presidency, and American public opinion will force him to use overwhelming force against enemy-Islam. Al Qaeda has been rocked so badly the last three years I seriously doubt they could launch much more than a small arms attack in the US. You can thank Bush, our military and our spooks for that. Bush is a pathological Muslim lover, and a Saudi puppet. Kerry is more secular, and isn't owned like the oil-patch slave. The oil industry is a legitimate industry that has, through the production and distribution of its product, made life better for billions of people. Kerry on the other hand is a socialist feltching liar, a man who has spent his entire senate career trying to disarm the USA. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-10-05 7:18:31 AM |
| #8 Because he represents the best opportunity for total war against Muslims. While his analysis is flawed, his conclusion is correct. If you want an apocalyptic end to the WOT then voting Kerry is the way to get it. (standard disclaimer - I'm not an American and this is not a solicitation to vote for any candidate ;-)) |
| Posted by: phil_b 2004-10-05 6:51:56 AM |
| #7 ah, poor ANonymous4336 - he's obviously a dim troll - and was just sure his comments would be well received by the type of folks who post at a site like rantburg. |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-10-05 6:14:34 AM |
| #6 A4336 Poll a couple of hundred Kerry supporters on how they feel about using overwhelming force and WMD against Muslims, then get back to us. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2004-10-05 5:24:18 AM |
| #5 A4336 - You are, hands down, the dhimmest bulb on RB this morning. Congratulations. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-10-05 4:24:21 AM |
| #4 Machiavelli would vote for Kerry. Why? Because he represents the best opportunity for total war against Muslims. Bush has proven that he will waste billions on smart-bombs, that do nothing to halt enemy atrocity-propaganda. Bush turned a $200 billion surplus into a $450 billion deficit, because of his refusal to use WMD against Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran. Only Kerry can be forced to launch. Why? Muslim terrorists will make another 9-11 move, early in the Kerry presidency, and American public opinion will force him to use overwhelming force against enemy-Islam. Bush is a pathological Muslim lover, and a Saudi puppet. Kerry is more secular, and isn't owned like the oil-patch slave. |
| Posted by: Anonymous4336 2004-10-05 2:02:45 AM |
| #3 ANOTHER VIETNAM? Uhh, no. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-10-05 12:48:33 AM |
| #2 Fuck. Even Vietnam wasn't what the Dhimmicraps mean when they say Vietnam. Truth took a hike a long time ago. Who wants to take the time and show the intellectual honesty needed to understand the complex interwoven realities that were "Vietnam" anymore? Certainly not the Dhimmis. Meme fuckwits, the lot of 'em. InstaFools. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-10-05 12:46:35 AM |
| #1 tipper - a bit of friendly advice: no need for ALL CAPS on the titles unless its something HUGE like a candidate caught with a dead girl or a live boy. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-10-05 12:46:26 AM |