Article

2007-03-28 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Chinelet Cruse5851 2007-03-28 14:35|| || Front Page|| [11137 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Funny how this wanker can bleat on about a nuclear 9-11 and not even mention the elephant in the living room, namely, Iran.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-03-28 15:39|| 2007-03-28 15:39|| Front Page Top

#2 What a total idiot. Moslem leaders don't care about nuclear arms reduction. They just want to kill us or reduce us to slave status.

And withdrawing US troops from Iraq would cause a Middle Eastern conflagration worse than anything witnessed in SE Asia under the communists.

Are the Democrats utterly insane?

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2007-03-28 15:50|| 2007-03-28 15:50|| Front Page Top

#3 There are only three likely sources of a nuclear 9-11:
1) North Korea - we retain a major military presence nearby and have constantly been working diplomatic angles through China.
2) Pakistan (the only proven nuclear player on the board) - we have a large military presence nearby and have constantly been working diplomatic angles, both within Pakistan and with India.
3) Iran - we have a large military presence on two sides (three if you count Turkey) and have been working the diplomatic angles as best we can through Europe and the UN.

Other players are all 'rational' and hence deterrable the same as during the Cold War.

What other approaches does Mr. Richardson have in mind? A Manhattan project anti-nuke? Is this some kind of bomb that would 'suck up' the energy and radiation from a nuclear detonation? That would require some seriously new physics.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2007-03-28 15:58|| 2007-03-28 15:58|| Front Page Top

#4 Mr. Richardson is running for the Vice Presidential nomination and is currently far behind Barak Hussein Osama.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-03-28 16:08|| 2007-03-28 16:08|| Front Page Top

#5 Are the Democrats utterly insane?

No, I don't think so (with a few exceptions like Kucinich). I think they are fully sane - which makes their actions far worse.

Posted by xbalanke 2007-03-28 16:53|| 2007-03-28 16:53|| Front Page Top

#6 What's Hispanic Bill's policy on securing the borders to prevent nukes entering the US? Nevermind. That would be doing 'more'.

Posted by Phineter Thraviger 2007-03-28 16:54|| 2007-03-28 16:54|| Front Page Top

#7 So - he favors a preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities?

Posted by DMFD 2007-03-28 16:59|| 2007-03-28 16:59|| Front Page Top

#8 I do no think Barak Osama will get a VP nod, the water between Osama and Hillary is already poisoned. Richardson is moving in as the prime candidate for that spot.

Having said that these comments, if made during the Clinton administration, or even during Bush sr would have been wise. Now they come off as naive for two reasons (1) it assumes the USA can't multitask (2) it assumes Putin would gladly hand over or sell russian weapons to the US.

After all the paranoid nonsense Putin has spewed in the last few years I just don't see him selling.

Posted by rjschwarz 2007-03-28 17:26|| 2007-03-28 17:26|| Front Page Top

#9 A bizarre combo of common sense and idiocy by the former baseball non-star.

One of my pet bugaboos is touched on here.

The US has been "distracted" by Iraq? What are we, Belgium? Let's take this template and review some history.

I guess in 1942 FDR should have (1) abandoned the Soviets as they teetered near collapse (2) abandoned the UK (3) disdained any initiatives involving the European theater, including North Africa (4) ignored the CBI theater (too far away, mostly British) (5) focused exclusively on the Solomons and then the Gilberts campaigns. That way, the US wouldn't have been "distracted".

It astounds me that something so utterly idiotic can pass the lips of so many public figures, and to date I've never seen the withering, vituperative, humiliating bitch-slap lecture that such nonsense deserves in return. The Dems and select GOP retards have been mouthing this idiocy for years, I've yet to see them slapped down.

Memo to Richardson, who has beclowned himself: the US of 60 years ago could have - in fact did - handle 100 Iraqs at one time, with a bit more than half the population, virtually no technology as we understand that term today, horrible intel (except for code-breaking), in a dozen time zones around the world. Against adversaries 10,000 times more sophisticated, lethal, and organized, and in fact backed by large industrial bases.

Sheesh. Is it asking too much for a single member of Congress or the administration to come out and talk sense in an intelligent and historically literate fashion to help avoid further degradation of public discourse?

I know the answer.

Posted by Verlaine 2007-03-28 19:42|| 2007-03-28 19:42|| Front Page Top

#10 to date I've never seen the withering, vituperative, humiliating bitch-slap lecture that such nonsense deserves in return.

Been listening to Paul Harvey lately? Sombody's practicing.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-03-28 20:02|| 2007-03-28 20:02|| Front Page Top

#11 Nimble - nope. Occasionally catch fragments in the car. Isn't Thompson doing that gig now?

Posted by Verlaine 2007-03-28 20:25|| 2007-03-28 20:25|| Front Page Top

#12 IIRC, Bush Sr. started something like this, and everyone has continued it down through the decade+ since. We're helping all the former Soviet satellites either dispose of or secure their nuke arms. As Glenmore said, any nuke used by terrorists will come from North Korea, Pakistan, or Iran, not from any of the former Soviet satellites, and doubtfully from Russia itself (although there are those in Russia that would sell anything for cash, especially US $$$). Richardson is trying to attract attention, so he's spewing what he thinks will get him attention. He's also been AGAINST stronger border protection. What a POS.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2007-03-28 21:14|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2007-03-28 21:14|| Front Page Top

#13 Dubya is in "FORTRESS ME" mode, plus he has already announced he will veto the new spending bill wid the March 2009 timetable. The ball is still squarely in Moud's corner. Unless something changes to Dubya-USA's detriment, Moud knows Dubya still has roughly 1-2/3 years left to STRENGTHEN the US-Allied position in the ME + WORLD agz Radical Iran. THE USA WILL BE THE SAME + LIKELY STRONGER, MOUD = IRAN WILL BE SAME OR LIKELY WEAKER, EVEN IFF NO US/US-led INVASION = AIR ATTACK ONLY TAKES PLACE. Dubya-Allies have the time advantage, Moud-Iran-Radical Islam do not. As said times before, MOUD's = IRAN = RADICAL ISLAM's GREATEST "ACE" ARE SCARED POLS + ESPEC ANTI-AMER AMERICANS [ALREADY?] EMPLACED WITHIN THE US NPE. Worse to worse, some PC thingys or events must take place for the latter to rise to unchallengeable US-specific POLITICAL POWER. GOOD POLITIX, EVEN FOR AMER'S ENEMIES, IS KEEPING OPTIONS OPEN, CORRECT!? Iff Dubya does noting to invoke a "justified" retaliatory mil or terror strike [new9-11/Amer Hiroshima]by Iran-Radic Islam agz America, INSIDE AMERICA BUT OUTSIDE OF WASHINGTON DC, HOW WILL MOUD FORESTALL "REGIME CHANGE" INSIDE IRAN vv IMPLOSION? Dubya is "upping the ante" such that IT MAY NOT BE ENUFF FOR MOUD-RADICAL ISLAM TO SIMPLY OUTLAST DUBYA'S TENURE AS POTUS.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-03-28 21:16|| 2007-03-28 21:16|| Front Page Top

#14 The anti-US agendists want to induce = force America under anti-US OWG + anti-US SWO/CWO, so even iff any new 9-11's = WMD Terror attack(s) occur, it must be pC "justifified"; plus the USA must be politically = forcibly limited or denied from unilater initiating/employing its full military power in retaliation = pre-emption. THE WOT = FUTURE US-CENTRIC OWG-NWO/New Global Order WILL ULTIMATELY BE WON OR LOST IN WASHINGTON DC, EVEN IFF WASHINGTON = HALLS OF CONGRESS MUST GLOW IN THE DARK.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-03-28 23:38|| 2007-03-28 23:38|| Front Page Top