Article

2004-08-30 Home Front: Politix

Kerry: allow Iran to keep nuke plants but sanctions if they produce weapons

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 Frank G 2004-08-30 9:59:49 AM|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 German rearmament in the 1930s got the same response from weak and short-sighted politicians (and the public) - 'they really oughtn't be doing it, but as they are, and as they assure us it's not going to be used against us, it's better to let them get on with it.' The parallels between Nazi Germany and Iran today are strong. The rhetoric's there for all to hear (a true BGO for those willing to listen), the insane, aggressive and dictatorial politico-religious regime's in power, and there's also the fact that the western European powers are rushing to appease.

"Edwards said that if Iran failed to take what he called a 'great bargain,'"

History repeating itself, and here's Kedwards fighting to be the next Chamberlain?

Posted by Bulldog 2004-08-30 10:31:25 AM|| 2004-08-30 10:31:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 I should've credited Hugh Hewitt for the headsup on this one

Posted by Frank G 2004-08-30 10:36:47 AM|| 2004-08-30 10:36:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 This would be funny if it wasn't being said by someone that believes he has what it takes to be President.

Posted by RN 2004-08-30 10:37:14 AM|| 2004-08-30 10:37:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Didn't Jimmy Carter copyright his North Korea plan? What an oversight.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-08-30 10:40:20 AM|| 2004-08-30 10:40:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 President Kerry canât be allowed to happen!

I'm a bit more sanguine.

If Kerry doesn't get elected, obviously fine.

If Kerry does get elected, the people will get the consequences that demonstrate the foolishness of their former values and decision.

Either way, the mullahs are heading for a bruising.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-08-30 10:55:58 AM|| 2004-08-30 10:55:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 "...in exchange for giving up the right to retain the nuclear fuel that could be used for bomb-making..."
Now that would defeat the whole effort, wouldn't it. /sarcasm off/
Did it ever dawn on Mr. Peace In Our Time that they just might change their mind right before the exchange. What would the Moron Who Would Be President propose to do then -- nuke Iran before having time to consult France, or consult France while the Iranians stash the plutonium? Idiot.

Posted by Tom 2004-08-30 11:10:31 AM|| 2004-08-30 11:10:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 "If Kerry does get elected, the people will get the consequences..." Yeah, that's the part that bothers me. I've raised three kids that I love dearly and I don't want them to be nuked by an Iranian bomb coming up the Hudson River or the Delaware River or the Chesapeake Bay...

Posted by Tom 2004-08-30 11:15:03 AM|| 2004-08-30 11:15:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Bulldog wrote: German rearmament in the 1930s got the same response from weak and short-sighted politicians (and the public) - 'they really oughtn't be doing it, but as they are, and as they assure us it's not going to be used against us, it's better to let them get on with it.' The parallels between Nazi Germany and Iran today are strong.

The Iranians aren't rearming themselves like the Nazis did in the thirties. They claim to be building nuclear facilities for power plants. And how can we trust our own intel when they were clearly wrong with Iraq?

Posted by RelevantTopic 2004-08-30 11:23:50 AM|| 2004-08-30 11:23:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 RT: The Iranians aren't rearming themselves like the Nazis did in the thirties. They claim to be building nuclear facilities for power plants. And how can we trust our own intel when they were clearly wrong with Iraq?

Because WMD's don't matter. Iran has long been a thorn in America's side. Even if the intelligence about WMD's is wrong, removing a threat to American security interests that has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans in the past is no sin. Besides, Iran has plenty of oil - there is no reason for it to be opening nuclear power plants, which generate power at far higher costs than can be generated using nuclear fuel.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-30 11:29:42 AM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-30 11:29:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 ZF: Besides, Iran has plenty of oil - there is no reason for it to be opening nuclear power plants, which generate power at far higher costs than can be generated using nuclear fuel.

That should have read:

Besides, Iran has plenty of oil - there is no reason for it to be opening nuclear power plants, which generate power at far higher costs than can be generated using oil-fired plants.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-30 11:31:20 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-08-30 11:31:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 I wouldnt say our own Intel was entirely wrong about Iraq. Saddam was, it turned out, seeking yelowcake in Nigeria. Everyone's intel said that Saddam had WMD at the time. For all we know he might have had WMD at the time - he did use it against the Kurds and Iranians.

And plus I dont think we can trust France and Germany (or, God forbid, the UN) to 'monitor' any agreement -- seeing how they were pretty much 'bought off' with Saddam's oil-for-palaces program.

Posted by CrazyFool 2004-08-30 11:37:15 AM|| 2004-08-30 11:37:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Edwards said that if Iran failed to take what he called a "great bargain," it would essentially confirm that it is building nuclear weapons under the cover of a supposedly peaceful nuclear power initiative.

And then what are you gonna do? File a lawsuit?

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-08-30 11:39:07 AM|| 2004-08-30 11:39:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 North Korea has nuclear weapons. Or at least that's what the CIA believes. And as Beijing has told Washington, they don't want to see our intel because of the Iraq intel fiasco. So, my question is, if we believe that the DPRK actually has nuclear weapons, why would we allow that, but not allow the Iranians to do the same? Perhaps we should actually attack those who actually pose a threat to us...not ones who tried to as President Bush said, "Tried to kill my Dad."
I mean my God, we went to war in Iraq because we claimed they has WMDs, which we've never found! Saddam was a bad guy, but was it okay to bomb Kosovo back in 1999? Should we have sent ground troops into Belgrade to take out Milosevic, who was just as bad as Saddam? If you believe that the war in Iraq was good, then shouldn't the ground troops being placed in Yugoslavia been just the same? So then, why in 1999 was there this massive outrage from the right about the proposal to send ground troops into Belgrade to take Milosevic out?
Sure, there was 9-11, but don't you think that was in a long time coming? Sure, it's a terrible thing and I hope it never happens again. But you know what Osama Bin Laden's biggest grief with the United States was on September 11? That the United States has troops in Saudi Arabia! Ahh! We had troops in Saudi Arabia dating from the first Gulf War...a war we fought for good reason! Saddam invaded Kuwait; with UN support, we kicked him out. There were other planned attacks during the 90s that the Clinton administration broke up, such as the plots to bomb 10 airplanes over the Pacific, the bombing of the Lincoln and Holland tunnels in NYC, and stopping the millenium LAX plot. The devastation of blowing up 10 planes over the Pacific would be devastating! Bombing out the Lincoln and Holland tunnels would produce the same result, as would the LAX plot have.
Meanwhile, we have President Bush. John Kerry, idiot? Maybe. But, he won't lead the United States to become the future axis power of a future WWIII (the US versus the world), like Bush will.

Posted by LiberalStrike 2004-08-30 11:40:55 AM|| 2004-08-30 11:40:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 For all we know he might have had WMD at the time - he did use it against the Kurds and Iranians.
Guess what? That WMD he used, we gave him.

Posted by RelevantTopic 2004-08-30 11:42:21 AM|| 2004-08-30 11:42:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 The Iranians aren't rearming themselves like the Nazis did in the thirties.

IrrelevantTopic: Gosh, no they're not, are they? The Nazis had to acquire overwhelmingly powerful conventional forces because nuclear technology wasn't available to them. It's a lot simpler for the Iranians - a small number of nukes are more of a threat than a large number of armoured divisions, and the only tool that could work against Iran's chosen enemies - the US and Israel. And re. your ludicrous belief that Iran want the facilities as power pants -see ZF's response. What kind of gullible fool are you?

Posted by Bulldog 2004-08-30 11:44:43 AM|| 2004-08-30 11:44:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 How gullible are you for believing GWB's WMD intel?

Posted by RelevantTopic 2004-08-30 11:46:22 AM|| 2004-08-30 11:46:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 Perhaps we should actually attack those who actually pose a threat to us...not ones who tried to as President Bush said, "Tried to kill my Dad."

Uhhh, because attacking a nuclear-armed country is a bit more difficult to do? It's far less difficult (and messy) to stop some rogue nation from going nuclear, than it is to whack someone who already has them.

But, he won't lead the United States to become the future axis power of a future WWIII (the US versus the world), like Bush will.

Oh dear, any credibility you might have had just went out the window. *yawn*

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-08-30 11:46:30 AM|| 2004-08-30 11:46:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 Guess what? That WMD he used, we gave him.

Reall DU 'tard aren't you? F-off back to kindergarten you ignorant shit.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-08-30 11:48:27 AM|| 2004-08-30 11:48:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 Guess what? That WMD he used, we gave him.

Wrong answer. We didn't "give" him the WMDs he used. Thank you for playing, and we have some nice parting gifts backstage for you.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-08-30 11:49:30 AM|| 2004-08-30 11:49:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 George W Bush is not good for this country. He claims he is, but he's not. He's destroyed our government's surplus that we had. He started a war because as President Bush said, "Tried to kill my Dad."
And the credibility you say that went out the window? WRONG. Unless you want to see our country become the enemy of the world, then fine, vote for Bush.

Posted by LiberalStrike 2004-08-30 11:50:18 AM|| 2004-08-30 11:50:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 #8
Following the logic of your intelligence argument will turn us to being a perma reactionary force. I think we have already seen the results of that policy. No thanks.

#13
North Korea is Clinton's fault as he made deals with them, and as it turns out, NK was breaking those deals behind our backs. Kerry's proposal is a regurgitation of Clinton's failed policy with NK. John Kerry, idiot? Yes. This is very recent history which he seemed to have forgotten.

Posted by Ol_Dirty_American 2004-08-30 11:53:07 AM|| 2004-08-30 11:53:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 #18 Guess what? That WMD he used, we gave him. Reall DU 'tard aren't you? F-off back to kindergarten you ignorant shit.
Posted by: Bulldog 2004-08-30 11:48:27 AM

#19 Guess what? That WMD he used, we gave him. Wrong answer. We didn't "give" him the WMDs he used. Thank you for playing, and we have some nice parting gifts backstage for you.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-08-30 11:49:30 AM

Oh, so I'm the ignorant one. Show me where you can prove that the US DIDNT GIVE WMDS to Iraq?

Posted by RelevantTopic 2004-08-30 11:53:49 AM|| 2004-08-30 11:53:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 But GWB would rather seek revenge than bring justice to the world because he'd rather get the man who as President Bush said, "Tried to kill my Dad," than get the man who's actually proliferating nuclear weapons.

Posted by LiberalStrike 2004-08-30 11:55:58 AM|| 2004-08-30 11:55:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 LiberalStrike: I mean my God, we went to war in Iraq because we claimed they has WMDs, which we've never found!

We went to war in Iraq to:

1) remove a dangerous thug who broke his word to us repeatedly

2) remove a dangerous thug who was aiding and abetting terrorism

3) remove a dangerous thug who was scheming to obtain weapons that could harm us

4) remove a dangerous thug who had his hell on the necks of 24 million innocents

5) remove a dangerous thug who greatly complicated our ability to fight the War on Terror properly

6) remove a dangerous thug who had WMD in the past, had not renounced the quest for WMD, and who refused to come clean when challenged to do so by the UN.

Posted by Steve White 2004-08-30 11:56:04 AM|| 2004-08-30 11:56:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 Oh, so I'm the ignorant one. Show me where you can prove that the US DIDNT GIVE WMDS to Iraq?

Will do, when you demonstrate that France never supplied anthrax to al Qaeda. Moron. You prove the US did.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-08-30 12:00:53 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:00:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Relevant Topic asks about WMD:

Saddam got most of his chemical WMD components and technology from the Soviet Union/Russia. Ditto for bio WMD, with assistance from France, Germany and China. The ONLY thing the US did there was to sell (via ATCC, a commerical biological supply house that I do business with myself) reference cultures of certain bacteria (e.g., anthrax) that are commonly used in medical laboratories. The Iraqis used these as part of their weaponization program.

As to nuclear WMD, Iraq got virtually all of its components from SU/Russia, France, Germany and the rest of Europe, much of it through disguised purchases of "dual-use" products, or through third-party cut-outs.

Please examine carefully, RT -- of all the arms Iraq had, 57% came from the SU/Russia, 13% from China, and 12% from France. The US sold Iraq less than 0.3% of its arms, and virtually none of its WMD (source: Agency for International Disarmament).

Posted by Steve White 2004-08-30 12:01:56 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:01:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 You forgot footnotes!

We went to war in Iraq to:
1) remove a dangerous thug who broke his word to us repeatedly
2) remove a dangerous thug who was aiding and abetting terrorism*
3) remove a dangerous thug who was scheming to obtain weapons that could harm us*
4) remove a dangerous thug who had his hell on the necks of 24 million innocents
5) remove a dangerous thug who greatly complicated our ability to fight the War on Terror properly*
6) remove a dangerous thug who had WMD in the past, had not renounced the quest for WMD, and who refused to come clean when challenged to do so by the UN*.

2*)Hasn't been proven
3*)The yellow cake issue is still iffy
5*)We werent' fighting the WoT in Iraq
6*)Saddam did allow the Inspectors back in, gave thousands of documents that the US called "lies," and the US gave Saddam the WMDs he used in Iraq and Iran. Now a slowly growing number of Kurds want to see US officials on trial for giving the WMDs to Saddam.

Posted by LiberalStrike 2004-08-30 12:03:56 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:03:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Donât bother Steve. The âcompassionate peace crowdâ could care less about the rape rooms, torture chambers and gassing of the Kurds. They just love to hate. Hate-Bush is what they are all about.

If it was 1920 USA â theyâd be the KKK, if it was 1930 Germany, theyâd be the Naziâs. In 40âs, 50âs and 60âs it was the bourgeois they wanted dead. In the 90âs it was the 3Râs â rednecks, republicans and religious people. Now itâs Bush â it doesnâmatter how many die to feed their addiction to hate. Blame and Shame â thatâs the game.

Posted by B 2004-08-30 12:05:25 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:05:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 #20
Dot com crash destroyed our surplus. Not George Bush. The Iraq war was done primarily to spread democracy.

Posted by Ol_Dirty_American 2004-08-30 12:05:40 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:05:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Oh, so I'm the ignorant one. Show me where you can prove that the US DIDNT GIVE WMDS to Iraq?

Well, moron, while it's impossible to prove a negative, it's easy enough to show that the US did damned little in the way of weapons sales to Iraq:

http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html

The closest the US ever came to supplying anything WMD-related to Iraq was a medical research company providing an anthrax culture to Iraq. Apparently Iraqi researchers claimed to be researching animal vaccines, a legitimate use of the cultures.

Stop smoking the Democrat talking points and get yourself educated.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-08-30 12:06:58 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-08-30 12:06:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Interesting to note you've got no problem with 4), 'Liberal'Strike.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-08-30 12:07:28 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:07:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Is DU down? The 'tards are all over the place today.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-08-30 12:08:54 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:08:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Interesting to note you've got no problem with 4), 'Liberal'Strike.
Do you?

Posted by LiberalStrike 2004-08-30 12:14:08 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:14:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Actually, it's well-established that Saddam was aiding and supporting terrorists:

o Large numbers of the "Black September" group were hosted in Iraq, on Saddam's payroll.

o The last fugitive from the 1993 WTC attack was hosted in Iraq. Saddam claimed the fellow was in prison, but more reliable reports had him living on a Saddam-provided pension in relative comfort.

o Saddam regularly paid bounties to Palestinians who sent their kids to kill Israelis.

o Salman Pak.

o A recent bit of information, from the son of Osama's "mentor":

He also claimed that the former regime of Saddam Hussein "strictly and directly controlled" members of bin Laden's Al-Qaeda terror network in Iraq before the US invasion, as charged by members of US President George Bush's administration but refuted by other experts.

Hmmm... based on the number of witless trolls we're getting, I wonder if something REALLY, REALLY bad just happened for the Kerry campaign. Perhaps the weekend poll numbers came in?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-08-30 12:15:03 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-08-30 12:15:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:14 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:14 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:15 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:15 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:15 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:15 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:16 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:16 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:16 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:17 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:17 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:17 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:18 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:18 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:18 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:19 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:19 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:20 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:20 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:21 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:21 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:21 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:22 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:22 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:22 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:23 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:23 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#62 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:23 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:24 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#64 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:24 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#65 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:25 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#66 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:25 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#67 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:26 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#68 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:26 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#69 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:27 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#70 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:27 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#71 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:28 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#72 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:28 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#73 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:28 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#74 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:29 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#75 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:29 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#76 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:30 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#77 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:15:30 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#78 Oh, so I'm the ignorant one. Show me where you can prove that the US DIDNT GIVE WMDS to Iraq?

See this snippet of a report from Jane's? See what is says about West German companies??

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-08-30 12:18:31 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:18:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#79 Fine work Steve and obvious to anyone who knows anything about the history of Iraq'a weapon programs. But that won't get through the heads of our two seeeeensitive visitors. They will still think that Bush directed our military into Iraq "because Saddam tried to kill my dad". I loved the "he blew all the surplus" line too. Gee, a bubble economy bursts and then the country suffers a devastating terrorist attack. Think that might have some effect on government revenues? I don't care for some of the Bush's big spending programs, but those are secondary issues to me. The only issue that matters is the war against radical Islam and Iran is the centerpiece of that war. That is why they cannot get nukes.

China is right next to Korea. If Lil Kim gets too out of line it is the Chinese who will whack him. Iran, on the other hand, is our problem (and the Israelis). We are going to have to whack them sooner or later. They are the centerpoint of world terror and they must not be able to get nuclear weapons. Period!

Posted by remote man 2004-08-30 12:19:44 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:19:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#80 ima see ip ban coming.

Posted by muck4doo 2004-08-30 12:20:51 PM|| [http://www.meatismurder.blogspot.com/] 2004-08-30 12:20:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#81 Interesting to note you've got no problem with 4), 'Liberal'Strike. Do you?

Grow up, huh? Self-indulgent twat.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-08-30 12:22:22 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:22:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#82 when you are cant beatem, flood em. :)

Posted by muck4doo 2004-08-30 12:22:56 PM|| [http://www.meatismurder.blogspot.com/] 2004-08-30 12:22:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#83 "Hmmm... based on the number of witless trolls we're getting, I wonder if something REALLY, REALLY bad just happened for the Kerry campaign. Perhaps the weekend poll numbers came in?"

Kerry shares on www.intrade.com are circling the drain, while Bush's shares have been rising steadily for the last week. The Iowa Electronic Markets are showing the same movement.

In the betting, at least, the money's on Bush more and more.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-08-30 12:23:27 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:23:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#84 Grow up, huh? Self-indulgent twat.
Perhaps you should be the one growing up? I thought you were grown up, but appearantly you're not, considering you been doing the name calling.
I don't believe I have done any name calling. Hmm...so who's the grown up person now?

Posted by LiberalStrike 2004-08-30 12:26:13 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:26:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#85 amen Dave. Whenever a troll does that, I reread comments to see if there was a comment that they wanted to push out of sight.

Donât know if thatâs the case here. Poor troll. Mucky â maybe you can help him with his social skills.

Posted by B 2004-08-30 12:26:18 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:26:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#86 Give the references, LiberalStrike, of where the United States gave WMDs to Saddam, since, logically speaking, no one can prove a negative, and YOU know it. That's why, in a court of law, one is innocent until proven guilty, but when it comes to the united states, your statement shows you want it to be assumed guilty until proven innocent.

Everyone agrees we sold Saddam agricultural helicopters that are used to spray herbicides, and which had a dual-use function as WMD delivery systems, which the DoD was fully aware of and warned of, but Commerce chanted, LIKE YOU, that Saddam could be trusted. We imposed sanctions on sales of equipment AFTER Commerce was proven wrong and Saddam gassed the Kurds.

Your moral illiteracy is showing: The accusation IMPLIES that Saddam was incapable of making a moral choice NOT to use WMDs, and thus try to shift the moral onus on the United States. As if devotion to full evil to the extent of being incapable of being good IS AN ACCEPTABLE EXCUSE. It's the usual liberal "IT'S SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT!" excuse when confronted with murderers of all stripes, be they muggers on the street or Stalin in the Kremlin.

So what'll it be? If Saddam WAS capable of a choice, then he's morally culpable, not us, and we were justified in invading him and taking him out of power for daring to abuse our good graces to turn agricultural machines into a WMD delivery system. Doing so would be the manly thing to do to repair the damage we've done, just as our armed forces currently pay Iraquis for any incidental damage done during firefights. If Saddam was NOT capable of a moral choice, then he'd have no compuction to use WMDs, with delivery courtesy of terrorists, and our invasion was fully justified to prevent him doing so, in the same way we arrest and throw drunk drivers in Jail, even though they didn't hurt anyone.

Posted by Ptah 2004-08-30 12:27:14 PM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-08-30 12:27:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#87 Can our special guests enlighten us as to what Kerry intends to do about Iraq?

Posted by Matt 2004-08-30 12:27:19 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:27:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#88 6*)Saddam did allow the Inspectors back in, gave thousands of documents that the US called "lies," and the US gave Saddam the WMDs he used in Iraq and Iran.

This "Liberal Strike" and Irrelevant Topic must be the same person - they both parrot the same line.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-08-30 12:27:59 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:27:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#89 when you canât beat em, flood em.

Better said, Mucky.

Posted by B 2004-08-30 12:29:20 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:29:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#90 What can Kerry do about Iraq? GWB already screwed it up, so all Kerry can do is bring in more international involvement so US forces can start being withdrawn.

Also, Saddam was being kept in a box. Back in March of 2001, Condi Rice was saying that keeping Saddam in his box was okay.

As far as I know, I'm not Relevant Topic. Perhaps there's more than just one person who believes that the US helped contribute to Saddam's use of WMDs in Iraq and Iran.

Posted by LiberalStrike 2004-08-30 12:31:32 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:31:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#91 Kerry on Iraq: Kerry accused President Bush of misleading the country before the war in Iraq, burning bridges with U.S. allies and having no plan to win peace. But when questioned about saying Thursday in his acceptance speech, "I know what we have to do in Iraq," he would not tip his hand.

Is that a limp-wrist comment or what?

Posted by RN 2004-08-30 12:34:01 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:34:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#92 Perhaps there's more than just one person who believes that the US helped contribute to Saddam's use of WMDs in Iraq and Iran..

They do say there's one born every minute. Provide evidence or piss off. Fair?

Posted by Bulldog 2004-08-30 12:34:33 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:34:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#93 The last time Kerry made a suggestion about Iraq, which was going back to the UN and trying to get some sort of Security Council recognition of the war, a week later, Bush did exactly that. Perhaps this time, Kerry figured he'd keep his plans for his administration away from Bush so Bush won't steal it and call it his own idea.

Posted by LiberalStrike 2004-08-30 12:37:11 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:37:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#94 Bulldog is right. Provide the evidence of your claim or hit the highway. Substantial evidence has been provided in this thread to refute your idiotic claim about the US supplying WMD's to Iraq, yet you continue to cling to your position. Why, when you apparently have no evidence?

Posted by remote man 2004-08-30 12:38:42 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:38:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#95 How can we allow a theocracy to have nukes? If Allan tells 'em to use nukes, they will. Absolute f*cking madness - the sooner we bomb that power plant, the better. and do it now while we're on two of their borders. Bulldog: Absolutely spot on concerning Chamberlain - this has an awfully familiar feel about it...

Posted by Howard UK 2004-08-30 12:39:21 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:39:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#96 yeah! why is chainey always steal poor kerrys ideas!?! good post ls.

Posted by muck4doo 2004-08-30 12:39:36 PM|| [http://www.meatismurder.blogspot.com/] 2004-08-30 12:39:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#97 Bulldog didn't prove it himself. I'm researching as we speak.

Posted by LiberalStrike 2004-08-30 12:40:05 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:40:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#98 As far as I know, I'm not Relevant Topic. Perhaps there's more than just one person who believes that the US helped contribute to Saddam's use of WMDs in Iraq and Iran.

"US gave Saddam the WMDs! US gave Saddam the WMDs!! *SQUAWK!!*"

Sorry pal, but that old leftist US-armed-Saddam-with-WMDs crap doesn't fly anymore. Only someone with their head planted firmly up their anal cavity would be dumb enough to go down that route again.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-08-30 12:40:37 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:40:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#99
#90
You know before September 2001. I thought keeping things in a box could work too... I was proven horribly wrong.

Posted by Ol_Dirty_American 2004-08-30 12:41:01 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:41:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#100 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:41:47 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:41:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#101 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:41:47 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:41:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#102 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:41:48 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:41:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#103 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:41:48 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:41:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#104 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:41:49 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:41:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#105 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg TROLL 2004-08-30 12:41:49 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:41:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#106 LiberalStrike--

You seem to have the mystical power to read Kerry's mind. Get out your Ouija board and give us details of Kerry's plan, and we promise not to let Bush take credit for it. But it would really be helpful to know before we make our decisions in November.

Posted by BMN 2004-08-30 12:42:24 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:42:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#107 cleanup! Aisles 35-77 and 100-105! IP BAN!

Posted by Frank G 2004-08-30 12:46:48 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:46:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#108 LS: The last time Kerry made a suggestion about Iraq, which was going back to the UN and trying to get some sort of Security Council recognition of the war, a week later, Bush did exactly that. Perhaps this time, Kerry figured he'd keep his plans for his administration away from Bush so Bush won't steal it and call it his own idea.

Bush did not "steal" that idea. He reluctantly went to the UN in response to an attempt by Kerry to undermine public support for the campaign in Iraq. He did it just to show that he had gone the extra step to give Saddam time to come clean with his WMD programs.

The bottom line is this - the CIA was wrong about WMD's and it was wrong about 9/11. Being wrong about WMD's wasn't particularly important - we would have gone to war whether or not Saddam had WMD's. The liberal media has focused on it because it was one item put forth for the war that has since proven inconclusive. Our casualties (1,000) in Iraq would have happened with or without the WMD intelligence. Bad intelligence on 9/11 caused 3,000 American dead and tens of billions of dollars of destroyed infrastructure. Intelligence will never be perfect. If we do not act on Iran, the next terrorist attack could see us counting our civilian dead in the hundreds of thousands, or even millions.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-30 12:47:03 PM|| [http://diggsc.typepad.com/4_mile_creek/] 2004-08-30 12:47:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#109 Everyone who uses this forum isn't smart.

lol! thanks for use this forum. :)

Posted by muck4doo 2004-08-30 12:48:23 PM|| [http://www.meatismurder.blogspot.com/] 2004-08-30 12:48:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#110 Bulldog didn't prove it himself. I'm researching as we speak

I was asked to prove a negative. Twat, if you had a brain that could process logic you'd know that's impossible. But you're a Liberal, so although you're thick as mince, you think you're clever. A crippling combination, so I don't expect you to understand. DU talking point threads don't coinstitute 'evidence' btw. OK? Start again...

Posted by Bulldog 2004-08-30 12:52:03 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:52:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#111 #100-105 Heh, including LiberalStrike AND yourself?

LiberalStrike, another observation about your moral illiteracy: The right to judge requires impartiality, but failure to condemn France, the Soviet Union, china, and even BRAZIL, for arming Saddam MORE SO than the United States, shows how abysmally unqualified you are to judge anyone.

And to prove it, here's a PDF summarizing Arms sales to Iraq. the Czechs and Poles sold more than the USA, but they were part of the Warsaw Pact for the bulk of the time, so their sales should be credited to the former USSR. (By the way, if they STILL DEMAND PAYMENT FOR ARMS SALES, aren't they admitting moral culpability for ARMING A DICTATOR????)

#106 BMN: ALL LIBERALS claim the mysical power to read EVERYONE'S mind. Leastways, that's what they claim when they say Bush et. al. REALLY invaded Iraq because of the OOOOOOIIIILLLLL!, Are really racists, are really hard-hearted, are really uncompassionate, blah, blah, blah. Fucking pretenders.

Posted by Ptah 2004-08-30 12:55:53 PM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-08-30 12:55:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#112 "LiberalStrike," "RelevantTopic" and "Rantburg" have been "assigned" to www.rantburg.com for the rest of the election season. Expect more of the same . . . ad nauseum. They're not here for discussion--they're just here to stump for Kerry.

"Kerry would ensure that European allies were prepared to join the United States (how would he do that, again? Oh yeah--I forgot for a minute: with Kerry leading the country, EVERY other country will kiss US ass) in levying heavy sanctions if Iran rejected the proposal ("hey, you mullah-guys: quit it, or we won't sell you stuff--I mean it").

"If we are engaging with Iranians in an effort to reach this great bargain and if in fact this is a bluff that they are trying to develop nuclear weapons capability, then we know that our European friends will stand with us," Edwards said (they're gonna stand with us and say "boo-hiss, you baddies . . ."--we just know they will--mostly just our Bildeberger buddies, but we just know it, cuz we know things, cuz we're, we're . . . . we're us!).

This kind of foreign policy arrogance/ignorance is just one more reason NOT to vote for Kerry. Those who want to weaken and eventually destroy America are alive and kickin'!

Posted by ex-lib 2004-08-30 1:00:55 PM|| 2004-08-30 1:00:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#113 LiberalStrike: What can Kerry do about Iraq? GWB already screwed it up, so all Kerry can do is bring in more international involvement so US forces can start being withdrawn.

Please explain how that's going to happen when the French, Belgians and Germans have already said that they will NOT contribute forces to an international peace-keeping unit in Iraq even if Mr. Kerry is President. In this they are being consistent, they've NEVER been willing to contribute.

If you honestly think Mr. Kerry can rally an international force, please explain 1) who might contribute and 2) why would they contribute if the express purpose of this is to let Mr. Kerry withdraw American units.

Posted by Steve White 2004-08-30 1:02:59 PM|| 2004-08-30 1:02:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#114 OK, Liberal Strike, here's your chance to persuade people to your point of view. Kerry is going to bring in "international involvement", huh?

Explain how Kerry would get "international involvement". Please be specific and please do so without sinking into Utopia Wishland that the argument is so commonly made from. Practical & specific, please.

If you remember correctly, years and years of UN resolutions were passed against Saddam's Iraq. What were the issues in those resolutions? Did the resolutions deter Saddam from illegal actions, such as possession of illegal weapons?

Whose governments are the primary culprits in the Oil For Food theft that went on UNDER THE UN's noses?

The answers to these questions should demonstrate that Saddam was a threat, that the UN was an appeasing international body, and that the US was completely justified in taking action to depose Saddam and hang the UN up for all the world to see how far it has strayed from its purpose and vision.

Kerry's claim to get international support is boastful and reckless, and gives us a great birds' eye view of just how far he would sell out the US to be liked by the world.

Posted by jules 187 2004-08-30 1:06:34 PM|| 2004-08-30 1:06:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#115 Oi. So many troll comments... I suppose they think this proves they're clever? All of us poor benighted people with actual jobs, who don't have time to flood forums full of people we disagree with...

Posted by Phil Fraering 2004-08-30 1:06:36 PM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2004-08-30 1:06:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#116 #97: I'm researching as we speak.

WTF!!??? What kind of half-assed, lame excuse IS THAT? Do you realize that you've just admitted that you shot your mouth off without having the facts to prove your accusation at hand? It took me all of TWO MINUTES to pull up the link I posted in #111, and you know why? BECAUSE I USED IT IN A POST WHERE I WANTED TO PROVE MY POINT. Because I DID MY F*CKING HOMEWORK!

Lissin up Toto: you ain't in DU any more, where you're graded by the eloquence or humor of your denunciations of Bush without regard to the facts.

NEXT time, put brain in gear before engaging mouth, "Einstein".

Posted by Ptah 2004-08-30 1:10:03 PM|| [http://HTTP://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-08-30 1:10:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#117 Surprising level of mythological thinking and naivete from the liberal posters. Kerry and Iraq: Kerry will not bring in UN/Euro troops to replace Americans in Iraq, because:

1) They will never agree to it.
2) Even he knows that if he does, they will screw it up.

The reason we are on the ground in the Middle East is because in the long run if we want to defeat the terrorists, we have to eliminate them from ALL the countries in the ME. That includes non-cooperative countries like Iraq, Syria, and Iran, and semi-cooperative countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Kerry knows this. He's probably hoping he can stall for 4 or 8 years and put off the moment of truth until after his term.

Posted by virginian 2004-08-30 1:12:38 PM|| 2004-08-30 1:12:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#118 He's destroyed our government's surplus that we had.

Ignorance abounds. Our poor public schools...

1)There was never truly a surplus of any kind. Rather there was a projection of a surplus IF everyone stayed fat, dumb and happy. Well as was mentioned earlier, the DotCom bubble burst, then there were the events of 9/11 which damn near killed the whole US airline industry.

Yet now, we are crawling out of that mess, thanks in large part to the American people. The economy isn't something to be "run"... we all participate daily.

Posted by eLarson 2004-08-30 1:28:38 PM|| [http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2004-08-30 1:28:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#119 Hey folks, letâs not confuse the U.S. providing Iraq dual use chemicals in the 80âs as equaling providing them with WMDâs. If that were the case, anyone weâve sold chicken shit to has a WMD capability.

There is credible info that we, the French, Germans and probably a few others provided Iraq crowd control agents (tear gas, etc) and pesticides. While the then Soviet Union is known to have provided Tabun and Sarin gas.

During the Iran/Iraq War, Iraq found that even their rudimentary chemical resources provided a force multiplier capability against both the Iranians and Kurds. Therefore, Iraqâs successful CW effort during the war led to the Iraqiâs establishing a sizable and sophisticated infrastructure for R&D, production, testing and storage of CW. When the U.S. and other Western nations began controlling sales of key precursor chemicals, Iraq began developing an indigenous production capability, thought to continue right up to the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The whereabouts of these stockpiles are currently unknown but may well be buried in the desert, or already transported to Syria.

Posted by RN 2004-08-30 1:36:42 PM|| 2004-08-30 1:36:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#120 "...a war we fought for good reason! Saddam invaded Kuwait; with UN support, we kicked him out."

And then Saddam signed a UN ceasefire agreement that saved his ass. How many times before the current Iraqi campaign did one hear how we should have got saddam during the First Gulf War. But we didn't because he had that ceasefire agreement.

saddam did not live up to the provisions of that agreement, Liberstrike and releventTopic. They fired on US and British aircraft that were inforcing the no-fly zone that was mandated by the UN ceasefire agreement. They didn't allow the weapons inspections unfettered access. They broke the agreement! Oh and yes, saddam tried to assasinate GHBush. But you prolly could care less about that, no? Do you understand so far? Prolly not, but try to follow along cuz this is all fact.

The Bush Admin went to the UN. Got the Security to sign on to the resolution requireing saddam to live up to the ceasefire agreement, or face dire consequences. Not Dire Straights, the MTV icons you prolly thought they meant.

Liberalstrike, put the bong down and try to follow along, cuz people asses, not yours, were now on the line. American and British, as well as some small numbers of the "Coalition of the Willing" were now literally on the line in Kuwait and on ships awaiting permission by Turkey to deploy along the norther Iraq border. France, Germany, Turkey, and appologist, like you, fretted that war was the last resort and incouraged Bush to go back to the UN to get another "dire resolution". All this while Americans sat on troop ships and our troops were sitting in the dust, an easy target for WMDs, waiting for the word to go. How long they sat in the dirt and on those boats mean nothing to you, or france, or china, or any of the pricks that were doing biz with saddam. (google "oil for food" fool). I know you could have cared less. You were prolly outraged at the tax cut at that time.

WMD? Ever wonder where they did go? Do you even care?

So now we have a theocracy that has labelled your sorry, smoke blowing, ass as part of the "Great Satan" trying to obtain the stuff that will allow them a "First Strike" capability. Got anything to say about that? Do you think that the mullahs chant "death to America" is just a campaign slogan? Say what?

I read your stuff and your an idiotarian appeaser. A fool!

Posted by Lucky 2004-08-30 1:44:02 PM|| 2004-08-30 1:44:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#121 Here is a report on Iraqi chem weapons suppliers. It's a long and distinguished list led by Germany.
Iraqi Scientist Reports on German, Other Help for Iraq Chemical Weapons Program

Posted by ed 2004-08-30 1:48:14 PM|| 2004-08-30 1:48:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#122 Good link, ed. I knew that there was a link out there proving the Germans were more involved than the USA was, but I since I didn't have it at hand, I elected not to make an assertion that I couldn't back up.

Posted by Ptah 2004-08-30 1:55:13 PM|| [http://HTTP://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-08-30 1:55:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#123 hmmmm guess liberalstrike and relevant topic are off doing research for their next talking points attempt?

Posted by Frank G 2004-08-30 1:58:25 PM|| 2004-08-30 1:58:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#124 No way, I'm gonna read all this crap.
But I do want to make a point.

Saddam tried to assassinate a former President of the US. R or D, good or bad, that's an act of war. I'm of the opinion we should have force-fed them a nucular sandwich (Ok, maybe not a nuke, but a military operation that would overthrow saddam)

Posted by Anonymous4021 2004-08-30 2:09:46 PM|| 2004-08-30 2:09:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#125 LiberalStrike,
If you are still here.
In regards to your #93 comment.

There is something specific that bugs me about Kerry and his "secret plan" to (further) internationalise the war. If he really cared about America and our service members, wouldn't he tell Bush what it was and hope that it was stolen thereby saving American lives, fixing all of the problems in Iraq, etc.

He only cares about himself and his future is how it seems to me. I find it disgusting. A real patriotic American would want what is best for this country regardless of who was in office or who got credit.

Posted by Kelvin Zero 2004-08-30 2:12:45 PM|| 2004-08-30 2:12:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#126 News Flash: "Kerry promises to restore eveyone's virginity if they vote for him!"

I'm tempted to say he'd sell his soul for the Oval office, but that was a done deal a LOOOOOONG time ago for a Senate seat.

Posted by 98zulu 2004-08-30 2:18:48 PM|| 2004-08-30 2:18:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#127 Kelvin, good point and that bugs me too. A related point is that Kerry is, despite being absent for an high percentage of votes, is a US Senator of considerable rank. I have yet to see anything that Kerry said on the Senate floor or communicated to the executive branch in 2003 about how the war could have been run better or how our WMD intel could have been better analyzed. The fact is that he wanted to remain "positioned" so that he could claim credit for success and avoid blame for failure. Or in other words, he placed his political fortunes well ahead of the country's interests.

Posted by Matt 2004-08-30 2:26:41 PM|| 2004-08-30 2:26:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#128 LS: with UN support, we kicked him out.

Actually, we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait with UN window-dressing, not UN support. Bush I got UN agreement so that Saudi Arabia and Japan would pick up the monetary tab. It was a slick maneuver that Bush II tried to replicate but failed, because many countries were leery of America imposing its will in the same way that it did in Grenada and Panama. Too bad for the UN - it's time it feels America's wrath for a while. Cutting America's UN assessments would be a good first step. What's Kofi going to do? Invade us?

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-30 2:38:41 PM|| [http://diggsc.typepad.com/4_mile_creek/] 2004-08-30 2:38:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#129 It is recomnended that all LLL and Moonbats tape their private parts up so they can be found and used in heaven before engaging Rantburgers in argument. Any fool that thinks Iran with nukes is a good thing it's worth engaging in debate.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-08-30 3:07:49 PM|| 2004-08-30 3:07:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#130 one thing worth noting in kerry's internationlize plan - our allies (if you can call them that - allies offer help as well recieve help) do not have the troops available. only Britain has the force projection capabilities required and she is stretched thinner than we are. Germany does not have the forces nor France - just getting their token forces in Afganistan up and running taxed their militaries..How can kerry assume they help relieve us in iraq? Bush has started down the right path - pulling our troops out of europe where the only thing they are protecting arethe pocket books of the euro taxpayers who would have to fork more money (or axe some of their precious solialist programs) over to pay for the defense shield uncle sam has provided..

and to those who would state that the euros are paying our bill for stationing troops..yes to an extent but it would cost billions more to create their own forces to accomplish the same job.

Posted by Dan 2004-08-30 3:59:06 PM|| 2004-08-30 3:59:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#131 130 comments.... is this a record?

Posted by Anonymous6218 2004-08-30 4:04:24 PM|| 2004-08-30 4:04:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#132 Ahhhhh but think of the Valorious Medalsâ¢ that could be distributed!

Posted by John Fn Kerry 2004-08-30 4:05:29 PM|| 2004-08-30 4:05:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#133 nahhhh too many troll droppings. Might be a record for a thread without Gentle or Antibrain

Posted by Frank G 2004-08-30 4:07:10 PM|| 2004-08-30 4:07:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#134 He's destroyed our government's surplus that we had.

The President of the US isn't the king. To authorize spending, bills must have to be signed into law, which requires a majority from both houses of Congress, reconciled in a conference committee, then on to the President for his signature. If you want to see who blows the treasury of the US, look to the representatives, Senators, and the president. They all share culpability for out of control spending. And don't forget the American people. Our lack of collective outrage over irresponsibile managing of the nation's purse enables the govt's behavior. We have met the enemy and he is us.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-08-30 6:14:50 PM|| 2004-08-30 6:14:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#135 Don't be worried, we have lots of the secret paper

Posted by Half Working Part Time at the Gob Prinmting Office 2004-08-30 6:17:01 PM|| 2004-08-30 6:17:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#136 That's the best tag-team performance we've had.

*golf clap*

Posted by .com 2004-08-30 6:29:45 PM|| 2004-08-30 6:29:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#137 Here's my two cents worth.

Since the Carter administration allowed Iran to fall to Hominy's Islamic fanatics in early 1979, Iran has been skilfully utilizing its vast, OPEC, exported oil wealth to finance their ultra-violent brand of Shi'ite Jihad throughout the Middle-East, with the current primary targets being ongoing importation of jihadists into Iraq, the southern Balkans coupled with the mineral rich Caucasus region.

If one reviews a map of the greater Persian Gulf region one shall notice quickly that Iran is directly between (Allied controlled)Afghanistan and (Coalition controlled) Iraq along with the oil rich super-tanker sea lanes of the Gulf & Arabian Sea patrolled by the United Sates Navy, the U.K's and other allied naval forces. Iran is boxed in (except on her northern Caspian Sea border) and that just didn't happen by accident.

Even prior to 9-11 the overall plan was to surround Iran since it was the one rouge Islamic state which was rapidly gaining the definite potential of developing short & medium range nuclear weapons with the assistance of Axis of Evil member North Korea, coupled with Russian 'assistance' among other back door E.U. arms deals for Iranian OPEC oil. Once Iran processes deliverable nukes, Israel, Turkey, Greece, Armenia, Afghanistan, India, Arabia coupled with other European nations will become targets.

The Bush administration should be thanked, in relation to being bashed by the far Left, since we are on the verge of removing the Persian Gulf's number one merchant of jihadic death, coupled with Iran's terrorist proxies of Syria & the Hizballah infested Lebanon.

In 1981 Israel, under the conservative Likud Party leadership of Prime Minister Menachem Begin had the insight to fully grasp the enormous dangers to the Jewish state if Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, was allowed to continue developing nuclear weapons capable of reaching Israeli cities. If production was not permanently halted at Iraq's French constructed Osiraq nuclear weapons plant, Israel would be confronted with a holocaust from Iraqi skies.

The world viciously condemned the brave actions of the Israel jets which reduced the Osiraq nuke plant to a blasted pile of rubble. If Israel did not remove Saddam's nuclear threat the Israelis would have been nuked, plus the first Gulf War and the global economy would have meet with disaster.

Today Israel and the world is in the same geostrategic boat, with radical Islamic Iran hell bent gaining nuclear weapons, and the fact of the terrorist exporting rÃ©gime is crazy enough to use WMD.

Decisive unified action is required to knock out the Iranian threat. In saying that, France, Germany & Russia, the three nations which wanted Saddam's arms for oil deals to continue obviously can not be counted on regarding the Iranian nuke issue.

As soon as President Bush is re-elected the Iranian nuclear weapons dilemma will have to be dealt with in quick order.

Notice I am not allowing for a massive voter hard-Left mistake in November.

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-08-30 6:50:30 PM|| 2004-08-30 6:50:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#138 Mark, no mention of the financing of Hezbollah and Hamas in Lebanon and Gaza?

Posted by Frank G 2004-08-30 6:53:19 PM|| 2004-08-30 6:53:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#139 Damn. I'm away for one afternoon ... and the trees get TP'ed. My nose detects the acrid but necessary whiff of user registration in Rantburg's future. Fred's truly hit the big-time.

Posted by Another Dan 2004-08-30 7:04:20 PM|| 2004-08-30 7:04:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#140 Oi. So many troll comments... I suppose they think this proves they're clever? All of us poor benighted people with actual jobs, who don't have time to flood forums full of people we disagree with...

Methinks these are the ones who couldn't collect enough soda cans to go to NYC....

Posted by Pappy 2004-08-30 7:26:46 PM|| 2004-08-30 7:26:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#141 A Dan - This may be the blogosphere's version of the old Native American belief that the greatness of a tribe is measured by its enemies... RB is Big Time when the troll-quotient exceeds the threshold... lol!

pappy - you're prolly right, lol!

Posted by .com 2004-08-30 7:30:30 PM|| 2004-08-30 7:30:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#142 I was gona go but my orgnaickly pest proofed stilts have seem to be rotted

Posted by Half 2004-08-30 7:33:01 PM|| 2004-08-30 7:33:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#143 Frank, good point. I have stated that numerous previously, plus the majority in here are cognizant of Iran's ruling mullah's ruthless track record for financial support for 7th century mindset psychos, but soon that Iranian oil revenue should be drying up for Hizballah, Hamas sickos and other unstable jihadist outfits.

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-08-30 8:01:44 PM|| 2004-08-30 8:01:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#144 "RT" - the onus of proof here belongs to you - YOU are making the assertion abotu us giving WMD to Saddam, so back it up or back off and do what Kerry did about Cambodia - admit you were lying for political gain.

"LiuberalStrike" " Back in March of 2001, Condi Rice was saying that keeping Saddam in his box was okay. "

And then something happened on September 11th, 2001 that changed everything. Seems you've forgotten that. We can no longer wait for an immenent threat to develop - we have to cut this type of activity off before it has a chance to erupt.

Prior to 9/11 flining a few cruise missles at empty terrorist trainign camps is all we could do thanks to faux "conservatives" like Rex, and suicidal peaceniks like you - think of the uproar had Bush or Clinton chosne to go in and take apart Afghanistan to pre-empt he 9/11 strikes, and take out Bin Laden and the Taliban.

So even an empty head like you can truly see the world has changed - and will continue to change. And the old ways lead to death - ours when they strike, and consequently even more of theirs when we retaliate.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-08-30 10:05:41 PM|| 2004-08-30 10:05:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#145 BTW, McCain is making an excellent speech right now.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-08-30 10:21:22 PM|| 2004-08-30 10:21:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#146 Guilliani must read Rantburg. McCain did well but Rudy just said things that I've never, Never heard before other than on Weblogs. I told my son that he just heard one of the greatest speeches in the history of this young republic. Naming names, calling a spade a spade, poking fun at puff daddies. Sheesh god damn!

Rudy, way to go!

Posted by Lucky 2004-08-30 11:51:52 PM|| 2004-08-30 11:51:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#147 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:14 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#148 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:14 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#149 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:15 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#150 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:15 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#151 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:15 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#152 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:15 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#153 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:16 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#154 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:16 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#155 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:16 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#156 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:17 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#157 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:17 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#158 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:17 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#159 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:18 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#160 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:18 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#161 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:18 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#162 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:19 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#163 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:19 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#164 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:20 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#165 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:20 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#166 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:21 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#167 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:21 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#168 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:21 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#169 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:22 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#170 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:22 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#171 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:22 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#172 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:23 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#173 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:23 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#174 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:23 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#175 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:24 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#176 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:24 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#177 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:25 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#178 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:25 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#179 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:26 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#180 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:26 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#181 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:27 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#182 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:27 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#183 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:28 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#184 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:28 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#185 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:28 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#186 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:29 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#187 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:29 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#188 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:30 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#189 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:15:30 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:15:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#190 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:41:47 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:41:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#191 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:41:47 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:41:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#192 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:41:48 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:41:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#193 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:41:48 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:41:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#194 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:41:49 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:41:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#195 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Rantburg 2004-08-30 12:41:49 PM|| 2004-08-30 12:41:49 PM|| Front Page Top

12:41 Rantburg
12:41 Rantburg
12:41 Rantburg
12:41 Rantburg
12:41 Rantburg
12:41 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg
12:15 Rantburg