Article

2004-10-04 Home Front: Politix

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 Dave 2004-10-04 9:31:04 AM|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "One can be sure that if Kerry wins things will heat up all over the place just to test him."

That's stating it VERY mildly; I'd put it more like "all Hell's gonna break loose."

And they won't just be testing him, either; they'll be playing for keeps.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-10-04 10:24:02 AM|| 2004-10-04 10:24:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 That is a realistic succinct analysis. All hell will break loose. We will be tested across the globe.

Posted by John (Q. Citizen) 2004-10-04 10:29:54 AM|| 2004-10-04 10:29:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 What a putrid bunch of hooey. Nineteen UN resolutions is too few and not enough certainty for an invasion of a historically belligerent country that straddles some of the biggest oil fields in the world? This "analyst" must not have heard about the invasions of Panama, Grenada and the Dominican Republic, none of which involved UN resolutions (this doesn't even cover the whole list of pre-emptive American interventions). Pre-emption is in the American tradition. The problem is that Bush I made it somehow illegitimate by going to the UN in order to shill for a few tens of billions of dollars to pay for Desert Storm. I can not understate the extent to which Bush I screwed up American foreign policy by going the multilateral route. Bush I was almost worse than Jimmy Carter in this respect, by establishing a precedent of going the UN route that has throttled America's freedom of action. This time around, Bush II went the UN route and got bupkis for his efforts.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-10-04 10:50:16 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-10-04 10:50:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 What really brought me up short while reading this "analysis" was the statement that Kerry "does not choose sides on the basis of a clearly defined ideology".

Huh? Kerry is a Democrat. He is a Massachussetts liberal. He is a Progressive (i.e., a Commie wearing a smiley-face mask). He is a leftist peacenik, molded in the anti-Vietnam War Movement, the Nuclear Freeze Movement, and the pro-Sandinista movement in Congress back in the 80's. He is, and has been at least as far back as his 1971 Senate "testimony", an ardent "World Government" advocate who wants U.S. military forces to be directed by the U.N.

To say he doesn't adhere to a "clearly defined ideology" is clueless, at best.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-10-04 11:28:26 AM|| 2004-10-04 11:28:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 This reminds me of William Manchester's characterization of Churchill as a believer in "the supreme virtue of action." Kerry is a believer in the supreme virtue of inaction. Or, as one of our regulars put it here a few months ago, the man who does nothing, does nothing wrong. Which is why Kerry loves the UN so much: once you dump a problem in the UN's lap, you can be sure that no action whatsoever will be forthcoming.

Posted by Matt 2004-10-04 1:09:20 PM|| 2004-10-04 1:09:20 PM|| Front Page Top

00:07 Fred
00:30 Fred the Zionist
00:17 Fred
00:17 Fred
00:11 Fred
00:11 Fred
00:09 Fred
00:09 Fred
00:07 Fred
00:30 Fred the Zionist
14:57 Frank G
14:39 Snolulet Omeating8644
03:37 Daniel Dravot
23:26 Asedwich
22:03 ed
22:01 tu3031
18:20 lex
09:27 Don
09:06 Poison Reverse
03:01 Throons Omoons7966
02:17 Super Hose
02:15 Super Hose
02:07 Super Hose
02:05 Super Hose