PDA

View Full Version : John Kerry wonders "Can America be trusted?"



Wally_in_Cincy
10-02-2004, 07:18 AM
<font color="blue"> Kerry obviously thinks we can't be trusted with our own nukes </font color>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Kerry from debate:</font><hr>

And part of that leadership is sending the right message to places like North Korea.
Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense.
You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, You can't have nuclear weapons, but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.
Not this president. I'm going to shut that program down, and we're going to make it clear to the world we're serious about containing nuclear proliferation.<hr /></blockquote>


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Dick Morris:</font><hr> "Obviously you need bunker-busting nuclear weapons," which Kerry opposes. "Where do you think the weapons of mass destruction are - in store windows?" Morris said.<hr /></blockquote>

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/30/225627.shtml

debate transcript

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2004/10/01/debate01.DTL

<font color="blue">So I guess all North Korea has to do is put their nukes in bunkers. Good thinking John /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif </font color>

Ross
10-02-2004, 10:09 AM
Kerry's point wasn't that we can't be trusted (I'm guessing you knew that?). His point was that if the US is expanding it's own nuclear arsenal then it has no credibility when trying to get other nations to abandon theirs. And without credibility the US loses it's effectiveness as a leader on the world stage. I know many conservatives don't care since they have given up on getting cooperation among civilized countries and believe the way to be safe in the world is for the US to arm itself to the teeth and to kick ass and take names. I think this plan is incredibly inefficient and costly in money and lives and doomed to end up as successful as Israels "security" strategy, but that's just my opinion.

Wally_in_Cincy
10-02-2004, 10:21 AM
It looks to me like his true sentiments are bubbling to the surface, i.e. the fact that he thinks we should restrain our desire for new and better weapons. I don't agree with that sentiment one iota. Does anyone think China and other countries will stop their weapons research and development just because we did?

Ross, it could be argued that high-tech weapons actually save lives because they can be targeted more effectively at military targets, thereby avoiding collateral damage.

Fair_Play
10-02-2004, 10:22 AM
Let me get this straight: Unilateral disarmarmaent is leadership because it shows the 'rogue' nations how they should act? Peace in our Time!!

So your enemy has a spear, you have a bigger spear. The way to win is through appeasement, of course, you throw away your spear.

I got it! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Best Regards,

Fair Play (currently visiting Treblinka for an International Summit co-chaired by Kofi Anan and John Kerry: on the table? A condemnation of GW for scarfing pretzels: We are in our 32nd draft of a resoltion calling for Bush to substitute croissants).

Ross
10-02-2004, 10:58 AM
Fairplay, where did this idea of "unilateral disarmament" come from? Kerry didn't say anything about disarming. He said he would actually increase our military strength - for example he wanted to increase the size of the armed forces by two divisions (so we wouldn't have to depend NG's and "stop leaves" or whatever they are called, etc.) Remember it is Bush's guy Rummy who didn't listen to his own generals for the need for larger numbers of troops, hence the horrible security situation currently in Iraq.

Back to Kerry - his only statement was about a particular NUCLEAR weapon program, since we are trying to pressure the rest of the world to give their access to nukes. And right now, the number 1 danger IMO to the security of the US (and Israel) is the spread of nuclear weapons and and the lack of oversight of nuclear material. According to US military analyses a "dirty bomb" exploded in one of our major cities (God forbid) would make most of that city uninhabitable for a hundred + years. It could not be cleaned up - it would just have to be abandoned. And did you notice Bush had no anwer Kerry's charge that the Bush administrations current plan won't have secured the Soviet's nuclear material for over a decade? While Bush is focusing on Iraq, terrorists may be purchasing nuclear materials from some shady Russian mafioso. But who cares about nuclear materials getting into the hands of terrorists? If we build better nuclear bunker busters we will be safe! What kind of reasoning is that?

And for your spear analogy -- Kerry wasn't saying to throw away our spear. He was saying our spear is already 10 times bigger than anyone elses and we still aren't safe. Maybe it is time that we do something a little smarter than just increasing the size of our spear? (Don't most guys think that if they just had a bigger spear everything would be right with the world? lol!)

Wally_in_Cincy
10-02-2004, 11:05 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>....And did you notice Bush had no anwer Kerry's charge that the Bush administrations current plan won't have secured the Soviet's nuclear material for over a decade? .... <hr /></blockquote>

That's mostly Russia's fault. I just read a long article about that. They are taking hundreds of milions of dollars and not doing what has been agreed to.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>
... And right now, the number 1 danger IMO to the security of the US (and Israel) is the spread of nuclear weapons and and the lack of oversight of nuclear material....

<hr /></blockquote>

The research for new weapons systems and the oversight of nuclear material worldwide are not mutually exclusive. We can do both.

Fair_Play
10-02-2004, 11:29 AM
Yes, we (our nation AND John Kerry) need credibility....

The Horth Koreans have deep tunnels, deep bunkers.. already. Why? http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9808/17/nkorea.nuclear/
As for Iran? http://menewsline.com/stories/2004/september/09_22_1.html

Kerry/s take on Unilateral Disarmarment? - not of all weapons, but of the planned tactical nuclear bunker buster , much smaller, precise and more effective than an ICBM - North Korea has endless tunnels and caverns, perfect for protecting both their missle program and their nukes.. I guess it would be much better, if the necessity arose, to use a multi-megaton ICBM, rather than a surgical bunker buster? And the same for Iran, if necessary, since they have located their nuclear weapons programs deep below their city streets.. The bunker busters would at least provide us with a viable option to the use of the 'bigger spear'.

JMO, but Kerry seems far too eager to place our national security in forming 'alliances' with people who could not give a rats a** about us. "I am an Internationalist" he says.. well, heck, maybe we should all start drinking Chateau Mouton Rothschild, and taking polls of what the world wants us to do. Global Test... and then our armed forces only committed at the behest of Kofi Anan.

It may very well be that the world would be a safer place with Saddam in power.

Wondering, wondering if there will ever be an Iraqi backlash against the fundamental terrorists who are killing, so far endlessly killing Iraqi men, women and children, a few of who just may not be religious fanatics, and who might just have surviving relatives who are secular.

Whether Bush is re-elected or not, whether he has made a colossal error in Iraq, the dynamic will continue - perhaps John Kerry has a better way. It just would pain me personally to have a leader who is left of Ted Kennedy - for those of you lefties, I guess it would be an exciting day, the Inauguration of the Anointed. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Time wiil tell.

Best Regards,

Fair Play

highsea
10-02-2004, 12:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> And did you notice Bush had no anwer Kerry's charge that the Bush administrations current plan won't have secured the Soviet's nuclear material for over a decade? While Bush is focusing on Iraq, terrorists may be purchasing nuclear materials from some shady Russian mafioso. But who cares about nuclear materials getting into the hands of terrorists? <hr /></blockquote>Yes, Bush couldn't really get into that, and Kerry knew it. The subject doesn't lend itself well to 90 second sound bites. But here's a couple facts. Between 1992 and 2000, the US gave Russia 4.8 Billion dollars for the CTR (Cooperative Threat Reduction) program, also known as Nunn-Lugar.The US has overseen the destruction or dismantling of thousands of Russian nuclear warheads, ballistic missile launchers, sub based missiles, bombers, and at least 12 ballistic missile subs. We spent on average 500+ Million per year on the program.

The former Soviet republics of Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus, which were three of the four successor states which retained a nuclear capability after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, now are nuclear-free states and signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In 2000, Bush expanded the program. In fact, he basically doubled it to about 1 Billion per year. In 2002, he brought the other G8 nations in, and the program was expanded again, now it sits at 20 Billion over the next ten years, with the costs shared by the other industrialized nations rather than just the US. This program is known as "Ten by Ten by Ten". IIRC, Bush committed an additional 7 Billion to this program this year.

Part of the program is aimed at employing some 40,000 Russian scientists to prevent a "brain drain" to states like Iran and North Korea. The issue goes way beyond just dismantling some old weapons and locking up the labs.

Billions have been spent, and billions more will be spent. How much more is Kerry going to spend? He doesn't say. Is he going to accomplish a ten year program in four years? Then you better count on 5 billion a year instead of 2, and if our allies can't pony up their share, we'll be footing the bill ourselves. Tell me, where does Kerry intend to get the money? Better hang on to your wallet, my friend.

I will say this. Bush did FAR, FAR more towards resolving this problem in the last 2 years than Clinton did in his entire 8. Kerry claims to have a plan, Bush just does it. Not with a lot of fanfare, but he gets it done.

Fair_Play
10-02-2004, 12:40 PM
Hey Ross,

Kerry vows to give up the bunker busters to appease the camembert and brie eating cocktail party "Internationalist crowd" I guess that will really make the snail darter lovers have an orgasmic paroxysm of joy. Canapes on the verandah, let the peasants defend themselves! The hell with reality!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Fair Play? In International Politics? <font color="blue">Headed by Kofi? </font color> Approved by the ladies auxiliary?? "The sight of MY Medals will stop any terrorist!! - they won't shut down the Treblinka subway on MY WATCH!!!!(Botox Johnny Catsup Kerry Heinz)" /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

"Listen here, that silver star.. you see, if you have to back shoot <font color="red"> ** </font color> a fleeing Vietnamese teenager to get it, you gotta do it - we can always say he wasn't shot up with M60 MG fire first, right? What do you mean, no incoming fire? Shucks, the Republicans will stoop to any level to insult a true Intenational Patriot! Besides, I have incontrovertible proof the Lt. Calley was not the only Right Winger who committed atrocities! There were thousands of them!! I may not actually have, personally, committed an atrocity that is punishable by the UCMJ, /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif, Cambodia asides (denialble implausability) but then "That is none of your business!!" Besides, if you want to talk about atrocities, do a google on Mozambique..
you think YOUR wife is a bitch!? You know, I am the next President of the United States, I have been a patriotic senator for longer than you can remember.. just what is your problem sonny? John Kerry does NOT fall down!!!"

Trophy Photo of Kerry with RPG rocket launcher... well, darn, this 'trophy photo' does not show the RPG as 'loaded' - no rocket.. (see "loaded" in Kerry's words below). No military guy would EVER pose with an enemy weapon that was UNLOADED if it was LOADED when it was captured!!! It must be that Kerry sent the actual rocket home, for his future Senate Office Sanctum Sanctorum, for those priveledged enough to be show both the rocket, and the AK-47 that his staff says 'doesn't exist' yeah, OK, if you say so Johnny, and Johnny's minions..

Fair Play

<font color="red"> ** </font color> Kerry's own words from the official navy report? "PCF 94 beached in center of ambush in front of small path when Viet Cong sprung up from bunker 10 feet from unit. Man ran with weapon towards hootch. Forward M-60 machine gunner wounded man in leg. Officer-in-charge, LTjg Kerry, jumped ashore and gave pursuit while other units saturated area with fire and beached placing assault parties ashore. Kerry chased VC inland behind hootch and shot him while he fled -- capturing one B-40 rocket launcher with round in chamber ." Coward VC, not a backshooting heroic hero... like a VC with a round in the chamber would not fire it, occam's razor again. Mealy mouthed smarmy arrogant coward living a lie on the patriotism of true gentlemen who would not flee a danger area on the strenghth of a self-inflicted bandaid wound. But, then, the 'gentleman' was in a hurry, he just HAD to get back to the U.S. so he could testify to the senate, as a serving officer, with no proof, out of uniform, wearing medals that he threw away. So let me get this right.. Kerry went to a function of the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War, to make points for throwhing away HIS medals, but instead threw away someone elses medals? AND kept his to put on the wall of his Senate Office?? NOW THAT IS A FLOP FLIP!!!
Reason for the flop flip? Simple: Kerry bought some ribbons to throw away, he would never ever throw his own ribbons awy, just as he did not throw his actual ribbons away.. when called on it, he came up with a fast one, using debater skills, and blamed a nameless vet.. you think that vet, IF HE EXISTED AT ALL, EVER, would not have come forward to claim his 15 minutes of fame?? Buy a gold brick, buddy, buy the Brooklyn Bridge..

nhp
10-02-2004, 03:13 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fair_Play:</font><hr> Let me get this straight: Unilateral disarmarmaent is leadership because it shows the 'rogue' nations how they should act? Peace in our Time!!

So your enemy has a spear, you have a bigger spear. The way to win is through appeasement, of course, you throw away your spear.

I got it! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Best Regards,

Fair Play (currently visiting Treblinka for an International Summit co-chaired by Kofi Anan and John Kerry: on the table? A condemnation of GW for scarfing pretzels: We are in our 32nd draft of a resoltion calling for Bush to substitute croissants). <hr /></blockquote>

It doesn't really matter about who's nuke is bigger, whoever nukes first wins, and loses later on of course as the rest of the world population begins to die from the fallout.

Fair_Play
10-02-2004, 03:29 PM
Just as the 'rest of the world' died from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Genie is out of the bottle, yes. So we simply ignore the nuclear proliferation of North Korea, Iran, etc.? I guess Israel is deserving of a great censure in the U.N. for taking out Saddam's nuclear plant???

Lets all be goody goody.. I know, lets go hide our heads in the sand (Middle Eastern Desert sand). Wowie, what an idea.

Doom and Gloom, Defeatism, "Fair Play" to our downtrodden and persecuted Muslim brothers!!

Quadaffi Duck Camembert and Brie, lets give a party and host the Black Panthers, maybe they will vote for the 'second black president' Hip Hop fan that he is (his words quoted verbatim - this is not mentioned due to race, rather as an illustration of what the Heinz John will say to make a point to any group at all, whatever he thinks they want to hear.

I know what an aircraft carrier is
and I know how to throw purchased ribbons away
and best of all, I know how to lie and to fool
everyone - it doesn't matter, you fools won't even
catch me when I change position cause I am John F. Kerry,
don't you know who I am!!!!!!!!

Qtec
10-03-2004, 11:50 AM
Just in case you missed it, I posted this some time ago and got no respose!

[ QUOTE ]
U.S. Shifts Stance on Nuclear Treaty
White House Resists Inspection Provision
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 31, 2004; Page A01


In a significant shift in U.S. policy, the Bush administration announced this week that it will oppose provisions for inspections and verification as part of an international treaty that would ban production of nuclear weapons materials.

For several years the United States and other nations have pursued the treaty, which would ban new production by any state of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons. At an arms-control meeting this week in Geneva, the Bush administration told other nations it still supported a treaty, but not verification.

Administration officials, who have showed skepticism in the past about the effectiveness of international weapons inspections, said they made the decision after concluding that such a system would cost too much, would require overly intrusive inspections and would not guarantee compliance with the treaty. They declined, however, to explain in detail how they believed U.S. security would be harmed by creating a plan to monitor the treaty.

Arms-control specialists reacted negatively, saying the change in U.S. position will dramatically weaken any treaty and make it harder to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists. The announcement, they said, also virtually kills a 10-year international effort to lure countries such as Pakistan, India and Israel into accepting some oversight of their nuclear production programs.

The announcement at the U.N.-sponsored Conference on Disarmament comes several months after President Bush declared it a top priority of his administration to prevent the production and trafficking in nuclear materials, and as the administration works to blunt criticism by Democrats and others that it has failed to work effectively with the United Nations and other international bodies on such vital global concerns.

"The president has said his priority is to block the spread of nuclear materials to rogue states and terrorists, and a verifiable ban on the production of such materials is an essential part of any such strategy," said Daryl Kimball, director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association. "Which is why it is so surprising and baffling that the administration is not supporting a meaningful treaty."

The U.N. Conference on Disarmament includes 66 countries as members. It had announced its intent to start negotiations this year toward a verifiable international agreement known as the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) that would ban production of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons. The two ingredients are used for setting off a chain-reaction nuclear explosion.

The treaty wouldn't affect existing stockpiles or production for non-weapons purposes, such as energy or medical research. Mainly, it was designed to reinforce the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and to impose restraints on India, Pakistan and Israel, whose nuclear programs operate outside the reach of NPT inspectors.

In 2000, all three countries, the Clinton administration and the rest of the conference members agreed to pursue negotiation of the treaty. But last year, when the possibility of starting negotiations arose in the conference, the Bush administration decided to review its position on the FMCT.

On Thursday, Jackie Wolcott Sanders, the U.S. representative, said the United States would support the treaty, but without a way to verify compliance.

The State Department later released a statement saying that an internal review had concluded that an inspection regime "would have been so extensive that it could compromise key signatories' core national security interests and so costly that many countries will be hesitant to accept it."

Furthermore, "even with extensive verification measures, we will not have high confidence in our ability to monitor compliance with an FMCT." Bush administration officials would not elaborate on the statement or on the U.S. position, except to say they would send a delegation to Geneva to better explain the position to the conference. But the conference goes on recess in early September, leaving virtually no time to begin formal negotiations on the treaty before the end of the current presidential term. Since the disarmament conference can adopt a treaty only by consensus, the American position makes it highly unlikely that a verification system will be included in a future agreement.

Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry has supported the verification provision and has criticized the administration's policies on weapons of mass destruction, particularly after none turned up in Iraq after the war.

Early this year, after revelations that Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan had sold nuclear secrets to Libya, Iran and North Korea, Bush gave a major speech on the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. He proposed several new measures, including encouraging all nations to criminalize proliferation and secure sensitive materials within their borders.

While declaring nonproliferation a priority, however, the administration has opposed other arms-control treaties that rely on inspection regimes.

In 2001, the administration opposed attempts to create an inspections regime for the Biological Weapons Convention. It has signed an arms-reduction deal with Russia that doesn't include new verification mechanisms, and in its first year in office, the administration pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

<hr /></blockquote>

Kerry should have asked GW about this.

I cant say for sure that GW wants peace or Armaggedon. Can you?

Q

Qtec
10-03-2004, 12:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fair_Play:</font><hr> Just as the 'rest of the world' died from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. <font color="blue"> I dont know what you mean. </font color> The Genie is out of the bottle, yes. So we simply ignore the nuclear proliferation of North Korea, Iran, etc.? I guess Israel is deserving of a great censure in the U.N. for taking out Saddam's nuclear plant??? <font color="blue"> Which country has the most WMDs in the world? You want to persude other countries from building a Nuclear weapon and you are yourselves embarking on a NEW nuclear program? </font color>

Lets all be goody goody.. I know, lets go hide our heads in the sand (Middle Eastern Desert sand). Wowie, what an idea.

Doom and Gloom, Defeatism, <font color="blue"> Sometimes the truth hurts. </font color> "Fair Play" to our downtrodden and persecuted Muslim brothers!!

Quadaffi Duck Camembert and Brie, lets give a party and host the Black Panthers, maybe they will vote for the 'second black president' Hip Hop fan that he is (his words quoted verbatim - this is not mentioned due to race, rather as an illustration of what the Heinz John will say to make a point to any group at all, whatever he thinks they want to hear.

I know what an aircraft carrier is
and I know how to throw purchased ribbons away
and best of all, I know how to lie and to fool <font color="blue"> You just think you do. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font color>
everyone - it doesn't matter, you fools won't even
catch me when I change position cause I am John F. Kerry,
don't you know who I am!!!!!!!! <hr /></blockquote>


[ QUOTE ]
lets give a party and host the Black Panthers, maybe they will vote for the 'second black president' <hr /></blockquote>

WTF does that mean?

You introduced yourself as an moderate but your rants against Kerry are lacking totally in facts as my last post pointed out. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Your credibility rating has dropped drastically. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Peace /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Q

Fair_Play
10-03-2004, 01:59 PM
Hello Q,

Intoduced as moderate?? Well, shucks, I guess if you take a look you will see that I am somewhat far right of Atilla the Hun.

Black Panthers? Well, Leonard Bernstein once threw a nice party for himself, his limousine liberal cronies, and he invited the Black Panthers, how chic! That might just have been before you were born. The Symbionese Liberation Army, the Panthers "official" name, specialized in robbing banks and planting bombs to kill police officers. But, you see, <font color="blue">they were just misunderstood, victims of the white mans oppression! </font color>. Why do you think that the intelligentsian and Literati are so very enamoured of Che Guevera and Fidel Castro? Free Health Care?

Q, no matter what, I do enjoy your posts, you have some very very good idea (most I do not agree with.. not your fault). My <font color="blue"> credibility </font color> ? Same as yours with me. However, I am doing my best to try to understand all of this. They say that perception is reality, which is perhaps why it is nigh unto impossible to change a persons (mine, for instance) point of view.

Having said all that, it would sure be nice if we had some different choices on how things are run in this country.. and a tad bit more voice as well. To me, both parties are far closer than they are different.

And, I do recall something about war and the democrats, as in 'when we have a democratic president..' guess GW gave the lie to that one.

Take Care, Be Safe, Have Fun!

Fair Play