| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"Arnold Holbrook" |
| Date: |
02 Jun 2004 07:41:05 AM |
| Object: |
Kerry warns of nuclear terrorism (Sounds alot like Bush...is there a difference between the two?) |
Kerry biggest weakeness is that alot of people don't really see him
being any different than Bush.
Kerry may propose a more delicate appraoch to WMD proliferation, he
will quickly find out that this ineptitude will go nowhere. Look what
happened when Bill Clinton appeased the North Koreans. Whether he
talks to the NK's in a room with one person or six, in the end the
NK's will demand a non aggression treaty with the US as the only
condition for abandoning its WMD.
I wonder if Kerry is stupid enough to do it?
Or he may realize that if there is a serious effort to remove the NK
WMD threat, it will have to be done the hard way.
Bush, on the other hand, will just be blantantly foolhardy with NK if
he gets re-elected, instead of Kerry's beating around the bush
aproach.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry warns of nuclear terrorism
Pledges to appoint coordinator to round up weapons
WEST PALM BEACH, Florida (CNN) -- John Kerry, the presumptive
Democratic nominee for president, accused the Bush administration
Tuesday of ignoring the threat of terrorism using nuclear weapons.
Kerry went on to promise to boost U.S. efforts to cut off the supply
of nuclear materials if elected.
"We know how to reduce this threat. We know how to achieve this goal.
And with the right leadership, we can achieve it quickly," Kerry told
supporters at the Port of Palm Beach in Riviera Beach.
Kerry said that since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush
administration has not stepped up efforts to secure radioactive
material around the world that could be used to build a nuclear bomb.
In some cases, he said, U.S. spending has even declined in real
dollars.
"We have done too little, often too late, and we have even cut back on
our efforts or turned away from the greatest threat that we face in
this world today -- a terrorist armed with nuclear weapons," he said.
Kerry, the junior senator from Massachusetts, said the issue would be
his No. 1 priority as president.
He proposed speeding up programs to secure nuclear material from
countries of the former Soviet Union, pledging to appoint a national
coordinator carry out that task.
He further proposed stopping the production of new weapons-grade
uranium and plutonium, reducing current stocks of nuclear weapons and
cutting off Pentagon plans to develop new, low-yield nuclear weapons.
"We also don't need a world with more usable nuclear weapons," he
said. "We need a world where terrorists can never find one, make one
or use one."
President Bush's re-election campaign said efforts to limit the spread
of nuclear weapons "continues to be an urgent priority" for the White
House.
The campaign cited American leadership of the Proliferation Security
Initiative, Libya's decision to abandon its nuclear weapons program,
and the exposure of Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan's traffic in
nuclear technology.
Republican Rep. Porter Goss of Florida, chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee, called Kerry's speech a "belated, me-too
approach."
"I also think it's unrealistic and dangerously naive to assume that
we're going to get all the nukes in a lockbox somehow," Goss said.
"I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon. The effort is
worthwhile, but I don't think you're ever going to get 100 percent."
Kerry's speech referred to "that dark day in September" and the
possibility of a "looming mushroom cloud on the horizon," echoing the
rhetoric Bush administration officials used in the months before the
U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Kerry said the war in Iraq has distracted the United States from two
greater nuclear threats: North Korea and Iran, the other two countries
Bush branded an "axis of evil" in 2002.
Kerry called the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran "unacceptable," and
said the Bush administration is "negotiating over the shape of the
table" with North Korea while that nation continues to build atomic
bombs it could sell to terrorists.
He said the United States should continue the current six-party talks
with Pyongyang's neighbors, "but we must also be prepared to talk
directly with North Korea.
"This problem is too urgent to allow China or others at the table to
speak for us," he said.
Regarding Iran, which says it needs nuclear power to meet civilian
energy needs, Kerry said the United States should "call their bluff"
by offering to supply nuclear fuel while taking back spent fuel that
could be diverted to build nuclear weapons.
The Bush campaign said the administration has put pressure on North
Korea and Iran through U.S. allies in Europe and Asia.
.
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry warns of nuclear terrorism (Sounds alot like Bush...is there a difference between the two?) |
02 Jun 2004 08:57:57 AM |
|
|
"Arnold Holbrook" <arnold_holbrook@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:7e4bfa4a.0406020441.3790237@posting.google.com...
Kerry biggest weakeness is that alot of people don't really see him
being any different than Bush.
That and he appears to be a vacillitating soulless automaton with the worst
haircut in politics since Leon Brittan.
Kerry may propose a more delicate appraoch to WMD proliferation, he
will quickly find out that this ineptitude will go nowhere. Look what
happened when Bill Clinton appeased the North Koreans.
To be fair, the NKs did pack it in when they were getting aid. Trouble was
Clinton showed them they had a strong bargaining chip there.
Whether he talks to the NK's in a room with one person or six, in the end
the
NK's will demand a non aggression treaty with the US as the only
condition for abandoning its WMD.
I suspect they will push for aid as well, like last time. And why not?
Probably a lot cheaper to give them humanitarian aid in exchange for full
access to their WMD than trying to clean the mess up by invading.
I wonder if Kerry is stupid enough to do it?
If done correctly, it woduln't be stupid at all.
Or he may realize that if there is a serious effort to remove the NK
WMD threat, it will have to be done the hard way.
Why?
Bush, on the other hand, will just be blantantly foolhardy with NK if
he gets re-elected, instead of Kerry's beating around the bush
aproach.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Kerry warns of nuclear terrorism
Pledges to appoint coordinator to round up weapons
WEST PALM BEACH, Florida (CNN) -- John Kerry, the presumptive
Democratic nominee for president, accused the Bush administration
Tuesday of ignoring the threat of terrorism using nuclear weapons.
Kerry went on to promise to boost U.S. efforts to cut off the supply
of nuclear materials if elected.
"We know how to reduce this threat. We know how to achieve this goal.
And with the right leadership, we can achieve it quickly," Kerry told
supporters at the Port of Palm Beach in Riviera Beach.
Kerry said that since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush
administration has not stepped up efforts to secure radioactive
material around the world that could be used to build a nuclear bomb.
In some cases, he said, U.S. spending has even declined in real
dollars.
"We have done too little, often too late, and we have even cut back on
our efforts or turned away from the greatest threat that we face in
this world today -- a terrorist armed with nuclear weapons," he said.
Kerry, the junior senator from Massachusetts, said the issue would be
his No. 1 priority as president.
He proposed speeding up programs to secure nuclear material from
countries of the former Soviet Union, pledging to appoint a national
coordinator carry out that task.
He further proposed stopping the production of new weapons-grade
uranium and plutonium, reducing current stocks of nuclear weapons and
cutting off Pentagon plans to develop new, low-yield nuclear weapons.
"We also don't need a world with more usable nuclear weapons," he
said. "We need a world where terrorists can never find one, make one
or use one."
President Bush's re-election campaign said efforts to limit the spread
of nuclear weapons "continues to be an urgent priority" for the White
House.
The campaign cited American leadership of the Proliferation Security
Initiative, Libya's decision to abandon its nuclear weapons program,
and the exposure of Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan's traffic in
nuclear technology.
Republican Rep. Porter Goss of Florida, chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee, called Kerry's speech a "belated, me-too
approach."
"I also think it's unrealistic and dangerously naive to assume that
we're going to get all the nukes in a lockbox somehow," Goss said.
"I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon. The effort is
worthwhile, but I don't think you're ever going to get 100 percent."
Kerry's speech referred to "that dark day in September" and the
possibility of a "looming mushroom cloud on the horizon," echoing the
rhetoric Bush administration officials used in the months before the
U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Kerry said the war in Iraq has distracted the United States from two
greater nuclear threats: North Korea and Iran, the other two countries
Bush branded an "axis of evil" in 2002.
Kerry called the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran "unacceptable," and
said the Bush administration is "negotiating over the shape of the
table" with North Korea while that nation continues to build atomic
bombs it could sell to terrorists.
He said the United States should continue the current six-party talks
with Pyongyang's neighbors, "but we must also be prepared to talk
directly with North Korea.
"This problem is too urgent to allow China or others at the table to
speak for us," he said.
Regarding Iran, which says it needs nuclear power to meet civilian
energy needs, Kerry said the United States should "call their bluff"
by offering to supply nuclear fuel while taking back spent fuel that
could be diverted to build nuclear weapons.
The Bush campaign said the administration has put pressure on North
Korea and Iran through U.S. allies in Europe and Asia.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry warns of nuclear terrorism (Sounds alot like Bush...is there a difference between the two?) |
02 Jun 2004 12:57:23 PM |
|
|
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:<c9km8s$f7d$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"Arnold Holbrook" <arnold_holbrook@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:7e4bfa4a.0406020441.3790237@posting.google.com...
Kerry biggest weakeness is that alot of people don't really see him
being any different than Bush.
That and he appears to be a vacillitating soulless automaton with the worst
haircut in politics since Leon Brittan.
Kerry may propose a more delicate appraoch to WMD proliferation, he
will quickly find out that this ineptitude will go nowhere. Look what
happened when Bill Clinton appeased the North Koreans.
To be fair, the NKs did pack it in when they were getting aid. Trouble was
Clinton showed them they had a strong bargaining chip there.
" To be fair?" Clinton covered up NK's persistence lies in regards to
stance of developing Nuclear weapons. Its in fact, the small Water
Nuclear Reactor that Aussi's, and U.S. built for them, OK'd by Clinton
defrayment scheme of the '90s to usurer in a booming economy.
Whether he talks to the NK's in a room with one person or six, in the end
the
NK's will demand a non aggression treaty with the US as the only
condition for abandoning its WMD.
If America didn't subsidize North Korea in the first place they would
not have enough money to run their WMD program, idiot. The people
would have revolted if the gov. took all the money and used it on the
program. They didn't, they took much of the America money and used it
on their people, while running clandestine operations to fund their
WMD programs. In essence, America ( Bill Clinton and some US comp.)
funded the WMD program inadvertently - Clinton's appeasement as
outlined in history - now!
I suspect they will push for aid as well, like last time. And why not?
Probably a lot cheaper to give them humanitarian aid in exchange for full
access to their WMD than trying to clean the mess up by invading.
I would not invade either. I would simply blow their WMD programs off
the face of the earth and leave them to wallow in their own problems.
Do you seriously believe that buying a persons friendship will make
them loyal when the resources of the world run out and there are not
enough to go around?
I wonder if Kerry is stupid enough to do it?
He already accepted PLA ( Chinese Military) campaign money ( reported
in the Associated Press in the '90s) so I think he has a appeasement
plan with the communists.
If done correctly, it woduln't be stupid at all.
"woduln't?"
What the hell is that?
Or he may realize that if there is a serious effort to remove the NK
WMD threat, it will have to be done the hard way.
Why?
Obviously you are not a futurist.
Bush, on the other hand, will just be blantantly foolhardy with NK if
he gets re-elected, instead of Kerry's beating around the bush
aproach.
You and Clinton and all those feel-goody types of left-wingers always
fail to see what the future could entail. It is not the fear that this
NK administration will launch against China, Japan, or other
countries. It is that fact that in the future you may get a crazy man
( takeover of country) to launch against them, because they are in a
system that is ripe for political dictatorial ship takeover. Under
democracy, it is hard to launch and get away with it, because as a
President you do not control everything and must answer to the people.
In Communist/Socialist/Dictatorships the leaders answer to no-one!
I'm not worried about China's premier Hu from launching on the west,
but China's history of being taken over from the north by foreigners
who would then take control of the nukes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry warns of nuclear terrorism (Sounds alot like Bush...is there a difference between the two?) |
03 Jun 2004 02:19:48 AM |
|
|
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dd3256f0.0406020957.3f4ff971@posting.google.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:<c9km8s$f7d$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"Arnold Holbrook" <arnold_holbrook@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:7e4bfa4a.0406020441.3790237@posting.google.com...
Kerry biggest weakeness is that alot of people don't really see him
being any different than Bush.
That and he appears to be a vacillitating soulless automaton with the
worst
haircut in politics since Leon Brittan.
Kerry may propose a more delicate appraoch to WMD proliferation, he
will quickly find out that this ineptitude will go nowhere. Look what
happened when Bill Clinton appeased the North Koreans.
To be fair, the NKs did pack it in when they were getting aid. Trouble
was
Clinton showed them they had a strong bargaining chip there.
" To be fair?" Clinton covered up NK's persistence lies in regards to
stance of developing Nuclear weapons. Its in fact, the small Water
Nuclear Reactor that Aussi's, and U.S. built for them, OK'd by Clinton
defrayment scheme of the '90s to usurer in a booming economy.
"usurer in a booming economy"? you do know usurer is a noun don't you?
Whether he talks to the NK's in a room with one person or six, in the
end
the
NK's will demand a non aggression treaty with the US as the only
condition for abandoning its WMD.
If America didn't subsidize North Korea in the first place they would
not have enough money to run their WMD program, idiot.
Michael, until you learn to spell or have the slightest inkling of decent
grammar it is a bit hypocritical of you to call Arnold an idiot.
The people would have revolted if the gov. took all the money and used it
on the
program.
??
They didn't, they took much of the America money and used it
on their people, while running clandestine operations to fund their
WMD programs. In essence, America ( Bill Clinton and some US comp.)
funded the WMD program inadvertently - Clinton's appeasement as
outlined in history - now!
I suspect they will push for aid as well, like last time. And why not?
Probably a lot cheaper to give them humanitarian aid in exchange for
full
access to their WMD than trying to clean the mess up by invading.
I would not invade either. I would simply blow their WMD programs off
the face of the earth and leave them to wallow in their own problems.
See? You're an idiot.
Do you seriously believe that buying a persons friendship will make
them loyal when the resources of the world run out and there are not
enough to go around?
You simply don't understand politics do you son?
I wonder if Kerry is stupid enough to do it?
He already accepted PLA ( Chinese Military) campaign money ( reported
in the Associated Press in the '90s) so I think he has a appeasement
plan with the communists.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!
If done correctly, it woduln't be stupid at all.
"woduln't?"
What the hell is that?
A typo! Surely thta's obvious? ;-)
Or he may realize that if there is a serious effort to remove the NK
WMD threat, it will have to be done the hard way.
Why?
Obviously you are not a futurist.
??
Bush, on the other hand, will just be blantantly foolhardy with NK if
he gets re-elected, instead of Kerry's beating around the bush
aproach.
You and Clinton and all those feel-goody types of left-wingers always
fail to see what the future could entail.
Are you talking to me, Arnold or your pink power ranger doll?
It is not the fear that this
NK administration will launch against China, Japan, or other
countries. It is that fact that in the future you may get a crazy man
( takeover of country) to launch against them, because they are in a
system that is ripe for political dictatorial ship takeover.
Dictatorial ship? Like a really bossy oiltanker? Please tell me how north
Korea isn't already taken over by a dictatorship?
Under democracy, it is hard to launch and get away with it, because as a
President you do not control everything and must answer to the people.
In Communist/Socialist/Dictatorships the leaders answer to no-one!
Nonsense. How do you explain the nuerous European countries with socialist
regimes who regulalry vote their leaders in and out?
I'm not worried about China's premier Hu from launching on the west,
but China's history of being taken over from the north by foreigners
who would then take control of the nukes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry warns of nuclear terrorism (Sounds alot like Bush...is there a difference between the two?) |
03 Jun 2004 12:00:49 PM |
|
|
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:<c9mjab$b02$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dd3256f0.0406020957.3f4ff971@posting.google.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:<c9km8s$f7d$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"Arnold Holbrook" <arnold_holbrook@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:7e4bfa4a.0406020441.3790237@posting.google.com...
Kerry biggest weakeness is that alot of people don't really see him
being any different than Bush.
That and he appears to be a vacillitating soulless automaton with the
worst
haircut in politics since Leon Brittan.
Kerry may propose a more delicate appraoch to WMD proliferation, he
will quickly find out that this ineptitude will go nowhere. Look what
happened when Bill Clinton appeased the North Koreans.
To be fair, the NKs did pack it in when they were getting aid. Trouble
was
Clinton showed them they had a strong bargaining chip there.
" To be fair?" Clinton covered up NK's persistence lies in regards to
stance of developing Nuclear weapons. Its in fact, the small Water
Nuclear Reactor that Aussi's, and U.S. built for them, OK'd by Clinton
defrayment scheme of the '90s to usurer in a booming economy.
"usurer in a booming economy"? you do know usurer is a noun don't you?
Whether he talks to the NK's in a room with one person or six, in the
end
the
NK's will demand a non aggression treaty with the US as the only
condition for abandoning its WMD.
If America didn't subsidize North Korea in the first place they would
not have enough money to run their WMD program, idiot.
Michael, until you learn to spell
There is nothing wrong with that sentence (Above), showing that below
your spelling mistakes, along with this assumption by you, brings up
the 'real' question if you can understand English at all?
or have the slightest inkling of decent
grammar
I agree, yet That will not stop me from debunking your lies which is
the real threat and motive of your statement here ;)
..
it is a bit hypocritical of you to call Arnold an idiot.
The people would have revolted if the gov. took all the money and used it
on the
program.
??
They didn't, they took much of the America money and used it
on their people, while running clandestine operations to fund their
WMD programs. In essence, America ( Bill Clinton and some US comp.)
funded the WMD program inadvertently - Clinton's appeasement as
outlined in history - now!
I suspect they will push for aid as well, like last time. And why not?
Probably a lot cheaper to give them humanitarian aid in exchange for
full
access to their WMD than trying to clean the mess up by invading.
I would not invade either. I would simply blow their WMD programs off
the face of the earth and leave them to wallow in their own problems.
See? You're an idiot.
Do you seriously believe that buying a persons friendship will make
them loyal when the resources of the world run out and there are not
enough to go around?
You simply don't understand politics do you son?
Well I'm not your son, and do not agree with your politics.
I wonder if Kerry is stupid enough to do it?
He already accepted PLA ( Chinese Military) campaign money ( reported
in the Associated Press in the '90s) so I think he has a appeasement
plan with the communists.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!
Actually Kerry thinks it's funny too that he can commit treason
against the United States and the Media will not convict him. ;)
If done correctly, it woduln't be stupid at all.
"woduln't?"
What the hell is that?
A typo! Surely thta's obvious? ;-)
BWAAWAWAWAWAWAWA You cannot spell worth ***** loser - that's not a
typo ;)
( See your statement above - hypo.
Or he may realize that if there is a serious effort to remove the NK
WMD threat, it will have to be done the hard way.
Why?
Obviously you are not a futurist.
Look the word up dense.
??
Bush, on the other hand, will just be blantantly foolhardy with NK if
he gets re-elected, instead of Kerry's beating around the bush
aproach.
You and Clinton and all those feel-goody types of left-wingers always
fail to see what the future could entail.
Are you talking to me, Arnold or your pink power ranger doll?
I will leave you to commiserate with the Anti-western terrorist who
posted those threads under terranews. I believe he or she is posting
to this newsgroup yesterday under the same headers and newsreader
version. But, as said of you before, you are sympathetic to the
terrorists cause because of Evil Europe who divided up the Middle East
after WWI (Not America).
It is not the fear that this
NK administration will launch against China, Japan, or other
countries. It is that fact that in the future you may get a crazy man
( takeover of country) to launch against them, because they are in a
system that is ripe for political dictatorial ship takeover.
Dictatorial ship? Like a really bossy oiltanker? Please tell me how north
Korea isn't already taken over by a dictatorship?
Well then I win my point, yet again against your ignorance.
Under democracy, it is hard to launch and get away with it, because as a
President you do not control everything and must answer to the people.
In Communist/Socialist/Dictatorships the leaders answer to no-one!
Nonsense. How do you explain the nuerous European countries with socialist
regimes who regulalry vote their leaders in and out?
Who are they?
I'm not worried about China's premier Hu from launching on the west,
but China's history of being taken over from the north by foreigners
who would then take control of the nukes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry warns of nuclear terrorism (Sounds alot like Bush...is there a difference between the two?) |
04 Jun 2004 02:05:44 AM |
|
|
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dd3256f0.0406030900.4e33a6a5@posting.google.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:<c9mjab$b02$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dd3256f0.0406020957.3f4ff971@posting.google.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:<c9km8s$f7d$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"Arnold Holbrook" <arnold_holbrook@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:7e4bfa4a.0406020441.3790237@posting.google.com...
Kerry biggest weakeness is that alot of people don't really see
him
being any different than Bush.
That and he appears to be a vacillitating soulless automaton with
the
worst
haircut in politics since Leon Brittan.
Kerry may propose a more delicate appraoch to WMD proliferation,
he
will quickly find out that this ineptitude will go nowhere. Look
what
happened when Bill Clinton appeased the North Koreans.
To be fair, the NKs did pack it in when they were getting aid.
Trouble
was
Clinton showed them they had a strong bargaining chip there.
" To be fair?" Clinton covered up NK's persistence lies in regards to
stance of developing Nuclear weapons. Its in fact, the small Water
Nuclear Reactor that Aussi's, and U.S. built for them, OK'd by Clinton
defrayment scheme of the '90s to usurer in a booming economy.
"usurer in a booming economy"? you do know usurer is a noun don't you?
Eh? Eh?
Whether he talks to the NK's in a room with one person or six, in
the
end
the
NK's will demand a non aggression treaty with the US as the only
condition for abandoning its WMD.
If America didn't subsidize North Korea in the first place they would
not have enough money to run their WMD program, idiot.
Michael, until you learn to spell
There is nothing wrong with that sentence (Above),
Why the capital letter for "above"?
showing that below your spelling mistakes, along with this assumption by
you, brings up
the 'real' question if you can understand English at all?
I can't understand that mangled sentence, that's for sure. You illiterate
*****-swigging weirdo.
or have the slightest inkling of decent
grammar
I agree, yet That will not stop me from debunking your lies which is
the real threat and motive of your statement here ;)
Please cite a lie I have written, MacDonut.
.
it is a bit hypocritical of you to call Arnold an idiot.
The people would have revolted if the gov. took all the money and used
it
on the
program.
??
They didn't, they took much of the America money and used it
on their people, while running clandestine operations to fund their
WMD programs. In essence, America ( Bill Clinton and some US comp.)
funded the WMD program inadvertently - Clinton's appeasement as
outlined in history - now!
I suspect they will push for aid as well, like last time. And why
not?
Probably a lot cheaper to give them humanitarian aid in exchange for
full
access to their WMD than trying to clean the mess up by invading.
I would not invade either. I would simply blow their WMD programs off
the face of the earth and leave them to wallow in their own problems.
See? You're an idiot.
Do you seriously believe that buying a persons friendship will make
them loyal when the resources of the world run out and there are not
enough to go around?
You simply don't understand politics do you son?
Well I'm not your son, and do not agree with your politics.
I wonder if Kerry is stupid enough to do it?
He already accepted PLA ( Chinese Military) campaign money ( reported
in the Associated Press in the '90s) so I think he has a appeasement
plan with the communists.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!
Actually Kerry thinks it's funny too that he can commit treason
against the United States and the Media will not convict him. ;)
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You're a loon.
If done correctly, it woduln't be stupid at all.
"woduln't?"
What the hell is that?
A typo! Surely thta's obvious? ;-)
BWAAWAWAWAWAWAWA You cannot spell worth ***** loser - that's not a
typo ;)
(deja vu) NO, of course it's not a typo, I actually think wouldn't SHOULD be
spelled woduln't you see.
( See your statement above - hypo.
You're beyond help...
Or he may realize that if there is a serious effort to remove the
NK
WMD threat, it will have to be done the hard way.
Why?
Obviously you are not a futurist.
Look the word up dense.
??
Bush, on the other hand, will just be blantantly foolhardy with NK
if
he gets re-elected, instead of Kerry's beating around the bush
aproach.
You and Clinton and all those feel-goody types of left-wingers always
fail to see what the future could entail.
Are you talking to me, Arnold or your pink power ranger doll?
I will leave you to commiserate with the Anti-western terrorist who
posted those threads under terranews. I believe he or she is posting
to this newsgroup yesterday under the same headers and newsreader
version. But, as said of you before, you are sympathetic to the
terrorists cause because of Evil Europe who divided up the Middle East
after WWI (Not America).
What? Speak English or *****.
It is not the fear that this
NK administration will launch against China, Japan, or other
countries. It is that fact that in the future you may get a crazy man
( takeover of country) to launch against them, because they are in a
system that is ripe for political dictatorial ship takeover.
Dictatorial ship? Like a really bossy oiltanker? Please tell me how
north
Korea isn't already taken over by a dictatorship?
Well then I win my point, yet again against your ignorance.
What? What's a "dictatorial ship"? And please indicate how North Korea
isn't already a dictatorship (if that's what you meant)
Under democracy, it is hard to launch and get away with it, because as
a
President you do not control everything and must answer to the people.
In Communist/Socialist/Dictatorships the leaders answer to no-one!
Nonsense. How do you explain the nuerous European countries with
socialist
regimes who regulalry vote their leaders in and out?
Who are they?
You really are an ignorant ***** aren't you? Errmmm let's see now. The United
Kingdom, Sweden, France, Denmark, Norway, Germany, Spain to name but a few
either curently have or have had socialist regimes where the leaders most
certainly DID answer to the people, usually on election day.
I'm not worried about China's premier Hu from launching on the west,
but China's history of being taken over from the north by foreigners
who would then take control of the nukes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
