sKerry's BIGGEST mistake - we will get nuked if we elect him
 

Karl Denninger wrote:
In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:

First.

That'll be $100,000 for willful copyright infringement.

Reported to Newsweek.


Yawn.


Second:

Ok, so I watched the debates last night.

Then, just to make sure I wasn’t completely going out of my mind in the
late night, I decided to wait until today to put this blog entry together,
and take just one piece out of the debate that was the most dangerous for
America – by either candidate.

Kerry won the prize.


And he won the debate.


There are some people who think that the most insane part of his position
last night was the claims that he would have a “world check” on any
need to use force – implying that the United Nations, or perhaps even
France or Germany – would have an effective veto over our use of
preemptive force in the war on terror. That was bad, but it wasn’t it.

He never said that. You need to increase the circle of those with whom
you communicate.



Many people have said that the most dangerous part of his posture was in
relationship to North Korea.

That’s a close second. But its instructive – because it means that
Kerry simply doesn’t learn from other’s mistakes, despite what he
claims.

What he said was that we should hold bilateral talks in addition to the
six nation talks. Perfectly sensible.

Stick to helping wandering husbands screw their wives and kids out of
support payments, Karl. It's in your area of expertise.

-----------------------


Bring Back Quayle:

A dumb Republican candidate is better than a dumb and evil one.

In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


Karl Denninger wrote:
In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:

First.

That'll be $100,000 for willful copyright infringement.

Reported to Newsweek.


Yawn.


Second:

Ok, so I watched the debates last night.

Then, just to make sure I wasn’t completely going out of my mind in the
late night, I decided to wait until today to put this blog entry together,
and take just one piece out of the debate that was the most dangerous for
America – by either candidate.

Kerry won the prize.


And he won the debate.

He won the style.

There are some people who think that the most insane part of his position
last night was the claims that he would have a “world check” on any
need to use force – implying that the United Nations, or perhaps even
France or Germany – would have an effective veto over our use of
preemptive force in the war on terror. That was bad, but it wasn’t it.

He never said that. You need to increase the circle of those with whom
you communicate.

Yes he did. I watched the entire thing, front to back, in person.

He might not have wanted to say that, but he did.

Many people have said that the most dangerous part of his posture was in
relationship to North Korea.

That’s a close second. But its instructive – because it means that
Kerry simply doesn’t learn from other’s mistakes, despite what he
claims.

What he said was that we should hold bilateral talks in addition to the
six nation talks. Perfectly sensible.

There will be no six-party talks if we talk directly. They will collapse.
That is obvious, from North Korea's own statements.

Why don't you speak to the point I made Harry?

Your personal attacks are exactly the sort of thing that marks loss in a
debate.

The point here is that sKerry took a position and put forth a policy that
WILL lead to us being nuked - either here or over there - within the
next ten years.

WILL.

Not might.

WILL.

Choose - do you wish to have a nuclear weapon in the hands of the Iranian
Mullahs? This is a yes or no question, and if you vote for Kerry, you've
voted "Yes".

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

thunder wrote:


Yup, except the nuclear technology didn't come from us. It came from the
Pakistanis and China. North Korea is a hard case. With a million plus,
well armed, well trained, well indoctrinated army, solutions are limited.
IMHO, military threats are pointless, resulting in the situation we wish
to avoid. It seems to me, there are only two plausible ways of dealing
with North Korea. Isolation, in the hopes they will collapse, and,
bribery and dialog. The second is the route Clinton chose. While you may
consider it a failure, I would say it is too early to tell. Remember,
China was at one time in a similar isolated circumstance to North Korea.
Nixon chose dialog and it has seemed to be successful.


Talk, talk, talk is better than war, war, war. Karl thinks we can win a
nuclear war.



--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.



What, me worry?

In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


thunder wrote:


Yup, except the nuclear technology didn't come from us. It came from the
Pakistanis and China. North Korea is a hard case. With a million plus,
well armed, well trained, well indoctrinated army, solutions are limited.
IMHO, military threats are pointless, resulting in the situation we wish
to avoid. It seems to me, there are only two plausible ways of dealing
with North Korea. Isolation, in the hopes they will collapse, and,
bribery and dialog. The second is the route Clinton chose. While you may
consider it a failure, I would say it is too early to tell. Remember,
China was at one time in a similar isolated circumstance to North Korea.
Nixon chose dialog and it has seemed to be successful.


Talk, talk, talk is better than war, war, war. Karl thinks we can win a
nuclear war.

Harry, are you EVER going to argue the point put on the table rather than
throw ad-hominen attacks and false statements out in response to a request
for a debate?

Which would you rather deal with:

1. A conventional war NOW against Iran.
2. Attempting to "talk" in order to stop Iran from detonating a SECOND
nuclear device once Tel Aviv has been rendered a flat piece of
high-quality glass.

Those are your options, and Kerry's policy towards Iran will leave you
with (2) as the only option available.

Your method of "debating the issues" matches almost exactly that of Terry
McAuliffe. The scary part is that if your poster boy wins, that's exactly
the same kind of approach that your buddies will use in their foreign
policy.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


Karl Denninger wrote:
Yet another personal attack.

Harry, the issue on the table is foreign policy, and specifically Iran.

If you don't want to - or CAN'T - debate the points I've made, then admit it
and cede the point of debate. If you are able, then enter the debate with
your own point of view, minus the irrelavancies and personal attacks.

Once you've done either, THEN if you'd like to entertain a new point of
debate I'll be happy to engage you with it.

Ok, Karl. I feel we are better off talking directly with Iran and North
Korea and Cuba and working through all diplomatic channels for however
long it takes to see if we can find ways to get along and move along.
Simple enough for you? Talk, talk, talk, inspect, inspect, inspect, work
out compromises, work out compromises, establish links, establish
linkes, set up trade deals, set up trade deals, set up cultural
exchanges, set up cultural exchanges, tone down the rhetoric, tone donw
the rhetoric, help North Korea feed its people, help Cuba rebuild its
economy, et cetera and so forth.

All better than the United States once again starting a war.

Again, Harry, the issue is NOT whether we should talk with people.

The issue is, to rephrase it once more time:

*******

Iran is processing nuclear fuel and has stated their intention to
use the atom only for "peaceful" purposes. International consensus
is that this is not their intention, because:

1. They don't need the atom to produce electricity - they have
a lot of petroleum, and using atomic power is EXPENSIVE.
When your oil is basically "free" it makes no economic sense
to use atomic power for this purpose.

2. You do NOT need the ability to process highly enriched
uranium for atomic power. You can buy fuel directly from
several sources, including the United States. It is a LOT
cheaper to buy the fuel than to make it, provided your
intent is to only use it for power.

3. There is no need to hide anything if you are doing it all
for peaceful purposes. Iran is indeed doing that.

So.

We, and the rest of the international community, believe that they
are persuing nuclear energy to make weapons.

Talking is great. However, talking does not appear to have any
impact on their developing technology. At some point, they will
reach a stage where they will have enough processed fuel for a
nuclear weapon - and that time will come sooner rather than later -
perhaps in a year or two at most.

Once you have the enriched uranium, making the bomb itself is trivial.

So now here's the question:

Given these facts, do we have a foreign policy with regards
to Iran that says that we WILL NOT permit Iran to develop
nuclear weapons, and that we will do whatever is necessary -
including armed conflict if we must - to stop them.
Further, insuring sufficient transparency so that there is
NO QUESTION that they are not doing this is THEIR PROBLEM -
not ours.

OR

Do we have a foreign policy that says that we will talk with
them, offer them fuel, put in place a "monitoring program"
and AFTER THE FACT if they cheat we will consult with the
Security Council - the same Security Council who failed to
do ANYTHING about North Korea cheating and developing
nuclear weapons.

John Kerry supports the second path.

George Bush supports the first path.

I believe that the second path will lead to Israel or our nation being
nuked within the next 10 years, as history says that (1) the UNSC is unable,
or unwilling, to enforce its demands, and (2) Iran WILL cheat on any
negotiated deal and produce the weapons.

Show me please just ONE United Nations Security Council actual interdiction
action in the last 30 years that did not involve the direct invasion of
another's territory (e.g. Gulf War I.)

You can't.

You can, however, list numerous cases of development of banned weapons by
various countries which have drawn "rebukes" from the UNSC, but no effective
cessation of the activity nor any willingness to back up the condemnation
with an international armed response.

The simple truth is that if we are stop the proliferation we must do it
ourselves, with our own money and armed forces. The United Nations will not
help - they never have historicaly done so and there is no reason to belive
they will this time either.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

Karl Denninger wrote:
Heh Harry.

Please comment on whether you think we should have held elections during the
Civil War, and whether they were legitimate, even though a huge part of the
country was unable to participate.

Not comparable circumstances, electorates, methodologies and more.



Allawi said that 3 of 18 provinces are under significant unrest.


Hahahahehehehohoho


The other
15 are stable.

(BTW, we DID hold them, and they WERE legitimate.....)

--


--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:


Yup, except the nuclear technology didn't come from us. It came from the
Pakistanis and China. North Korea is a hard case. With a million plus,
well armed, well trained, well indoctrinated army, solutions are limited.
IMHO, military threats are pointless, resulting in the situation we wish
to avoid. It seems to me, there are only two plausible ways of dealing
with North Korea. Isolation, in the hopes they will collapse, and,
bribery and dialog. The second is the route Clinton chose. While you
may
consider it a failure, I would say it is too early to tell. Remember,
China was at one time in a similar isolated circumstance to North Korea.
Nixon chose dialog and it has seemed to be successful.


Talk, talk, talk is better than war, war, war. Karl thinks we can win a
nuclear war.

Talk, talk, talk results in you loosing your freedoms. War, war, war,
hopefully, results in you retaining you freedoms.

In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


Karl Denninger wrote:
Heh Harry.

Please comment on whether you think we should have held elections during the
Civil War, and whether they were legitimate, even though a huge part of the
country was unable to participate.

Not comparable circumstances, electorates, methodologies and more.

Allawi said that 3 of 18 provinces are under significant unrest.

Hahahahehehehohoho

Ok, so you want to call him a liar too?

I get it.

Of course, if this is part of Kerry's strategy - and his claimed way of
"building international consensus" - I think he'll find that calling foreign
leaders "liar" in public is PROBABLY not one of the better ways to
accomplish it.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

Karl Denninger wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:
Let's say the Idiot Bush decides to attack Iran without Iran attacking
the US...in other words, what Bush calls a preemptive strike. Let's say
the Iranians, hopelessly outclassed in the order of battle, retaliate
with a nuke.

Well...if it happens that way, Bush will have done us in. Bush. Remember
that...




"Iran on Sunday rebuffed a proposal by U.S. presidential candidate John
Kerry who has suggested supplying the Islamic state with nuclear fuel for
power reactors if Tehran agrees to give up its own fuel-making capability."

Now what John? Talk to a brick wall? Guess so, since you won't do anything
about this without a "global test."



What's your point, Karl? That Kerry should give up on his idea because
he was turned down once? That there's no sense in negotiations? That the
only way is war?

You're smarter than that, Karl. Stop being Bush's stooge.



PS I think Iran already has nukes. bought on the rree market.


--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:

Karl Denninger wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:
Let's say the Idiot Bush decides to attack Iran without Iran attacking
the US...in other words, what Bush calls a preemptive strike. Let's say
the Iranians, hopelessly outclassed in the order of battle, retaliate
with a nuke.

Well...if it happens that way, Bush will have done us in. Bush. Remember
that...


"Iran on Sunday rebuffed a proposal by U.S. presidential candidate John
Kerry who has suggested supplying the Islamic state with nuclear fuel for
power reactors if Tehran agrees to give up its own fuel-making capability."

Now what John? Talk to a brick wall? Guess so, since you won't do anything
about this without a "global test."

What's your point, Karl? That Kerry should give up on his idea because
he was turned down once? That there's no sense in negotiations? That the
only way is war?

War is a form of diplomacy.

When you refuse to hold this card up your sleeve, and "flash" it from time
to time, thereby making clear that you WILL play it if necessary, you
encourage the "nuts" responses from those whom you wish to negotiate with.

Negotiating from a position of weakness is how you lose.

In this case, the stakes are quite literally our lives and way of life.

You're smarter than that, Karl. Stop being Bush's stooge.

I am nobody's stooge.

Having successfully conducted many negotiations, some of them bare-knuckle
smackdowns, I'm well-aware of the dynamics at work.

It is pure insanity to postulate in public that you will apply a "global
test" to America's interests, or to make statements about running all your
intentions through the UN Security Council - the very same UN that was
bought and bribed by Saddam with great success.

PS I think Iran already has nukes. bought on the rree market.

I don't.

The day they really do have them, we will find out.

Unfortunately.

As I sit here this morning I am watching one of Kerry's stooges (Lockhart)
talking about how Kerry is going to "bring all the international partners
from the first gulf war back in".

Oh really John? That's a lie, and Lockhart knows it.

France and Germany have already said in public "that ain't gonna happen, no
matter who is President and no matter what you promise us." So has Russia,
and so has China.

Note that there are several Vetos in there for the Security Council - and it
only takes ONE to call full stop.

The problem, Harry, is that sKerry CAN'T deliver - and he knows it.
His ENTIRE candidacy and indeed his ENTIRE public life has been one of
pacifism and appeasement - from Vietnam onward. His Senate record makes
CLEAR what he thinks of the military and use of force - he has nothing but
disdain for either.

While talking is a great idea, you must always be willing to back up your
bluster with force - otherwise you have NO leverage with which to bargain.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind