Article

2004-10-12 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 Mark Espinola 2004-10-12 2:30:45 AM|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I thought it was Bush who said that this war on terror can not be won. Approx. a month ago.. He did flip-flop the next day, yet, i think he was genuine in his evaluation of the problem : Terrorism will never be totally rooted out, and if it would become a 'nuisance', I think it would already be a great succes.

Posted by lyot 2004-10-12 3:53:33 AM|| 2004-10-12 3:53:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 (lyot) Why don't you locate some scared-for-life victims of 9-11, caused by Islamic terrorists, and try feeding them the Kerry 'nuisance' rubbish as you stare at their various skin graphs.

While your at it you may also want to seek out the multi-thousands of international terrorist related injury victims caused by the followers of the 'nuisance'.

Here is a short list to assist you in finding the world's victims of the 'nuisance': Indonesia, The Philippines, Spain, Turkey, Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Russia, Nigeria, Yugoslavia, India, The Sudan, Thailand, along with the scores of other nations in which the barbaric Islamic 'Terrorist Inc' enemy has chosen to slaughter the innocent, to further their monstrous goal of total world-wide domination through targeted extermination of millions of 'infidels.

Remember now, be sure to cast your vote for the same 'nuisance' candidate the jihad boys & the French are cheering for!

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-10-12 4:37:33 AM|| 2004-10-12 4:37:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 M.E, you must have understood me wrong.. I don't think it's possible to speak of contemporary terrorism as a 'nuisance'. Yet, through policy it should become no more then a 'nuisance'.. Eradicting terrorism 100% is not possible imho, yet managing it so that it becomes no more then a nuisance should. That I think is what George Bush meant a couple of weeks ago, and I truly think that's also Kerry's conviction.

Posted by lyot 2004-10-12 5:01:44 AM|| 2004-10-12 5:01:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 lyot, Ok, allow me to ask this.

If Bush had stated, lets say some 8-10 months ago 'we have the hardcore tangible proof that Saddam did indeed transfer his chemical & gem warfare weaponry (WMD) to Assad's Syria, then soon after portions were distributed in various mountainous regions of northern Lebanon, under joint Hizballah-Syrian control, with deep Iranian involvement.

Bush then declares to the American public; 'Based on the known threats (including nuclear) and recent published documentation, American and her allies have agreed are going to engage both terrorist promoting Syria and Lebanon, plus Iran, if or when they become aggressive against the allies!

Would you have supported these global anti-terrorist measures, even though it would mean broadening the the geographic area concerning the overall objective of hitting the heart of the 'terrorist empire' and defeating the greatest threat to international economic stability.

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-10-12 6:15:22 AM|| 2004-10-12 6:15:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Mmark, if the threat is credible and there's good intelligence to back it up, sure I would not have anything against such anti-terrorist measures in Syria/Lebanon. The spread of WMD to these groups is unacceptable and must be crushed as much as possible. I'm not sure about attacking Iran, as crushing the Hizballah already equals waging war with Iran, be it by proxy.. One would guess they get the messsage by then. Only if every other option fails, Iran should be attacked. One hotbed (Irak) is enough for the moment..Iran needs a soft revolution and I hope it will happen.

Posted by Spemble Grains4886 2004-10-12 7:49:15 AM|| 2004-10-12 7:49:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Mark, sorry for the typo..Spemble Grains 4886 = me

Posted by Lyot 2004-10-12 7:50:07 AM|| 2004-10-12 7:50:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Lyot, I know what you are saying and you have a point re: that terrorism will never be eliminated.

Go read Belmont club for a great and fair analysis of Kerry's comments. Then when you're done - go read what Giuliani (instapundit or LGF) had to say about it.

Posted by 2b 2004-10-12 8:31:04 AM|| 2004-10-12 8:31:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Links: belmont club re: Kerry's NYT article scroll down to Pillar of Salt, Oct 11

instapundit Giuliani comments scroll down to Oct. 11

Both of these are great reads!

Posted by 2b 2004-10-12 8:40:16 AM|| 2004-10-12 8:40:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 No terrorism will never be defeated - but we can defeat the nations that use terrorists as a tool of national policy.

The lone (or small group) loonies with no national support will always be around - but our country will not be hit like 9-11.

Posted by Dan 2004-10-12 11:21:17 AM|| 2004-10-12 11:21:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 #5 Why should we not attack iran? A country which as has been attacking us for 25 years?

You stated that crushing the Hizballah already equals waging war with Iran, be it by proxy
Is this not what iran is doing against us? Iran has been waging war agaisnt us. The only difference is that no us president (dem or rep) has had the moral fortitude to fight back.

One hotbed (Irak) is enough for the moment..Iran needs a soft revolution
so since iraq is a hotbed (due to in large part to iran) we should back off? This is exactly what the mullaha's intended.

Posted by Dan 2004-10-12 11:27:17 AM|| 2004-10-12 11:27:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 It seems to me our quarrel is not with Iran as such, but with the Mullahs and their tools. A couple of missiles aimed at Revolutionary Guard barracks and the home addresses of individual Mullahs before dawn, followed by destroying the Parliament building and dropping a few bunker busters on their nuclear development facilities might well do the trick.

I realize we don't know where all the secret facilities are, but even reducing their nuclear development capability will impact the urgency of dealing with the issue.

Posted by trailing wife 2004-10-12 12:23:39 PM|| 2004-10-12 12:23:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Yes I agree are battle is with the Mullahs but taking the clinton approach and sending over some missiles will not do the job. It will just entrench the mullahas.

Our fight in WWII was agasint nazism/fascism but it took destroying/occupying the german people to finally defeat nazism.
Just as the the german people of the 30's supported hitler the people of iran supported these asshats (at least in the begginning).

This is a defining moment in history-
either we tackle this regime or we leave the region to them.
They are actively working towards this while we debate humanities.

Posted by Dan 2004-10-12 1:16:56 PM|| 2004-10-12 1:16:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Lyot, did you say typos? You are aware of the anti-Typo regulations governing comments in here? Look at all of mine, the typo-king... lol

The President, contingent on his victory Nov 2nd, will be free of political constraints (Kerry & the left) and then as Dan has stated "we can defeat the nations that use terrorists as a tool of national policy". The Islamic regimÃ© in Tehran has been utilizing it's main natural resource, exportable crude oil to spread Shi'ite terrorism & expansion since 1979. Recall it was the radical Islamists in Iran which ordered the car bomb murder of our Marines in Lebanon in the early 1980's. This same regimÃ© assisted in installing Hizballah's jihadic brownshirts in Lebanon and each day Israelis are confronted with Iranian paid & trained Islamic Hamas/Islamic Jihad madmen.

Although these days we do not hear the term 'oil embargo', something associated with the 1973-4 & 1979 Arab/Iranian oil embargos directed at America bring about the severe recession of the 1970's. Do people have such short memories of Khomeini holding 'America hostage'? His fanatical followers are still in the divers seat.

There are a number of options the President shall have in his 2nd term to deal with defeating those national 'terror' states. One of them, in relation to 'invading' Iran, would be to enforce a total Iranian oil blockade from exiting the Persian Gulf. A sustainable reduction in Iran's Opec oil revenue will further incite the Iranian public against the ruling mullahs. Hard economic times would begin domestically for Iran, greatly reducing the mullahs ability to continue supporting Syria, Hizballah & Hamas Iran is surrounded this second on almost all fronts. Somebody in the White House had a workable plan for the eventual downfall of the world #1 state purveyors of Shi'ite jihadism.

As 'trailing wife' as stated "A couple of missiles aimed at Revolutionary Guard barracks and the home addresses of individual Mullahs before dawn" has worked before in removing this form Jihad cancer.

Israel has the most to lose from a nuclear Iran, and in the past took swift action to knock out potential Middle Eastern nuclear threats like Saddam's back in 1981. I would not be a bit surprised if Israel takes the initiative very soon. Our troops & others in the Coalition are suffering now from Iran's exporting of Muslim terrorists.

We have the power to deny Iran the ability to earn millions for global terrorism and remove this Islamic terrorist nuclear threat by toppling the mullah dictatorship. The only question is, do we have the will as 2004 enters into 2005?

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-10-12 1:26:42 PM|| 2004-10-12 1:26:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Dan, you are of course right as far as the tactics required to defeat Germany. However, we have been reading here for some time about mass marches of students against the regime, and in the past few days about specific attacks on the businesses and property of the Mullahs. Given the youthful skew of the population, I was thinking that if we remove the ability of the ruling class to physically intimidate the populace, the kids may be able to handle the rest themselves.

Posted by trailing wife 2004-10-12 5:03:34 PM|| 2004-10-12 5:03:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Cheney is campaigning in New Jersey!?

Internal tracking polls must be showing a slaughter in our favor.

Posted by someone 2004-10-12 5:07:32 PM|| 2004-10-12 5:07:32 PM|| Front Page Top

20:58 Ebbavith Glavirt2777
18:10 Valentine
15:25 lex
13:48 Spemble Spains3686
10:59 lex
05:11 2b
04:56 2b
04:52 2b
04:44 2b
04:36 2b
04:28 2b
04:22 2b
04:11 2b
04:02 2b
00:57 Sock Puppet of Doom
00:29 Zenster
00:18 Gringo Lover
00:11 Sock Puppet of Doom
00:07 True German Ally
00:05 True German Ally
00:05 SON OF TOLUI
23:56 mojo
23:55 OldSpook
23:47 crazyhorse
Merry-Go-Blog