From: "Gary Britt" 

Let me take them in reverse order:

North Korea developed its nuke weapons technology and its first nuclear
bomb or two under the CLINTON administration.  They did this under the
failed policy of bi-lateral talks that Kerry wants to return to.   Kerry is
an
idiot who couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag, and nothing shows
this more clearly than his expressed failure to understand that using China
and Russia in the talks to leverage North Korea's compliance isn't a much
better way to go combined with his naive statement that entering into
bilateral negotiations won't undercut and destroy the leverage we gain by
having China and Russia involved in pressuring North Korea.  The fact that
he says he wants to return to failed Clinton policy of handling North
Korea, that allowed North Korea to get its nuke weapons technology and
first couple of nukes, shows how incompetent and DANGEROUS Kerry is in
fact.

On Iran the idiot Kerry stated he take the Clinton policy that helped North
Korea go nuclear and apply to Iran by selling Iran the fuel rods and other
technology they need.  Nevermind that's what Clinton did with North Korea,
more or less, which they proceeded to cheat and develop their nuclear
technology and first couple of bombs with.  Kerry is dangerous to USA and
world health.

Regarding Iraq and how that made the world safer a very lucid explanation
of this was given by Senator John McCain at the republican convention. 
Unlike what Kerry claims, Senator McCain noted that had we not moved in
Iraq, Saddam was NOT contained; that the sanctions were falling apart at
the UN, because France and Russia and others were already moving to
dismantle the sanctions regime; that Saddam would have been left in power
in Iraq with no sanction regime at all; no inspections; and the conviction
that he could do whatever he wanted and the UN would never really do
anything about it; According to McCain Saddam would have then fired up his
WMD and nuke programs again full bore, with more money because sanctions
would be gone. Saddam would then ultimately give some nukes or nuke
technology to Al Qaeda for detonation in the USA or he would have sent his
own people to do the same.  He would also have likely moved again on Kuwait
and Saudi Arabia, which if he was successful at both he could then hold the
world economy hostage to his insanity.

You could read McCain's speech on this for yourself or watch the video.  I
believe its available on the net somewhere.

Gary

"Geo."  wrote in message
news:416272e0$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:415f8b27$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > If we were to continue to follow the anti-military pacifist line that
Kerry
> > would put the country on, the terrorists would get nukes George, and
since
> > the terrorists don't have a particular piece of land (i.e. country) to
> > defend (at least most don't) then the mad doctrine that you paraphrase
as
> > the way to handle things is completely unworkable.
>
> So explain to me how blowing up Iraq, a country that didn't have nukes,
didn't
> even have a viable nuke program, while allowing NK and Iran to develop
nukes,
> is going to prevent this?
>
> Geo.
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5