Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Kerry's International Enemies part 2

In an earlier article I showed the Kerry campaign's international ineptitude with a few countries, Australia, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. This is the continuing saga covering Kerry's lack of support abroad. This session we shall show that North and South Korea, China, Russia, Japan, Iran, and Poland would consider themselves better off in points under a Bush administration. At least one nation has come out and challenged Kerry. I'll leave that for the end though.

Kerry (debate 1): I want bilateral talks which put all of the
issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ (the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea) issues and the nuclear issues on the table.
The only entity that wants a bilateral talk is Kerry. Maybe he wants bilateral talks for his two Americas too? North Korea wants multilateral talks. We've tried bilateral talks with North Korea and they have always ended up failing.

If we were to break off multilateral talks including South Korea an Japan we would lose face with them because it is these nations that North Korea threatens to destroy. I don't know anyone that would like someone else negotiating their own well-being.It would be an insult to these countries to cut them out of the talks. Both of these countries are extremely sensitive to insult and disrespect. They would feel distrespected and dejected.

China an Russia are North Korea's neighbors. China was the nation that effectively brought North Korea into existence. Kicking them out of these talks could create an interanational incident similar to when our slow and poorly maneuverable "spy-plane" crashed into their fast and highly manuverable F-8 piloted by Wong, wei. (Yes, they guy's name was Wong, Wei.) However, it was the United States that apologized to protect the troops in China from being killed.

Russia does not always have the same hang ups as Asia when it comes to insult. They do get concerned when it comes to losing money. Russia has been making arms trades with North Korea for many years. Most of their decrepid air force was supplied by Russia. (Shhh this is supposed to be a secret.) Would kicking Russia our of multilateral talks help or hinder our relations in the region? One need only look at the dollar signs.


Kerry (debate 1): I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes.

Iran has dismissed Kerry's statement as nothing more than propaganda. Iran does not believe Kerry. Even the Iranians see through him. Just to be (somewhat) fair the Iranians don't like Bush either. That whole "axis of evil" thing just doesn't sit quite right with them.

To get off topic a bit lets look at what he was actually proposing: providing nuclear fuel to Iran. Correct me if I'm wrong on this but isn't this similar to how this nuclear problem in North Korea got started? By a show of hands, who want's to give low-enriched Uranium to Iran? Anyone? Anyone?


Kerry (debate 1): The president says that I'm denigrating these troops. I
have nothing but respect for the British, Tony Blair, and for what they've been
willing to do.

But you can't tell me that when the most troops any other country has on
the ground is Great Britain, with 8,300, and below that the four others are
below 4,000, and below that, there isn't anybody out of the hundreds, that we
have a genuine coalition to get this job done.

This quote comes courtesy of Chrenkoff. I never knew he could translate polish. What a talented guy. I have to give Redhunter some credit too. I didn't know about Chrenkoff's post until he posted it on his site. The Polish President, Aleksander Kwasniewski's response:

Poland's President: It's sad that a Senator with twenty years of experience
does not appreciate Polish sacrifice... I don't think it's a question of
ignorance. One thing has to be said very clearly: this Coalition is not just the
United States, Great Britain and Australia, but there's also contribution of
Polish, Ukrainian, Bulgarian and Spanish soldiers who died in Iraq. It's immoral
to not see this involvement we undertook because we believe that we have to
fight terrorism together, that we need to show international solidarity, that
Saddam Hussein is a danger to the world.

From such a perspective, you can say we are disappointed that our stance
and the sacrifice of our soldiers is so marginalised. I blame it on
electioneering - and a message, indirectly expressed by Senator Kerry - that he
thinks more of a coalition that would put the United States together with France
and Germany, that is those who in the matter of Iraq said 'no'.

President Bush is behaving like a true Texan gentleman - he's fighting for
the recognition of other countries' contribution in the Coalition.

So, Kerry does not appreciate the polish sacrifice. He is dissapointed that his country's sacrifice has been marginalised. Let me try to some this up a little bit better: Kerry crapped on anyone who helped in the coalition and we don't like it, or him. So, who's Kerry left with as an ally? Dick reminds us that he hasn't pissed off Nepal yet!

Coming next time...Nepal?

No comments: