Keith Devens .com

Hi Keith, that's all just business!!!!
If Bush can buy oil for weapons - he will deliver the weapons to th Mullahs.
You know who gave the weapons to the Iraq goverment - THE USA!
Who killed the Americans in Irak - Bush! He started a useless war for OIL!!!!

Bush is one of the greatest menace in the 21th century (not the mullahs) - he is a cowboy - not a politician.

I am writing here from Europe - and I hope that the Americans will blow away this guy!
Its to bad that you cant read the European or German press. Here they are much more objectiv than the US press - believe me.

Mike

Funny. It's like self-parody.

haha, that's true keith....but your right, since he did such a good job dealing with/stopping north korea, i'm sure iran will be no problem...

Well, he's done pretty good with Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya so far. What would you have liked him to have done with NK?

Are you crazy??? so is the US going to go around the world and start invading countries, because we don't agree with their ideology. It's easy for all of us, here, that are not invovled in the day to day misery that is now Iraq, to make such boastful comments. Its easy to discuss when the war seems like nothing more than an academic debate, but reality is that real people Americans and Iraqis (many innocent) are shedding blood and dying for a decision an ideological zealot (Bush and cronies) made.. Before you can support comments like we should invade another country, be prepared to join the military and fight, don't subscribe to the chickenhawk mentality of the current administration.

Bush is a maniac, he is without a doubt one of the most arrogant, insensitive and wrongly righteous leaders this country has every produced. Ironically, there's nothing wrong with most repulicans, but the right wing segment of the party has led this country right down the crapper.

Kieth , I'm surprised at you, considering your views on religion, how you can applaud such a leader, who is on nothing more than a modern day class-crusader through Arabia, because of the economic benefits to his class (not country ) of people...

Well, he's done pretty good with Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya so far. What would you have liked him to have done with NK?

Afghanistan was legitimate as self-defense, the jury's still out on iraq(though i have to admit its getting better, a little better all the time), and i'll give you libya.

NK, however....perhaps he could have worked to help the internal resistance in North Korea to overthrow that kim dude. or he could have invaded, you know, to liberate the opressed people, or whatever it is that Bush does so well. or maybe that kim dude just needed a hug.

ok, so i clearly don't know the answer to what to do about NK, but i think the fact that we've failed to stop kim's weapons program through diplomacy(as well as the failure of diplomacy with iraq) shows that we probably won't be successful in Iran. unless bush pulls a golden unicorn out of his ass and it convinces the Mullahs (that's a funny sounding word, by the way.) to stop their opression/weapons program/whatever excuse he's got to get in there/ oil (sorry, i forgot that oil's not a factor in this at all), then we'll probably have no choice but to go in and stick a ford truck man's boot up their ass (courtesy of you know who!).

i'm fine with liberating people and all that, but where do we draw the line? is there a certain quota for evil that needs to be filled before we do our thing? we can't afford to feed/educate/etc. our own people, so how are we gonna pay for that? and once bush is done there, where do we go next? (i hear there's plenty of opression and suffering in africa) also, if this is so incredibly important for national security, why wait? lets get toby keith on the first flight out there! (this is where, if i were michael moore, i'd say something like "it sounds like bush would rather have nukes in Iran than kerry in the white house", but that's obviously a load of horse poo). but i digress...

so is the US going to go around the world and start invading countries

No, re-read my post. I never mentioned invasion and I clearly said that the way we should deal with Iran is by helping their internal resistance, which they have a bunch of. They're just not powerful enough yet. Invasion is not the way to go with Iran, like it was with Iraq. The resistance doesn't want that, and neither do we.

because we don't agree with their ideology

If ideology was all this was about I'd feel a lot more comfortable. Personally, I'm more scared of their nukes.

Its easy to discuss when the war seems like nothing more than an academic debate, but reality is that real people Americans and Iraqis (many innocent) are shedding blood and dying for a decision an ideological zealot (Bush and cronies) made.. Before you can support comments like we should invade another country, be prepared to join the military and fight, don't subscribe to the chickenhawk mentality of the current administration.

Sheesh man, "chickenhawk"? You're reading from the Democratic talking points. Again, I don't support invading Iran. Also, the "you should join up and fight" comment is just not logical. It's ok to support a war and not join it yourself. In fact, I dearly wish I could join it, but at 5'2" and 115 pounds, with poor eyesight etc. I just don't think I'm right for the job, and I wonder if I'm even above their minimum height/weight requirements. I've just tried desperately to find a prior post where I covered this, but for the life of me I can't find it.

because of the economic benefits to his class

So, it's all about OIIIIL! Sigh.

ok, so i clearly don't know the answer to what to do about NK

No, you don't know the answer. It's a hard question.

The one thing I'll say about your post is that it perfectly illustrates why I find comments like yours so disingenuous. On the one hand you argue that maybe we should have invaded North Korea, yet on the other hand you say "Where will the invading stop!?".

If Bush had wanted to invade North Korea you'd be criticising him for that. These types of protestations are so misleading -- people like you choose to find fault with whatever he does or doesn't do.

i think the fact that we've failed to stop kim's weapons program through diplomacy(as well as the failure of diplomacy with iraq) shows that we probably won't be successful in Iran.

That doesn't follow, and remember that we were successful with Libya through diplomacy (which only had force because we conquered Iraq and captured Saddam). You know, for all the criticism Bush gets of being a warmonger or an unsophisticated cowboy or whatever, he approaches all of this with way more nuance and wisdom than people like you do.

once again, keith, i completely agree with you. well, not completely, as i won't be voting for Bush, but you really hit the nail in the head. i am paranoid of pretty much everything Bush says/does, mainly because i don't think he's the man for the job, but that's a entirely different subject. also, i hope he has more nuance and wisdom than i do, as he is our president, and his decisions are much more intense than anything i ever have to make (wong's gourmet or McDonalds?).

now, i know my worst-case scenario bit was way over the top/crazy, but i do seriously wonder why Bush wants to wait to bomb their facilities until after the election if its so important. i think that is a valid question, even though the rest was just extreme leftist rhetoric.

but i do seriously wonder why Bush wants to wait to bomb their facilities until after the election if its so important.

You want to bomb their nuclear facilities now? That's an act of war. Warmonger! Unilateralist.

In all seriousness, you're assuming that now is the right time to act on that. I'm not certain that it is. There may be good reasons to wait longer, or at least reasons why now isn't the best time. We'll simply have to wait and see how this one plays out and hope that the Bush team does the right thing. Thankfully, I can't imagine a team I'd trust more with the responsibility.

Kieth , I'm surprised at you, considering your views on religion

In thinking about this statement it struck me how often people say things like this. What is it that makes people assume that Christianity implies pacifism, particularly given statements therein to the contrary?

Keith, a simple question to you:

How could you possibly have an opinion of what Kerry would in this situation?

" Bush will work to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and work to help the internal resistance in the country to overthrow the Mullahs. I don't believe Kerry will do this."

One thing we DO know is that Halliburton created a Cayman Island subsidiary to skirt regulations prohibiting U.S. Corporations from doing business with Iran. I think Cheney is a crook - and his boss is G.W.Bush. There is a credibility gap here, and seeing how the Bush administration ( and the people/corporations thus affiliated ) have screwed things up, I'm willing to give Kerry a chance.

How could you possibly have an opinion of what Kerry would in this situation?

Kerry's record in the senate has shown that he's been consistently anti-military and anti-intelligence. That, coupled with the fact that he seems willing to defer to the U.N. over issues of our national security gives me little hope for a Kerry administration with a strong foreign policy that the terrorists will fear.

One thing we DO know...

What is it about the left that breeds conspiracy theories? Even if it is true that Halliburton skirted regulations to do business with Iran, that means that the Bush administration is willing to let Iran acquire nukes? Yeah, that makes sense...

...have screwed things up...

I don't think they've "screwed things up" at all. I think they've done a superb job, and I'm willing to bet (with my vote) that they'll continue to over the next four years.

In the last 15 years -- since the US started and continued
bombing Iraq -- how much have they spent on this destruction?

Take that dollar amount and find out how much new, useful
infrastructure could have been built for Iraqis in the same
time-frame.

Ask yourself if a non-poverty-stricken able-to-get-clean-water-and-food Iraqi population would be
better off (bearing in mind that the water, sewage and power infrastructure
of Iraq was systematically destroyed in the first Gulf War).

I don't get it. It's like you're not even aware of the Oil For Food program scandal.

Hey, I'm with you. I think it would have been good if we had removed Saddam back in '91. I think not removing him then and leaving him to slaughter the resistance that we encouraged is one of the most shameful things we've ever done as a country.

The 2003 invasion was long overdue.

Nothing I said has anything to do with the "oil for food"
"program", but nice straw man.

You'll notice I also didn't mention Hussein; that's because
he's irrelevant to my point.

As for shameful things you've done as a country, that doesn't
even break the top 100 (even if we limit our search to the
last couple decades).

You'll notice I also didn't mention Hussein; that's because he's irrelevant to my point.

Of course it's relevant. What you wanted to be done couldn't have been done under Hussein's regime. Now it can be. You should be happy. Your argument would make sense if you were arguing that Saddam should have been removed in '91, but you don't seem to be arguing that.

The oil for food thing isn't a straw man. That program was specifically set up to accomplish the types of things you wanted (water and food and infrastructure for the poverty-stricken Iraqis), yet Saddam built palaces for himself while the people got pretty much nothing, all while the corrupt UN, which was supposed to be administering this for the benefit of the Iraqis, was on the take.

Now that Saddam has been removed what you want is being accomplished. I'm not understanding... what's your argument with this?

As you correctly point out, the oil for food progamme didn't
accomplish its goals -- and hence is not an example of the
"types of things" I suggested could be accomplished with
hundreds of billions of dollars.

And no, the "types of things" I suggest can't be done now, because
the money is gone, you're not going to spend even a fraction
of that sum on rebuilding, the infrastructure is destroyed
and tens of thousands are slaughtered. Unless I missed some
new foreign policy dicate which is going to give Iraqis a few
hundered billion US$ to rebuild their country...?

My point was a hypothetical designed to point out to ridiculous
futility of war and vast, hypocritcal stupidity of US foreign
policy.

How could you possibly have an opinion of what Kerry would in this situation?

Well, now we know. Unbelievable!