Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: paul_philp who wrote (69653)	1/28/2003 11:22:44 PM
From: MrLucky	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Yes, it is too bad that the Democrats (with a few exceptions) are so partisan about Iraq. Maybe it is because they are of French or German ancestry. :)

To: paul_philp who wrote (69653)	1/28/2003 11:53:15 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Disagree, Paul. Felt that President Bush used exactly the right tone....Going to war is not a "fun and games" project or "compelling", nor is sitting around waiting for the next murdering attack on the US. I believe that he generally outlined the Iraq situation, mentioned Iran (!!!!), and announced Feb 5th as the day Mr. Powell goes to the Security Council. Saddam can still accept his own 12 year old agreement, and cooperate. It's not too late. But I don't believe that any watching tonight can doubt that it soon will be. I am disappointed after the State of the Union. The case against Iraq was careful and complete but it was far from compelling. No matter how justified the war, leading America into battle with the country divided along (mostly) partisan lines is bad policy. It is a failure of leadership.

To: paul_philp who wrote (69653)	1/28/2003 11:56:57 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It's over to Colin Powell to get the big job done but I fear it will be to late to avoid dividing the country. There will always be those who will remain unconvinced regardless of the evidence that is put forth....but I think you may be overestimating the number of people that fall into this camp. I may be giving Bush to much credit, but it is hard to believe that they would be willing to gamble this much on Powell's speech without believing that they have pretty convincing evidence. I also think that the momentum of the war itself will bring support. Most Americans will give Bush the benefit of the doubt simply because of his own conviction and the fact that troops are in the field. I am far less sanguine about the chances of persuading the rest of the world to go along. Perhaps they will decide to support the winning side (as Iran seems to be doing) but I doubt anything that comes from the Bush White House will change the minds of many people in Europe. The leadership may go along but the rest of the populace will likely stay with their belief that Bush is just another cowboy. Slacker

To: paul_philp who wrote (69653)	1/29/2003 12:40:13 AM
From: BCherry168	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Paul, in the US there is always dispute. Many Democrats will never support anything GWB proposes. Like France and Germany, some of them know that when Iraq is taken, and all of the evidence can be brought forward, it will be clear that they and their political allies knew about the WMD, and failed to act, or even participated. Much of what is now known about Iraq and WMD was known in 1998, and the government then failed to act. What conclusions can you draw? If I say the obvious, FL will probably object, so I will leave the answer to your vivid imagination. "It is a failure of leadership." That's what you said about GWB. Do you really mean someone else?

To: paul_philp who wrote (69653)	1/29/2003 1:10:21 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

<<... am disappointed after the State of the Union. The case against Iraq was careful and complete but it was far from compelling. No matter how justified the war, leading America into battle with the country divided along (mostly) partisan lines is bad policy. It is a failure of leadership...>> Paul: I agree with you for the most part...Bush didn't convince me that Iraq was A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER that warranted going to war right now...I was also less than impressed with how the president failed to reassure me that he was commited to working closely with The U.N. and our Allies to address the Iraqi problem...Some of his comments suggested the willingness to go it alone and be a unilateralist -- IMO, this is the NeoCons from the Defense Department having a profound influence on Bush's thinking...On Charlie Rose's Show tonight Alan Brinkley (Professor of History at Columbia University) thought Bush demonstrated that he sees the world in absolutes and that can be very dangerous at times. I am not totally satisfied with Bush's plan to revive the economy, safegaurd our environment, reform healthcare, etc...Overall, IMO it was a speech that will appeal to the hard right in our country BUT will not accomplish all that was necessary....In a way these speeches are autobiographies of the President and I was not surprised by the style, the tone or the substance of the speech. regards, -s2@hopingformuchmore.com

To: paul_philp who wrote (69653)	1/29/2003 1:20:10 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

The case against Iraq was careful and complete but it was far from compelling. Too soon, paul, too soon. We will not get a "Smoking Gun", if there is one, until just before we go.

To: paul_philp who wrote (69653)	1/29/2003 10:20:13 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

I am disappointed after the State of the Union. The case against Iraq was careful and complete but it was far from compelling. No matter how justified the war, leading America into battle with the country divided along (mostly) partisan lines is bad policy. It is a failure of leadership. Interesting. Different standards. I thought it was a well written speech, well delivered. The best post comment I heard was Dan Rather's, to the effect that Bush lacked passion in the first half, but certainly had it in the second half. And carried the passion well. I would expect a poll number bump over the next several days. As for content, I thought he made a mistake by echoing Blix comments. Had he made those before Blix, they would have had more impact. It was right to make them; just a bit off timing. On the Al Q Iraqi connection, that won't help their cause. The connection was made weakly and left very much open to challenge. If they plan to peg much of their case on that link, Powell or Bush, in a promised subsequent speech, will have to do better. If he wishes to make the case for an invasion, Bush will need yet another speech. This one did not quite do the trick. But it certainly helped him. As for the money for AIDS assistance in Africa and the auto exhaustion innovations, I saw those as pure, unadulterated politics. Just a way to try to blunt the criticisms of his environmental policy in the latter case and the criticisms that he lacks "compassion" in the former. If he follows to form, nothing will come of either. It's over to Colin Powell to get the big job done but I fear it will be to late to avoid dividing the country. You know, Paul, you really should move to California. You do identify with certain elements in this country. I suspect the division issue is moot. It's done. I don't think Bush can overcome it. In my view, it will not come to much in the first month or so of an invasion, if it goes as they seem to think it will, quickly. If it does not, then division will become prominent. I expect the division issue to start becoming a big matter after it's clear that US troops will have to be there for some time and will be, definitely, as they say, in harms way. That's when I expect the fact that this is no video game romp to come home to the American public.