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: JohnM who wrote (75568)	2/19/2003 11:48:35 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

"The most troubling thing is that the Bush folk have taken a world wide favorable consensus, following 9-11, and turned it on its head. For me, that's more troubling than Iraq but less troubling than the continued work of Al Q. " Wouldnt you agree that if one buys into the logic of the Bush Team, the favorable consensus is less important than stopping Iraq? Same thing as you finding it "less troubling than the continued work of Al Q." After hearing about some of the things said at the demonstration, it seems many folks there think Bush to be more troubling than bin laden. mike

To: JohnM who wrote (75568)	2/19/2003 11:59:27 AM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

The most troubling thing is that the Bush folk have taken a world wide favorable consensus, following 9-11, and turned it on its head. John, you need to parse the problem a lot more finely than that in order to understand it. Otherwise, what you say can be classified as insubstantial politically-motivated rhetoric. Post-9/11 consensus on what? AQ and terrorism? I suspect that the consensus on AQ and terrorism is intact. I further suspect that there is a lot of trans-Atlantic cooperation going on with respect to AQ--all the recent arrests surely were coordinated internationally. The present tiff will not change that aspect of things. There are too many common interests at play in trying to prevent future terrorist attacks. There has never been a consensus on Iraq, so to blame the Bush Administration for its alleged collapse post-9/11 is to engage in a bit of wobbly thinking.

To: JohnM who wrote (75568)	2/19/2003 1:45:54 PM
From: paul_philp	Respond to of 281500

It's nice to be able to agree with you, even if rarely. There was something in the air yesterday. You and I agree, Josh Marshall and Andrew Sullivan collaborate and Jacques Chirac hangs himself in public. It was a good day. Paul

To: JohnM who wrote (75568)	2/19/2003 5:02:12 PM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The most troubling thing is that the Bush folk have taken a world wide favorable consensus, following 9-11, and turned it on its head. I'm don't think that "world wide favorable consensus" has been demonstrated. A lot of politicians said sympathetic things just after the event and a lot of folk demonstrated sympathy for the victims. But there was an awful lot of 'they had it coming' and 'it's their own fault'. And there was a lot of objection even to the Afghanistan expedition. I think it equally valid to argue that 9/11 was permission to a lot of people and governments to attack or oppose the US in various ways.