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: michael97123 who wrote (79481)	3/4/2003 12:45:43 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

What could a face saving deal look like that might be acceptable to Bush? Not to you but to bush. Not to neocons but to bush. Where is there a deal to be had that doesnt destroy credibility and hurt our position in the region? Mike, I have no serious idea. I've grown into the conclusion that my approach to foreign policy is so different from these guys that it's like watching from a different planet. I completely expect them to continue on down this road. It's their style; and they've managed to put themselves into a box. No other way out. Terrible reasons for going but there you are. Bill and I both just finished a rather bad book on Karl Rove. Neither of us liked it, so you can assume it's bad. But there are enough stories I had yet to hear about his activities to suggest that the best person to answer your question would be Rove. I think within the confines of the way the Bush-Rove combine operates, you have just asked, you won't like this, a political question, not a foreign policy question.

To: michael97123 who wrote (79481)	3/4/2003 1:10:35 PM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Bush could do nothing worse than to back down and then try to "salvage" things. Am sure his family and advisors were all well aware of what happens to new Presidents and Administrations ( They get dumped on by the losers, by Greenpeace, by the save-the-trees people, by the no-more-guns people, by the no-oil-development people, by demonstrators of all types) Taking this to the UN was not critical to the decision, does not change the unilateral-if-needed position Turkey is not a lost cause, IMO they will try once again to get approval passed. Troops based at Bulgaria instead of inside Turkey would be nearby - close enough to support a US operation in the North. The more important thing was the use of Turkish airspace, which we still have. What the UN debate and follow on activities have down is confirm that only the US is in a position to repel invaders Germany cannot move because of disention between Adminstration or Officials and their voters Turkey has the identical problem. If either country sustained a major attack, as we were and are, officials would have to make a fast decision Would that be to keep their heads down and try to shoot down the incoming missiles - or ignore the no-more-war crowd and decide to fight. ? Sig