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 (83419)	3/18/2003 3:40:34 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Respond to of 281500

<Once the invasion starts, we'll all back the president> This has worked repeatedly in the past. In WWI, for instance, there were large socialist movements in both the U.S. and Germany, who decided loyalty to their nation was more important than loyalty to their pacifism. Didn't save them, though. The U.S. Socialist Party was permanently suppressed during WWI, their leadership imprisoned or deported. And Germany's Socialist leaders ended up at Dachau. (and no, I am not repeat not not not comparing Wilson to Hitler. Not. Geez.) The thing is, no Democrat is going to win the Presidency in 2004 (unless the economy really goes sour), by positioning himself as a wimpy version of Bush. This is the safe but losing strategy, and it's what most of the Democratic candidates seem to be doing. The only way to win, is to present a clear vigorous alternative, and then hope events prove you right. This will be a winning strategy, but only if ShockAndAwe stops looking like the solution to all foreign problems. If ShockAndAwe works in Iraq, and keeps working wherever else Bush tries it, then no Democrat is going to be elected no matter what they say.