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: kumar who wrote (89393)	4/2/2003 11:29:34 PM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"I support troops, but not what they are doing"<<< Worded that way, yes. But one can wish no harm to the troops while holding the politicians accountable if they disagree with the necessity.

To: kumar who wrote (89393)	4/3/2003 12:00:05 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<There was a time for discussion and debate on a course of action. That time has passed. IMO, no more debates. Me personally, I support our troops. Which implies I support their mission.> Public opinion polls show that support for the war, went from about 50-55% support right before the tanks rolled, to about 70-75% now. So, there is 20% of the population (the difference between a bare majority and a huge majority), who agree with you. A lot of sentiment out there, saying that the debate ends when the soldiers start fighting. About 20% of the population, who weren't convinced by any of the Administration's reasons for the war, now support the war, because they don't want to be disloyal. And the Administration is doing everything they can, to beat this drum. They squashed Daschle, who made a very timid criticism of the Administration's diplomatic skills, extracting a retraction from him. Not a day goes by, without somebody from the military or the Administration saying, "those antiwar protests are helping the enemy." I agree, that when a country is at war, the people should be united behind the government and the army, and that bad things happen when they aren't. But the government can only demand that loyalty, if they keep their side of the bargain. Their job is to make the case for war has been made, and make sure support is wide and deep in the civilian population. If they haven't done that, they have no right to demand silence and obedience later. There were polls taken, in the runup to this war, which showed their was majority support for the war only if we had UN approval, and/or the support of our major allies. Basically, the American people (unlike Bush) believe in multilateralism. There is a lot of unease out there, a lot of people who are willing to go along with the President for now, but if the going gets tough (= no endgame, or lots of casualties), then they are going to rethink their support for the war.