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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (14090)	10/27/2003 6:02:04 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793725

I hear a lot of "democrats are soft on terror" when I read these online stock boards, but what I read in local papers is more like this. oregonlive.com

To: KLP who wrote (14090)	10/27/2003 7:24:15 PM
From: FaultLine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793725

Hi KLP, The Democrats, all but Liberman, would do the very same thing they did in Viet Nam........leave our soldiers unsupported, not financed, and left to die. I love it when you talk dirty... --fl@andthat'sreallydirty.com

To: KLP who wrote (14090)	10/28/2003 12:22:36 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793725

The Democrats, all but Liberman, would do the very same thing they did in Viet Nam........leave our soldiers unsupported, not financed, and left to die. I'm fairly conversant with the history of Vietnam and the war there, and I see no way this statement could be supported with any reasonable analysis. Care to elaborate? In what way was financing lacking, in a war that nearly bankrupted the richest nation on earth? Who was "left to die"? What American soldiers were left abandoned in the field?

To: KLP who wrote (14090)	10/28/2003 1:06:07 AM
From: JF Quinnelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793725

The only soldiers who were abandoned in any fashion were ARVN, after American combat troops had left the field. You could accuse the 1974 post-Watergate Congress of abandoning an ally and make a case, but no American GIs were "left to die". Democrats may have committed American troops to Vietnam without much of an idea of what they wanted done, but you can't accuse them of failing to squander a whole lot of money while doing it.

To: KLP who wrote (14090)	10/29/2003 10:45:25 PM
From: Sam	Respond to of 793725

Not harsh--absurd. Leaving the Vietnam reference aside (though it too is absurd, but nevermind), it is the Congressional Democrats who have pushed for more pay for reservists and troops in the field. It has been the Republicans who vote against it. And it is the Bush admin that has tried to win this war "on the cheap." At least the military part of it. See story below. re: Democrats, all but Liberman, would do the very same thing they did in Viet Nam........leave our soldiers unsupported, not financed, and left to die. Harsh you might say........look at what their record is, and what they say........ Congress Nixes Extra Pay for Some Troops Wed Oct 29, 2:34 AM ET By KEN GUGGENHEIM, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - House-Senate negotiators considering an $87 billion package for Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites) have rejected a Democratic proposal to compensate federal employees on active duty with the National Guard and reserves. The proposal by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., would have made up the differences between the workers' regular salaries and their service incomes, as many states and private employers are already doing. He said 23,000 federal employees would be affected. The Senate had included the provision in its version of the Iraq spending bill, but senators in the conference agreed to eliminate it Tuesday in a 16-13 vote that was mainly along party lines. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said Durbin's legislation would create a disparity between the pay of guardsmen and reservists and those of active-duty personnel. He said other congressional committees should consider the proposal before it is approved. Senate and House leaders hope to finish work Wednesday resolving differences between the versions of the bill approved by the House and Senate. "I don't think we're too far apart on too many issues," said Rep. Bill Young, R-Fla., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. The biggest difference is a Senate provision to make part of the package in the form of loans. President Bush (news - web sites) has threatened to veto the bill if the loans are included in the final package. Some Republican senators who supported the loans acknowledged they had little hope of prevailing. "I don't have the vote totals on it, but my sense is they probably have located the votes to get the package" without loans, said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., a participant in the House-Senate conference meeting Tuesday. Another Republican senator who supported the loans, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, said she wasn't optimistic. She said failing to include the loans "would be very unfortunate." "I think that public support for the package would be boosted by having some provisions for the loans," she said. The Senate version of the bill included $18.4 billion for reconstruction of public works and for security but would require Iraq to repay about half of that unless other countries forgave 90 percent of the debt Iraq ran up under Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), deposed as president by U.S. troops. The House version includes $18.6 billion, none of which would have to be repaid. The bulk of both bills, about $66 billion, would pay for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The White House and Republican congressional leaders strongly oppose loans, saying Iraq already is too deeply indebted and has no government with authority to borrow more money. Another argument has been that loans secured by Iraq's vast oil reserves could support claims of war opponents that the United States went to war to tap into Iraq's oil wealth. At a news conference Tuesday, Bush said the administration was working hard with lawmakers "to make the case that it's very important for us not to saddle Iraq with a bunch of debt early in the emergence of a market-oriented economy, an economy that had been wrecked by Mr. Saddam Hussein." The Senate had voted 51-47 to convert part of the rebuilding funds into loans. Although the House did not include loans in its package, it supported the concept in a 277-139 nonbinding vote. Supporters of loans said their case was strengthened last week when much of the $13 billion in new aid pledged at an international donor's conference was made as loans. Also Tuesday, negotiators agreed to add $100 million for the search for conventional weapons stockpiles in Iraq. U.S. military commanders have said many of the explosives used in attacks against American forces have come from supplies taken from former Iraqi military bases.