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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (123992)	1/29/2004 4:10:23 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

I have always had a soft spot for Berman, ever since I first started reading him in the New Republic. I am delighted with him recently, as I am with Christopher Hitchens. (And I have great admiration for Havel and Michnik).......

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (123992)	1/29/2004 4:12:03 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

By the way, I tuned into the O'Reilly factor during its rerun yesterday, and caught Ed Koch supporting Bush. I love Ed, always have. My favorite Democrat, probably........

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (123992)	1/29/2004 4:17:15 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

Why is Ex-NYC Mayor Ed Koch Supporting Pres. Bush? Thursday, January 29, 2004 This is a partial transcript from The O'Reilly Factor, January 28, 2004. BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Personal story" segment tonight, former New York City Mayor Ed Koch (search) has been a Democrat for more than 50 years, but he says next fall he'll be voting for President Bush. The mayor joins us now. I was surprised to hear that. ED KOCH, FMR. NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: Well, I think most people are. O'REILLY: Yes. KOCH: And I came to that conclusion about a year or so ago. And it is basically because all of the Democratic contenders seeking to run for president, with the exception of Joe Lieberman (search) who doesn't have a chance in the world of succeeding there, they all have decided that they would play to the left and decry all of our efforts to take on terrorism and Saddam Hussein (search). And I believe that the president when he made that ringing statement which created the Bush Doctrine that he will go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them, that he issued a statement which is as important as the Monroe Doctrine (search), the Truman Doctrine (search) -- the Monroe Doctrine case, keep all foreign countries out of the -- the Western hemisphere, and, in the case of the Truman Doctrine, to contain communism. O'REILLY: OK. So you were very... KOCH: The Bush Doctrine is very important. O'REILLY: You believe in the war on terror the way he's fighting it. Weapons of mass destruction debacle? That... KOCH: It's not a debacle at all. I think it's so ridiculous to look at it that way. It happens that Mr. Kay -- Dr. Kay is it? O'REILLY: Right. KOCH: ... in fact, substantiates not that there are necessarily weapons of mass destruction there, but it was appropriate to think that they were there... O'REILLY: Yes, I agree with that. KOCH: ... and if they are there or Saddam Hussein conveys that he will use them as he has used them in the past when he killed 5,000 of his own Kurdish Iraqi and thousands more of the Iranian troops... O'REILLY: But, you know, they had ricin there. I mean it's certainly enough. But, be that as it may, the intelligence was faulty. KOCH: Well, then blame the intelligence people. I think... O'REILLY: Should Bush fire [CIA Director George] Tenet then? KOCH: I would, yes. O'REILLY: I would, too. KOCH: But the fact is that there is now an ongoing hearing, and Tenet is going to be required to testify, I think, in February. And I, by the way, don't agree with President Bush on a single domestic issue. O'REILLY: But you think this is so important for the country. KOCH: Overriding. O'REILLY: Right. KOCH: I mean the fact is that if you can't feel secure... O'REILLY: Absolutely. KOCH: ... then nothing else is important. O'REILLY: The Democrats are taking an internationalist tact. You know that. I mean Kerry and... KOCH: Isolationist. O'REILLY: I don't think it's isolationist so much. They want a consensus before they act overseas. KOCH: Let me just say the people who are against Bush -- I mean they're running for president, these people, so they have to be critical, but I believe that the people who are against Bush and the major sector of the Democrats who favor Kerry and the others do it because they hate Bush. It has... O'REILLY: No, they... KOCH: I mean it's like they hated Reagan. I didn't vote for Reagan, and I didn't vote for Bush, but the lack of respect for the country, for the presidency -- it offends me. O'REILLY: It offends me, too. The lack of respect for the Office of the Presidency... KOCH: Yes. O'REILLY: ... calling him a liar and all this other stuff. KOCH: I think it's an outrage. O'REILLY: It -- and that's why Howard Dean blew up, because people saw what he was doing, how petty he was, and how demeaning he was. Last question for you. Are your friends mad at you? I mean you hang with a pretty... KOCH: Yes. O'REILLY: ... you know, left-wing crowd here, you know. KOCH: Well, I'm left wing. I... O'REILLY: I know... KOCH: But I'm a liberal... O'REILLY: ... and you... KOCH: I'm a liberal with sanity, and I have never hesitated to do what I thought was in the best interests of the country. O'REILLY: But some of your friends -- are they throwing Chinese food at you or what? What are they doing? KOCH: Actually, I'm trying to convert them. O'REILLY: Giuliani -- could he beat Hillary for Senate if he... KOCH: I hope not. He's a mean-spirited guy. I like Hillary, and I think that... O'REILLY: Could -- yes, but could he beat her? KOCH: Of course. Anybody can be beaten. Bush can be beaten, but I hope he isn't and I intend to... O'REILLY: Because I think Giuliani has his eye on either the governorship or the Senate, and... KOCH: He's got his eye on the presidency ultimately. O'REILLY: Yes, he does. Very astute, Mr. Mayor, which is why we have you here. And we are going to have the Mayor Giuliani also next week, I believe, and we... KOCH: Yes, he can be very charming. O'REILLY: Listen, he did a good job in Manhattan, I'll tell you.' KOCH: He was -- listen, he was a fine mayor... O'REILLY: Right. KOCH: ... except that he was mean-spirited. O'REILLY: All right. And that's never been said about you except when you make fun of me. Ed Koch, thanks for coming in. We appreciate it. foxnews.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (123992)	1/29/2004 5:28:15 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, what a good article. Being a rabid left winger [the way I define it anyway], and a liberal [in the sense the word should be used], despite being an active supporter of NZ's most extreme right wing political party [in the description of most people] act.org.nz that was an excellent encapsulation of my views. I would prefer that the NUN take over Iraq by force of arms and deal with the mess, establishing a constitution and enforcing civilization where carnage has ruled. But nobody much seems to agree with that idea. Not even Americans, though I notice that more and more they are coming around to my way of thinking as the body bags being sent home continue, along with lots of injured people and the psychologically mutilated, and political resolution is distant at best. Now the USA is whining that the UN should be involved. Duh! Meanwhile, the dopey and pathetic UN says it will get involved when the security situation is improved. When the security situation is improved, the UN is not needed. The original purpose of the UN was to improve the security situation. Now they are bureaucratic trough snufflers, drawing big salaries, perks and enjoying back-slapping political games while stringing more governmental red-tape around the world. If the USA showed some real leadership, instead of playing shoot 'em up, in cowboys and Indians good guys versus bad guys style, the UN would already be revved up into a security provider instead of a bureaucratic money-wasting talk shop. Shoot 'em up was fun when it involved roaring around in big tanks and supersonic fighter planes shooting at anything that moved. Now it's not so much fun picking up bits of buddies' bodies splattered around by roadside bombs and rocket-propelled grenades, with no end in sight and no easy-vote way out [elections seem indefinitely postponed]. The USA generally overemphasizes military might as a solution - a prisoner of NRA mentality and a cultural bias towards Mao's Mantra [power grows out of the barrel of a gun]. Power doesn't actually grow out of barrel of a gun other than in societies like Saddam's, or Mao's, or Hitler's, or Stalin's, or Amin's, or Pol Pot's, or Hirohito's, or Hongi Hika's [Maori brute], or Pinochet's, or take your pick. Much greater power grows out of a melding of minds - democracy being a fairly good way of determining the mind of the mob - there are a lot more minds than just the 4% of the world who can vote in USA elections. Still, if Americans want to do it their way or no way, I guess they are welcome to it, because I'm okay with the USA taking over Iraq and the oil. I don't particularly want an anti-democratic, anti-human rights, USA ruling the world like a latter day Roman Empire, but it's better than the current chaotic system. If it's Saddam, Omar, Dostum, Osama or the USA, I'll take the USA [weird that the USA is supporting Dostum, who is just a Saddam in training people never learn]. But imagine how great things would be if the other 96% of the world had a say in things too. That would be one big Gung Ho Genki Dama. Gung Ho Genki Dama is what's needed, not a stupid PNAC which so far has got an American body count, $100 billion down the drain, and not much to show for the effort. Thump, Mqurice

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (123992)	1/30/2004 4:20:28 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The Old Left had a devil of a time coming to grips with fascism the first go-round - well, I mean the last time, since I am still flirting with the idea that Jacksonianism was a form of fascism. Ask Marcos, I think he might agree that Manifest Destiny was virulent nationalism if you happened to be Hispanic or Native American. But then I'd have a hard time drawing the line to omit Cromwell. At any rate, the Old Left didn't exist during Manifest Destiny, much less Cromwell, at least I don't remember them. And we were talking about the failure of the Left to comprehend fascism. How do you draw the line between fascism and imperialism? The Old Left wanted to talk about ownership of the means of production, because, after all, what else mattered? And if you focus solely on ownership of the means of production, it's almost impossible to distinguish fascism from democracy, for that matter. I do like the way the author discusses the joint Hard Left and Muslim obsession with Jews and Israelis. Nicely expressed.