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: carranza2 who wrote (35170)	3/17/2004 6:23:36 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 793649

"In the meantime, we need to learn to agree to disagree with the Europeans and cooperate with them on the various fronts in which we have mutual interests. " The reaction of this thread is not at all reassuring. This is way too nativist for me. I am one who thinks the iraq war was correct.However i understand that not going to war with iraq last year, wouldnt have meant the end of the war on terror. It has been made far too personal. If ever we needed diplomats, its now. mike

To: carranza2 who wrote (35170)	3/17/2004 6:43:00 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793649

AQ won a skirmish only if you are willing to accept the notion that the Socialists won only because of the bombs. Something that happened that day changed people's votes and the Socialists won. We don't know the reason for the changed votes. Could have been that they were paying the PP back for a perceived deception. Could have been that they decided that getting out of AQ's crosshairs was suddenly more important than the other election issues. It really doesn't matter what they had in mind. The fact is that they changed their votes aware at some level that a Socialist win would be perceived as a win for AQ and they did it anyway. Perhaps that's second degree appeasement rather than first degree appeasement. Or perhaps they were too grief stricken or afraid to know what they were doing. Doesn't matter. AQ will take the win either way. I don't fault the people. It was a tough time for them. I do blame the politicos. It wasn't their finest hour.

To: carranza2 who wrote (35170)	3/17/2004 6:46:05 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793649

AQ won a skirmish only if you are willing to accept the notion that the Socialists won only because of the bombs No, c2. They wanted Aznar's party out, they got it out. The Socialists were expected to lose, and they won instead. The actual reasons for the vote don't matter. It's still an AQ triumph. We've got to abandon this crazy line of thinking that is being established which suggests that the French, the Germans, and now the Spanish are AQ "appeasers" because they didn't support us in Iraq. No, they're appeasers because they are still clinging to the notion that the terrorists are not their enemy, only the enemy of America & the Joooooooos. So they have chosen to get out of the fight, and sit back, and let America duke it out. You heard it all over in Spain, "This is Aznar's fault. This only happened because of Iraq. We should get out of Iraq, and then they'll let us alone." This is appeasement, and it's a form of stupidity with deadly consequences. Cooperation on the WOT is in their best interests. So it is. But are they willing to give any form of cooperation that will annoy AQ? Or will they only give info that can stay on the hush-hush?