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: Maurice Winn who wrote (128660)	4/7/2004 4:35:53 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

What the other presidential candidates offer is going to be the deciding factor on what happens in Iraq I disagree, but nonetheless challenge you to determine a fixed position Kerry may have other than he voted for the Iraqi war while at the Senate because he didn't think Bush would go forward with the war--what Nadine Carroll aptly calls the "I'm a chump" defense. There is no doubt that the present rebellion will run out of steam because it is lead by a novice, that its purpose is to derail the 6/30 transition so that the minority militantly Islamist views the rebels advocate can be kept politically alive, that the transition will take place on schedule, and that everything will be just fine afterwards if you don't mind a stray bomb or two. Rummie is a bit out of kilter because his plans, micromanaged to a fare-thee-well, are being properly questioned as respects the need for additional troops, something I've advocated for a long time. His ego, not insubstantial, is at play, and he is not happy that he is being proven wrong. He'll get over it, he always does. I wouldn't interpret his present demeanor as a lack of confidence.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (128660)	4/7/2004 5:25:21 PM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<<What the other presidential candidates offer is going to be the deciding factor on what happens in Iraq, not what Rumsfeld and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs decide. The electorate now knows that Iraq and Saddam were no threat [in an imminent sense] and that there weren't any WMDs in Iraq that would have any effect on the USA. Lots of them thought Saddam crashed the airliners into the Twin Towers and now they don't think that's the case. The election, as always, will be ignorance grinding against ignorance and self-interest in the local scene of most importance. If you asked each voter what they know about what's going on, the ignorance would be palpable.>>> At this moment Kerry seems to agree the Iraq situation must be resolved without the cut-and-run tactics. We now have too much invested in Iraq to retreat and let civil war take over. We would lose one of the main benefits of having stable Iraq oil exports. If it begins to appear that things are truly out of control and the US threatens to desert the region (man, I cant see that), then we probably can get the support of Japan and European nations to take action to protect their economies from runaway oil prices. Call on NATO to take over the civilization of Iraqis. The 'people' alone may not be able to decide this coming election. They seem to be unaware of the extent of the long-term threat to our economy and way of life which would result from terrorists obtaining nukes or manageing to shut down our airlines. Industrialists and bankers who lost their people, their computers, their records in the WTC attack will not forget, and know they cannot tolerate major homeland attacks. Those VIPS who count on the Government for protection , who fund our Congressmen, and who can influence the voting thru unions, thru the Press, and thru pressure on employees. Which sentiment will prevail? That of ones who seek peace with an unreasonable hope that terrorists will desist, or the sentiment of those know that all efforts must be made to stop terrorism and stabilize the ME oil producers.? Sig