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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (17330)	4/22/2004 10:27:45 PM
From: Patricia Trinchero	Respond to of 81568

I do believe that Kerry will have better luck with the NATO countries than Bush. The French want a part of the reconstruction and the oil so they will be a part of a joint effort if they can share in the "gold". THe French, in recent history, had their own quagmire in Algeria so they must be leery of Bush and his bravado d about how he is going to prevail by himself............they know better from personal experience. The Germans, as I recently stated, have their hands full rebuilding and restoring East Germany. They may help in a NATO unit if they also can share in the spoils. But they cannot afford to send men to die if there is nothing in it for the Germans. They do need oil and money so they may help if they can gain from it. East Germany is a huge problem for them right now but they will help in Iraq as they can..........but not come to the aid of an arrogant spoiled brat. The point is that no country will help if they get snobbed by Bush but a less arrogant, more generous and less corporately owned Kerry will have greater success. In addition, Kerry has not angered the world collectively by refusing to sign the Kyoto Treaty, the NOn Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty and mandating special treatment from a World Court........among other things. PS. Please don't be requesting lenghty answers from me at dinner time cause I am busy.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (17330)	4/23/2004 12:20:02 AM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 81568

Bush just flipflopped and now agrees with Kerry on Iraq. So why are you attacking the UN? Without the UN and NATO helping us, we are toast over there. problem is, the Bushies should have thought of this BEFORE invading without a post-war plan. How can you defend these inept and dishonest operators? Iraq has also definitely made us LESS safer, less liked and poorer as a nation. Those who die over there aren't even dying for a noble cause, they're dying for a mistake. Just like Nam.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (17330)	4/23/2004 1:14:31 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Bearcatbob, if you take a look at what Kerry is saying I think you'll find a little something for the "Hell ya" crowd and a little something for the "let's take a close look at this" crowd. Sure, it's politics but then it's pretty smart too. The "hell ya" crowd gets to hear the "we'll stay the course and we cannot fail" mantra that makes them feel tough. The "show me how this could work" crowd hears something different and a lot more complicated. Bringing in others including the U.N. and Nato has an assumption built into it. It's implicit in that the policy in Iraq will change enough that objective nations with varying interests will be able to buy into it. That means that they'll be able to find a basis for action, a course of action and a reasonable possibility of success that would justify the risk. Currently most of the world, including Spain now, seems to believe that the risk/benefit factors do not justify their involvement. So what would make those factors change? First, give up the Bush/Cheney dream of hoarding all of the oil and military power benefits of monopolizing Iraqi "reconstruction and protection." Second, come up with a plan that actually gives the (hold your breath) Iraqis real sovereignty in their lifetime; not following the "generations" that we initially postulated. Third, use some of our awesome power to enter into treaties, trade agreements and provide aid to the world's nations as leverage to encourage cooperation. You know that we bought a lot of cooperation in the "coolition of the willing" with hard cash. Will those techniques work? Maybe with a new administration and a new attitude that can leave behind the old slights and rhetoric. Maybe with a new recognition that America is once again acting rationally and diplomatically and in predictable patterns. Maybe with a few deep breaths and the realization that the middle east is too important as the world's repository of lifeblood energy and the world's cesspool of cancerous fundamentalism, the world will be able to follow a smart, thoughtful and fair American lead. But life is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're going to get. Of course if the last chocolates all tasted like rabbit turds, it's time to open another box. And that's all I have to say about that.