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: cnyndwllr who wrote (130114)	4/26/2004 11:35:31 AM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

MAINSTREAM MEDIA COVERING UP VIETNAM VET REJECTION OF KERRY AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF i-served.com By Leonard Magruder April 21, 2004 The national or mainstream media is gambling with national security when it hides what it probably already well suspects, that most Vietnam veterans are opposed to the idea of Kerry as Commander-in-Chief. It is that section of the American public, along with veterans of other wars, that can be most expected to understand something about national security. The war on terrorism, and the economy, are the two top issues in this presidential campaign. The media is emphasizing the economy as they believe this would probably help Kerry, their favorite to win. However, because the university and the media have kept the American people so starved for information as to the true nature of the war on terrorism, in particular its relation to Islam and its notion of “jihad,” the public would be very interested in knowing how those who have served feel about Kerry as a potential Commander in Chief. A poll on how Vietnam vets feel about this would seem to be a natural. But, while we have polls on everything else, oddly a poll on this has never appeared. In one of our recent articles we did report on what anecdotal data we had seen on this subject to that date as follows: In the wintersoldier.com poll, it is running 96% against Kerry. In The Wall Street Journal letters section, 66% against. In a San Diego newspaper an editor reports “100 to 1” against, a South Carolina media poll reports two thirds against. Talk show host Hewitt reports of his callers, “the vast majority hold Kerry in contempt because of his actions,” and view his antiwar activities as “profoundly wrong and disqualifiying for the presidency.” ...

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (130114)	4/26/2004 12:13:43 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Your post is a joke, right? At the beginning you say that you will be impressed when you see evidence of success, although many things have gone right in a year, and we have yet to see the upshot of the current operations, but you finish by admonishing me to be patient, and to realize that the fight against terrorism is a marathon. One of the most impressive things about the recent agitation is how limited it is. Neither the insurgents in Falladjah nor Al- Sadr have widespread support, demonstrating the limitations of the thesis that we are exponentially creating enemies. In fact, lacking either a census base or a means of measuring increase, we have no idea how our actions have affected recruitment, or if they are dying off or being apprehended faster than they can be trained. The almost universal experience of males, including American males, as they grow up is that if they show weakness, they become the target of bullies, and that only fighting back will stop the harassment. You have your theories about what will curtail the insurgency, and the regional resort to terror, and I have mine. Mine is based on such experiences, as well as a wide reading in history. Although I was large for my age, and built like a football player, I was a bookworm and braniac, very polite and softspoken, and therefore a natural target for greasers. I was tormented off and on, especially in gym class, until I started fighting back. Suddenly, the fact that I was a big guy counted more than the fact that I was a smart guy, and they steered clear. I started backing bullies off of other kids, too, and it worked. Someone known to be under my protection had a marked decrease in harassment. As I said, my readings in history have tended to confirm me in this view, namely, that those who are inclined to make themselves bigger or get what they want through intimidation and violence prey on those who do not fight back, primarily, and that they lose heart if they encounter strong opposition. You may ask if this applies to suicide bombers. My speculation, which is at least as good as yours, is that it does, because no one wants to commit suicide for a futile cause. Thus, convince them they cannot prevail, and most of them will stop. The only way that the Iraqis could "go where their religion, culture, and history leads them" is if they were not imprisoned by Saddam Hussein, but could interact in a fairly normal way. Thus, our intervention was essential to jump starting the process. The "mission" has not changed at all. Only details of implementation of changed, with emerging circumstances. The bottom line is that things are going pretty well, subject to the usual uncertainties of human endeavor, and any judgment against the intervention is at best premature.......