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: Ann Corrigan who wrote (18371)	4/27/2004 11:00:49 AM
From: JakeStraw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Ann, I tend to agree with you. It seems like everything Kerry did was a calculated move...

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (18371)	4/27/2004 11:16:47 AM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 81568

Ann, that's just total BS. If you wanted to get elected to office the last thing you'd do it march in shocking protests and throw away your ribbons. In fact Kerry lost his first attempt at public office precisely because of that. The safe route would have been to come home a squeaky-clean war hero with short hair and no negative attitude. Why can't you rightwingers recognize that the Vietnam War was a terrible mistake, and that courageous combat heros like Kerry after seeing many of their buddies die and killing dozens of enemy, had the perfect right to be protesting it. They were the ones who paid the price so they were the ones who had the most moral authority to try and end the lies and carnage.

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (18371)	4/27/2004 11:25:32 AM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Kerry was sincere and he was correct to protest Viet Nam. It was the most disastrous foreign policy mistake since the end of WW2. Iraq is the second big mistake.

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (18371)	4/27/2004 4:54:31 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 81568

I think you have expressed only your opinion and it sure is far from what it actually is. Regarding the war on terror, no matter how much Bush keeps yapping, our progress in that field is not just zero but has been negative. We have more enemies today than we had on the day of 9/11. Once you realize that, then it will not be difficult to agree on Kerry as the next President. OSAMA'S NAVY SETS SAIL As if we didn't have enough terrorism threats to worry about, it now appears al-Qaeda has a secret 15-ship "navy" it acquired from a Greek supplier over a period of several years. US intelligence experts think one or more of the ships were used to transport the explosives used in the deadly bombings of two American embassies in Africa and in the terrible nightclub blast in Bali. Since al-Qaeda's ships are ordinary merchant vessels registered under new names in different countries, they will be very difficult to identify and track. Unfortunately, the biggest danger posed by an al-Qaeda ship is not its ability to transport explosives or terrorists. The ship itself can be used as a giant bomb to wipe out a US port. If the port has a large LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) storage facility or a gasoline refinery, the secondary explosion could destroy much of the adjacent city. (The devastating crash of fuel-laden trains in North Korea provides a tragic and relevant example of the danger.) The cities vulnerable to an attack by al-Qaeda's ships are not limited to our coasts. Due to our extensive network of navigable rivers, bin Laden could get a ship as far inland as Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, or even Kansas City. To make matters worse, even a small merchant vessel could carry enough shielding to prevent the detection of a stolen nuclear device or a radioactive dirty bomb. In addition to having its own ships, it looks as if al-Qaeda plans to hijack a supertanker. Such a vessel would make an even bigger bomb than a freighter and create an environmental disaster. According to London-based Aegis Defense Services, in March 2003 about ten Islamic pirates boarded the oil tanker Dewi Madrim off the coast of Sumatra. Instead of the usual routine of robbing the crew and either stealing the cargo or making off with portable items of value, in this instance the pirates disconnected the ship's communication system, hooked up their own communications, and then spent over an hour learning how to steer the ship, run its engines, and use its electronic navigation equipment. When the pirates finally departed, they took the captain and his first officer with them. No ransom demands were received which indicates the pirates weren't after money. More recently, another group of ten armed pirates--probably from the Abu Sayyaf terrorist organization--boarded an ocean-going tugboat in the Sulu Sea south of the Philippines. This time they took the ship's sophisticated navigation equipment in addition to its officers. Similar incidents are thought to have occurred throughout the region, but have been kept quiet by embarrassed ship owners and government officials. According to Singapore terrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna, oil and chemical tankers have been the principal targets which suggests the hijackings were rehearsals for terrorist attacks. Any modern merchant vessel used by terrorists will be extremely difficult to stop--even if it is detected and attacked a few miles from its destination. As we learned from the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989, large ships have such great momentum they can travel several miles even after their engines are stopped. Considering what we now know about al-Qaeda's threat to our port cities, our advice last month to spend next October in the countryside seems very timely. Particularly since National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice recently said that the government believes al-Qaeda is so pleased with the outcome of its Madrid bombing, it plans to use the tactic again in the US just before our presidential election.

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (18371)	4/29/2004 6:19:45 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Respond to of 81568

LOL...Kerry lost his first election...and throwing medals over the fence contributed to that loss. That was pretty poor planning...now wasn't it? With Kerry we will get a steady hand on the wheel...just as he had a steady hand on the wheel of his swift boat in Nam, where his crewmates loved him and admired his courage. As President, his habitual straddle strategy would result in paralysis by analysis and indecision on future of War on Terror. I see Kerry as a guy who will delve into issues. He understands that the issues of today are complex, and that there are no easy answers...only difficult decisions. With Bush we already have paralysis by canned analysis...where the pre 9-11 war plans kept right on coming to the forefront...while letting bin Laden and Al Qaeda off the hook in Afghanistan. Bush has a hard time making a needed course change when conditions change. His tunnel vision is not what this country needs in a leader. We need a dynamic leader to lead us in stabilizing Iraq and in the war on terror. Iraq is not the central war on terror...yet Bush keeps on heading down that dead end road. Orca