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: stockman_scott who wrote (31576)	6/20/2004 10:34:51 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

SS, I have heard of echoes of split within Kerry supporters due to his stand on Iraq. Many think he is toeing the Bush line and this has caused some dissent within his supporters. Not so, I would say. I can support Kerry on his stand on Iraq. I am sure many who will vote for Kerry do so too. What guides our thinking is what I found in the post I am about to send you. I would hope the staunchest of Bush supporters would take note of this and abandon their love for a cultist like GWB and start thinking about the welfare of the US first and foremost. Here goes an excerpt: Blending Democratic Ideals With Geopolitical Wisdom Paul Kennedy, The Guardian <excerpt> But what if US democracy, in its turn, refuses to “think strategically”? While many Americans still support US troops in Iraq, doubts are growing fast about the wisdom of the Bush administration’s intentions in the Middle East and further afield, about the severe overstretch of the army, about the scandals of prison torture, about taking on the whole Arab world. Already the neocons are running for cover, and some conservative critics are calling the whole Iraq affair misconceived and bungled. Though the administration will vigorously deny it, the State Department, the National Security Council and the Pentagon must each be searching for an exit strategy. The worms are turning, very fast. Even if President Bush clings on in office after November’s elections, many of his supporters in the Senate and House may have been swept away. But those who would rejoice at such an outcome ought to bear in mind Mackinder’s second concern. A US democracy that rejects Rumsfeldian imperial overstretch in the Middle East is also one that may be nervous of engagements elsewhere; that blocks Security Council resolutions for fresh peacekeeping and peace-enforcement missions, however much needed; that declines to help deal with genocide in Africa. The pendulum could indeed swing too far. And the consequences for all of us, but especially war-torn communities, could be severe. Ever since 1945, US leaders have shouldered the responsibility of walking a fine line between doing too little and doing too much in world affairs. Drifting in either direction brings dangers and critics. It seems, though, that the Bush administration plunged a little too readily into large military interventions along Mackinder’s rimlands; and yet it is also true that an equally serious predicament awaits if the US public and politicians overreact and decline to assume the responsibilities called for by their country’s world position. The last thing we need is a US repeating its policies of 1919. What we really need is a US that can recapture its attitudes and policies of 1945, and blend democratic ideals with geopolitical wisdom. Is that really impossible? Read the entire article at arabnews.com