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 (137187)	6/23/2004 1:13:19 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi cnyndwllr; Re: "If I'm correct then you must believe that this administration is, at best, incompetent in foreign affairs yet, in spite of this, you say you will "probably vote for Bush." Is it because when you refer to the Republicans you say "us?"" As far as I'm concerned, the error in invading Iraq is water under the bridge. It was a big mistake, and it's pretty good proof that Bush isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. In fact, I think there are many tens of millions of people who I would prefer as President over Bush. I just haven't seen any evidence that Kerry is one of them. If foreign policy were the only duty of the President, my vote would swing a bit more towards Kerry. But given the situation that we're in, Kerry has not given any indication that he has a "plan" that is any better than what Bush will do. All I've seen Kerry say is that he would like to have more international involvement, and that he wouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place. Hey, I bet Bush wishes he hadn't gone into the place, but it's too late for wishes. Bush is in there now. So why would I want Bush to be the guy who gets us out instead of Kerry? My big problem with Kerry is that he is talking about international involvement. In this case, I believe that it is too late for international involvement. I think that the Iraqis are going to have to work (fight) this one out on their own. So what is the Bush plan? As far as I can tell, Bush has given up on pacifying Iraq. He has our forces negotiating withdrawals from Baathist or Fundamentalist territories. He's got our fatality rate low enough that the liberals aren't going on and on about it. And he's not starting up a draft in preparation for invading and occupying Saudi Arabia. In short, Bush is pulling us out and disengaging us. So what is the Kerry plan? I doubt that he really has one. My guess is that Kerry thinks he's a lot smarter than Bush. My guess is that Kerry thinks his people are a lot smarter than Bush's people. My guess is that Kerry thinks he is smart enough to win this war. That's what scares me about Kerry. In January 2005 he'll take over and end up extending a hopeless war because he's so smart. Some people have argued that Kerry knows that we have to leave Iraq, but he can't admit it before the election because the American people don't vote for defeatist candidates (like Jimmy Carter regarding the economy). I don't know whether or not Kerry is being quiet because of this. The problem is that he's not arguing for us to get out of Iraq. If he believes that we should stay because he can fix it, then I want to keep Bush in. I want the fight over, not to start another round with a fresh contender. On the other hand, if Kerry is being quiet about getting out of Iraq for political reasons, then why should I believe that he's going to change his tune after the election? There will still be political reasons then. The basic problem with politicians is that they are narcissistic idiots. The problem with narcissists is that they believe that they have all the answers, and they don't care who their actions hurt. The problem with idiots is that they believe what they want to believe, and are not well connected with stuff like "truth" or "reality". Maybe Kerry believes that he can win the war. I don't want to vote for him. Maybe Kerry believes that his getting elected is more important than telling the truth and getting our soldiers out. I don't want to vote for him. On domestic issues, I go with Republicans, so Kerry, who is a popular senator from a section of the country that is way to the left of me, really doesn't stand much of a chance with me. I'm a great supporter of the two party system. While I vote Republican, that is not because I believe that this is a war between evil and good. Instead, I vote Republican because I feel that our society is, on balance, too Democratic, and not enough Republican. I prefer the two party system to one of the systems common in Europe because the two parties compete for the middle voters. This keeps the influence of the far right or far left to a minimum. I know everyone talks about how the "far right has taken over the Republican party", but this is not true. The American public is naturally a pretty conservative bunch. I hear the occasional left winger claim that Bush "stole the election", but the fact is that the vote totals were so close that it is obvious that neither candidate was significantly preferred over the other. Of course we have a two party system largely due to our "winner take all" election system, as opposed to the parliamentary system. But parliamentary government is famous for sudden complete changes in direction. Look at what happened to Spain's foreign policy as a result of just one election, and just a few percentage of the vote. In the US, there is widespread support for the stupid war in Iraq. This war wasn't forced onto an unwilling American public. This country was spoiling for a war. It had a recent history of very easy victories in very satisfying conflicts, and most people saw Iraq as just another quick notch to cut in the forestock. Some say that both Republican and Democratic politicians were too afraid to give warnings about Iraq because they knew the public mood was so in favor of it. I see that as an indication not that politicians are immoral (all humans are immoral, politicians are human), but instead that the public really was spoiling for a fight. Eventually the public will lose their stomach, and the politicians will pull us out. I can't see Kerry doing it much faster than Bush, at least from what they've said, and I can see Kerry dragging it on even longer. So let's look to the year 2006, say. Saudi Arabia is in flames with civil war between fundamentalists and monarchists. Saudi oil production crashes and oil hits $300 per barrel amid massive inflation and 30% short term interest rates. What is President Bush/Kerry going to do? My guess is that Kerry goes in, while Bush keeps us out. My opinion is that we stay out, let the Saudis fight it out, and buy oil from whoever ends up running the place. If one country over there invades another, we can kick em out. Our military is good at that. But we have no business setting in for a long occupation of a Moslem desert territory. -- Carl