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 (137910)	6/25/2004 2:31:15 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi cnyndwllr; Re: "I think the thing that sticks in the minds of those who answer by saying that Kerry COULD probably do no better, is that Bush DID no better. In my view Bush's incompetence is a certainty that should forfeit his right to have the American public ratify his mistakes by empowering him for another four years, while the potential incompetency of Kerry is still an open question." Where we differ is (a) on the question of the potential incompetency of Kerry, and (b) on whether or not Bush's demonstrated incompetency (in the past) is reason enough to replace him with someone who will not state his policy. Re: "In addition, and maybe just as importantly, a Kerry election will speak volumes to the world concerning the American public's disapproval of the Bush Iraqi policies." Since you haven't given a shred of evidence that Bush and Kerry's policies would differ in Iraq, I suspect that this is the heart of your argument. I think that the question of who will be better for the US, Bush or Kerry, is deeper than sending a message "to the world". Kerry appears to be attempting to woo independent voters by being more hawkish on Iraq than Bush himself. And this country does have a history of being dragged into unwinnable Asian guerilla wars by Democratic presidents from Massachusetts, so this should not be a surprise. At least so far, the American public is not very unhappy with Bush. If the election were held today, it appears that Bush would squeak by. In any event, it's unlikely that the election will be a landslide in favor of Kerry. If the American public gets rid of Bush because of Iraq, it will be by a small margin, and not because Bush started the war, but instead because he lost it. American public support for Bush was at 80% soon after he started the war. The American public was spoiling for a war. Voting out the President will not change this historical fact. We can't change who we are by voting, and we can little change what the world thinks of us that way. We made our bed, now we have to lie in it. The world knows who we are. When Bush was elected, the economy was somewhat more healthy than it is now. The public tends to vote Democratic during economic hard times, and Republican during economic good times. So it is not very surprising if Bush loses an election in economic hard times. Consequently, the loss of the election by Bush doesn't indicate that the American public has changed its opinion about attacking small (apparently) defenseless countries. The rest of the world understands this. But getting back to the learning of lessons, where we differ most is probably on the question of whether or not it is possible for Bush to have learned a lesson from the invasion of Iraq. My argument is that Bush clearly has, and that his reduction in rhetoric against Iran, Libya and South Korea proves it. His failure to bring back the draft shows that he does not have further adventures in mind. So I see Bush as a known factor at this time. The Bush who lives now is not the same as the Bush who lived a year ago. Of Kerry, I cannot know, since he refuses to say. My suspicion is that he considers himself a much smarter guy, and that in the event of a civil war in Saudi Arabia, Kerry will be more likely to get us involved. It was the "Best and the Brightest" who got us into Vietnam, not idiots like Bush. Two years ago, there were two groups in the Administration arguing for and against a war with Iraq. These people are not all idiots. In fact, expectation for a quick US victory and happy Iraqis was common in the US. The results of the war have given more power to the side that argued against the invasion. I doubt that any arguments for a war will happen again during a second Bush term. The people who argued for a war were simply made to look too foolish by the events. What I'm saying is that no matter who gets elected, the US isn't getting involved in any more stupid wars between now and 2008. As with the late 1970s and 80s, there will be a "Vietnam effect" that will restrain the US from getting involved in any more guerilla wars for a while. If anything, because of Iraq, you should be concerned that the US will refrain from using force in places where it is useful and needed. -- Carl