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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (52746)	7/4/2004 8:37:16 AM
From: unclewest	Respond to of 793761

Our foreign policy has achieved greatness only when it has combined realism and idealism, our sense of practicality and our deep commitment to values such as freedom and democracy. Look back at NATO and the Marshall Plan, the enduring creations of the Truman administration. I would love the opportunity to provide a complete rebuttal to wapo. For now, I'll settle for a comment on Kerry's above point. Yes, Mr Kerry let's take a look back. The documents founding NATO were signed in 1949. In 1952 NATO HQ became operational in Paris. In 1966, the French president, General Charles de Gaulle, announced France will no longer assign its forces to Nato. France withdrew from the integrated military structure and ordered allied units to leave the country and we all did just that. France of course inherited, but never paid for, all the NATO bases and facilities that had been built. Why Mr Kerry do you think it is so essential that we have France on our side? Afterall they made it abundantly clear in 1966 that they are not interested in us or NATO. When the German Army was drinking coffee and cognac in Paris all day and sleeping with French wives and daughters all night...France would not fight. Why does Kerry think France would fight now? Tha Marshall Plan was initiated in 1947 and was funded in early 1948, four years before NATO became operational. It was designed to assist Europe in recovering from WWII. Germany entered the plan cooperatively in 1949. I don't believe France ever cooperated except to accept American generosity. More importantly, the Marshall Plan proved effective because WWII had ended. Nearly 50 million were killed by that war. Europe was ready for anything but more war. The WOT has yet to be won. It has not been won in Iraq or Afghanistan or America. If Kerry really does support a Marshall type plan, why has he consistently voted against (or skipped votes for) funding the war and civilian assistance? Does this letter to the editor signal yet another Kerry position change? Is he flip-flopping again? Or is his demand that we recall the Marshall Plan and History of NATO based on what he wishes they were rather than what they really were? uw

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (52746)	7/4/2004 10:19:49 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793761

<<< It seems to me that Kerry doesn't have room (or daring) enough to stake out an Iraq policy that's different from Bush's. All we get is bromides where alliances are top priority for their own sake.>>> It seems to me Kerry is saying , let's face the reality of the mess we are in, and try to get out of it as successfully as possible. We do not have to fight with our traditional allies. Right now, it is not only in France, but everywhere in Europe, you name it - the people hate us. It may be true that they will hate us in the ROW no matter what we do, but that is not the case with our traditional allies. We can not achieve our objectives in the ME by ourselves. Our objectives in the ME are no different than those of our traditional allies. It is too expensive to go it alone. We need allies to sign on and to contribute resources. We are in a great leadership position in the world. We are the world's only super power. We have to exercise our moral leadership. The real trick is to have terrific military capabilities and not have to waste it.