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: stockman_scott who wrote (142958)	8/10/2004 11:49:53 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

I believe this man: <I am neither a politician nor an organizer. I am a retired police officer with a passion for orchids. Until January of this year, the only public presentations I made were about my orchid hobby. But in this presidential election, I had to speak out; I had to tell the American people about John Kerry, about his wisdom and courage, about his vision and leadership. I would trust John Kerry with my life, and I would entrust John Kerry with the well-being of our country. Nobody asked me to join John's campaign. Why would they? I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans. I volunteered for his campaign because I have seen John Kerry in the worst of conditions. I know his character. I've witnessed his bravery and leadership under fire. And I truly know he will be a great commander in chief. Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam; they are calling him a traitor because he spoke out against the Nixon administration's failed policies in Vietnam. Some of these Republican-sponsored veterans are the same ones who spoke out against John at the behest of the Nixon administration in 1971. But this time their attacks are more vicious, their lies cut deep and are directed not just at John Kerry, but at me and each of his crewmates as well. This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and Navy records. This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat.>

To: stockman_scott who wrote (142958)	8/11/2004 12:00:48 AM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

Editorial: Iraq burning / Why are we still there? Tuesday, August 10, 2004 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette The now five-day-long battle between American and Iraqi forces for the city of Najaf continues, the Iraqi death toll from it rises to an estimated 360 and the Shiite holy city comes increasingly to resemble Three Rivers Stadium the morning after the implosion. A question becomes more nagging: Are Iraqis, in fact, better off with their America-brought freedom than they were under Saddam Hussein? The United States has taken great pains not to tabulate the death toll of Iraqis since the invasion in March of last year. It has nonetheless been estimated by other observers to stand between 10,000 and 15,000. American forces' losses now number 931, those of other countries, 123. Saddam Hussein's regime killed a lot of people, mostly Kurds and Shiites, but the death toll it exacted from the Iraqi people tailed off after it had put down the unsuccessful Shiite and Kurd rebellions that followed the first Gulf war 12 years ago. American and British enforcement of no-fly zones in the north and south helped. The damage rendered to Iraqi economic and social infrastructure, ranging from oil installations to mosques and other holy sites, particularly in the predominantly Shiite cities of Najaf and Karbala, but also in the Sunni centers of Fallujah and Tikrit, may have by now exceeded what was incurred during the Iran-Iraq war, the first Gulf war and the rebellions. Some of it has been Iraqi-on-Iraqi destruction, but there is almost nothing that can match the impact of U.S. high-tech attacks, particularly from the air, in terms of inflicting damage. A recent unfortunate phenomenon of the 15-month U.S. occupation and appointed Iraqi interim authority period has been the outflow of Iraq's Christian minority from the country. They are at increasing risk in the deteriorating security situation and menaced in a now more politicized religious context by militant Islamic extremists, domestic and foreign, Shiite and Sunni. So, basically, one can argue that the United States has not in fact brought freedom to Iraq. It has brought instead death, destruction and now near-chaos, including forcing Christians who have lived there since the time of Christ to flee the country to Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. Forget as reasons for the war weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi support of al-Qaida terrorists and even increased oil supplies. And is Israel really safer with a hot war being waged a few hundred miles from its borders and the Arab world thoroughly riled up over that war? So why do we stay? The place now called Iraq has been there in one form or other since the dawn of recorded history. Does anyone think the situation there will get better if we stay? Or that it will become substantially worse if we leave? Is our presence not in fact increasingly the bone of contention among warring Iraqis? Sen. John Kerry and President Bush need to think very carefully about that central question -- stay or get out -- as they as presidential candidates consider and suggest what the United States should do next. post-gazette.com