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 : Proof that John Kerry is Unfit for Command -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (2616)	8/24/2004 9:10:33 PM
From: Zakrosian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27181

And yes, a lot of this has happened while Bush has been President A lot of what? The pardon or the dissemination of nuclear technology? Musharraf is walking a tightrope - there's no question that much of the Islamic world hates the US, and has for a long time - don't forget those images of residents of Islamic towns dancing with joy after the World Trade Center collapsed. And this was after the US was one of the world's largest contributors to the relief efforts to alleviate hunger in Afghanistan (home of the Taliban and al Qaeda) and years of Clinton's hosting Arafat at the White House. The result was the second intifada and 9/11. That's the mentality of the population that Musharraf is dealing with - there's no way he could be as strong an ally as we'd like. So now what? How do you respond to that hatred and the reality that the terrorists want to kill as many Americans as they can - and they don't care whether it's soldiers in Iraq or kids at a football game anywhere in the US? And, sorry, but I just can't buy the idea that Qadaffi's willingness to give up his weapons programs right after Saddam was pulled out of his spider hole is just a coincidence. He could have done it right after 9/11 or at any other time during the period that they "have been trying to get on the good side of the US and the international community". But he didn't. And, frankly, I'm very happy if the result is that we can now pump Libyan oil and feel comfortable that the money they're getting isn't going to support an Islamic jihad. Good for Bush's oil buddies, good for Libya, and good for the world economy. You're right, everybody's happy. I still have the same question - how do you think Kerry would deal with the Islamic threat in a more effective way than Bush has? I have my doubts about the wisdom of the Iraqi war, especially in view of the loss of American lives (I believe that fewer Iraqi's have died as a result of the war than would have under another 18 months of Saddam's rule), but I'm not sure any other alternative would have been better.

To: bentway who wrote (2616)	8/24/2004 11:50:50 PM
From: Richnorth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27181

Ann Corrigan in her masthead for this thread wrote that Bush succeeded in cowing Libya into giving up its WMD program and terrorist support. Once again Ann has been caught serving up misleading info. The truth is that no one forced Ghadaffi to give up his WMD program and support for terrorists. Ghadaffi himself takes credit for dropping his WMD program, and paying the victims of the Lockerbie Incident. BTW, I wrote the post in Message 20444984 and so far Ann seems at a loss as to how to reply to it. I hope she is now doing some research............