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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (22572)	9/9/2004 9:23:15 PM
From: Mac Con Ulaidh	Respond to of 173976

That's why I don't agree with what the Bush supporters say about Kerry's Iraq position not being different from Bush's. agreed. even from the vote to give the option. a vote for war as an option is not to say "go for it no matter what, dude". that option is given with a trust in the honesty and responsible disposition of the President. and i pointedly say President. i'm pretty tired of the militarization of our country with the emphasis on commander-in-chief. ::thumping chest for emphasis:: The fact of the matter is that, it is a mess. But, a change of leadership would allow us to go back to certain nations and ask them to take at least a visible role in stabilizing the country. It would allow both us and other nations to save face (an unfortunate but important political reality) and change some minds. If the Iraqis saw immediate results, maybe they'd then have hope, and would be ready to take on the REAL governing of their own country. beyond the initial invasion it has been nothing more than a mess, imo. but that means it was a mess before a boot landed, since clearly there was no plan, little, if any, understanding, and a paternalistic attitude towards the Iraqis. a change of leadership with clear and honest diplomacy could make a huge difference. i won't say we have no choice but to "save face" by eating a little crow. sure, we do. we can spiral further down, and take the Iraqis with us. the language and reasoning is there to bring our partners with us into this, but we don't currently have those voices speaking to them for this country. imo, we have no right to keep killing civilians there in order to prove ourselves right, and then have the gall to say 'i'm doing this for your own good, you'll be happy in the democracy we give you on the graves of your children.' with a broad coalition maybe we could get to what you speak of. (hanging participle?) i do think we have a responsibility to help rebuild their govermental structures since we took them apart. but we are seen as, and act as, an occupier. daddy-in-chief. a change of leadership here that reaches out with honesty, could do it. maybe?