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: carranza2 who wrote (146092)	9/21/2004 2:45:38 PM
From: Alastair McIntosh	Respond to of 281500

I've been thinking along the same lines myself. If I were a Democrat I might be happy to see Bush re-elected. The ongoing mess of Iraq and the probable mess on the economic front at home will probably mean a change in parties four years from now. I think the loser might ultimately be grateful for having lost.

To: carranza2 who wrote (146092)	9/21/2004 8:46:34 PM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 281500

Rather than dealing with issues, we are fascinated with the candidates' Vietnam experience and some forgeries an idiotic CBS may have used in a botched attempt to help Kerry. What you mean "we", Kemosabe? This ain't LindyBill's thread. I admit some people are strangely obsessed with some odd garbage, but mercifully that particular "high minded" discourse doesn't show up so much here.

To: carranza2 who wrote (146092)	9/21/2004 9:32:45 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi carranza2; Re "Bush would be a sitting duck, able to do whatever he wants. Kerry would have no political problems with a withdrawal, too, depending on which side of the bed he awoke on." Kerry just put out a speech where he announced his plan to win in Iraq. Of course his policy is in all important respects identical to Bush's policy of 2003. That is, Kerry wants to get foreign nations to send troops (just like Bush); Kerry wants to spend money rebuilding Iraq (just like Bush), and Kerry says he won't reduce the troop level for the next year (just like Bush). Kerry says that he may start removing troops as early as summer of 2005. Given our current casualty rates, it's not unlikely that given Kerry's election, more US soldiers will die in Iraq under his watch than under Bush's. In comparison, Bush has already learned that it is impossible to get more foreign countries to send more troops, that improving the infrastructure in Iraq simply makes for our having to fight better fed and better equipped guerillas, and that the only function our troops perform well in Iraq is that of targets. This is why I don't trust Kerry to run Iraq better than Bush in 2005. There's not a dime's worth of difference between their policies except that Bush has already learned his limitations. -- Carl