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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (636002)	10/1/2004 11:33:54 AM
From: cthruu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I watched the debate. Mr. Kerry had style, but what about the substance? This guy reflects my sentiments as the debate went on... And I’m not exactly thrilled with the idea of a big summit of non-allied allies after the election, either. Summits are convened not to solve a problem but solve the perception that there is a problem. Imagine if the government had been different in 2002 - we’d have had a summit with France and Germany. End result: the sanctions would be dropped by now, and Saddam would still be in power. The entire point of the summit would be to establish “goals and timetables” cooked up by various bored Eurocrats attempting to smooth the path towards full and open trade with Iraq, instead of covert under-the-table deals. (It’s so nice when you can deal with thugs in the open, rather than skulking around; that makes one feel as though one’s doing something wrong.) The entire Iraq issue would have vanished from the A-section, because there had been – a summit! If there was backsliding or intransigence, well, this would require discussions, or perhaps frank discussions, or even a motion to bring up the issue in the General Assembly, after which it would be sent up the chain to be discussed in the Security Council, right after they get done crafting a resolution that warns China not to be mean to Taiwan, and warns Taiwan about those provocative elections they’ve had lately. Ask yourself this: you’re a dictator who has violated the terms of a peace treaty over and over again, and frequently shoots at the planes enforcing the treaties. Who do you fear the most? A) The magnificent concert of allies in the UN, some of whom you’ve bought off, who are desperate to prove their legitimacy by prolonging the process into the 22nd century B) The United States, Britain and Australia, who have several hundred thousand troops on your border and frankly are in no mood to put up your crap any longer What would you want in this situation? The answer starts with “S” and ends, five letters later, in “T.” So, I get it. We are wrong and bad and stupid and stupidly wrong-bad. We failed to make France act as though it wasn’t, you know, France, a militarily insignificant nation that is understandably motivated by self-interest, and we haven’t convened a summit so we could be castigated for ignoring the extralegal use of Israeli helicopters to turn Hamas kingpins into indistinct red smears. You’d think we nuked Paris and converted everyone to Lutheranism. Here’s the thing. I’d really like to live in John Kerry’s world. It seems like such a rational, sensible place, where handshakes and signatures have the power to change the face of the planet. If only the terrorists lived there as well. Who does Zarkowi fear the most - France, summiteers, or Marines? If the rightness of a cause is measured by the number of one’s allies, would Britain have been right if the US had stayed neutral in World War Two? lileks.com

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (636002)	10/1/2004 11:56:20 AM
From: Kenneth V. McNutt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The Bush campaign has spent untold millions to try to paint Kerry as indecisive, inarticulate, and unable to state his positions. He blasted those misperceptions, effectively negating all those millions... Kerry has not changed. His entire debate was based on spewing out lies as fast he could, making them sound as though they were the truth. His assertion Bush failed to go after bin Laden shows his complete ingnorance of the Afghanistan situation. Bin Laden, if alive, is reported to be in Pakistan where our friends , the Pakistanis, are doing a great job hunting down Bin Laden and his supporters. His staement Bush removed troops from Afghanistan was another lie, as General Tommy Franks, commander of both Afghanistan and Iraq, stated unequivocollay last week there are more troops now in Afghanistan than when he commanded there. I could go on and on refuting Kery's lies but it wothless talking to those who don't believe in facts. Kerry is an empty suit and, like Clinton, will cowtow to the internationalists and give away our country, if he could get away with it. Bush will not allow the UN and/or France and Germany to determine our country's fate, as the Frenchman Kerry wishes. Depending on others to make the hard decisions is Kerry's forte. the Positively/Maybe Man. KM Kerry...synonym for TRAITOR(and LIAR)