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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (204802)	10/3/2004 12:00:41 PM
From: TigerPaw	Respond to of 1572946

That seemed more like repetition of the charges and not a list of evidence. TP

To: i-node who wrote (204802)	10/3/2004 12:00:57 PM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572946

Jesus H. Christ. Where have you BEEN? His position on the war has changed almost daily. Well which is your objection, Kerry has failed to clearly explain and stand by his position on the 2nd Iraq war, or throughout his 15 year history as a Senator he changes his mind constantly for political expediency? They are different objections to Kerry. Which is yours?

To: i-node who wrote (204802)	10/3/2004 12:16:17 PM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572946

His position on the war has changed almost daily. Well I thought you meant the inherent waffling in Kerry's character (as marketed by the GOP) was a reason for your prefering Bush. Since you can't (or won't) give the evidence that proved that inherent waffling, and prefer to just discuss Kerry's position on the 2nd Iraq war, lets talk that. I don't listen to Kerry every day, so let me lay out what I think his view is, and how I think it may differ from Bush's. I may get some stuff wrong, but these are the main points where (as far as I can tell) they differ. 1. Kerry thinks he would have a better ability than George of getting other countryies to contribute to the establishment of a secure, stable democratic Iraq. I agree. I don't know if he will actually have any success, but he would have the opportunity to pitch the idea of a "rebuilding campaign" which some countries may (or may not) get behind. George, I think you and I agree, has burned too many bridges and has zero chance to uniting the UN or whoever in a renewed Iraq stabilization effort. So Kerry may or may not succeed here, but he can't do worse that George in this area. Don't you agree. 2. Kerry thinkgs US presence as "police keepers" should be minimized as quickly as possible, whereas George's view is that the US will stay "as long as possible and not a day more". The distinction is what you make of it, but George's version (we are staying as long as possible) allows for the potential for the current situation (which is appalling to all countries, including the US) to continue for decades. I don't support that. I prefer the idea that the Iraqis have a limited time to establish democracy, and they better get off their asses and do it or they are left with the mess that results. In other words, "if you can't police yourself in a year, we are abandoning you to your own misery, and will go establish a model democracy somewhere else in Arabia, goodby you failed state". 3. George claims the war in Iraq is about "freedom and democracy in the Middle East", but hasn't laid out a plan (5 year, 10 year, 20 year) for the same governments in Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, etc. This don't make any sense to me. 4. Kerry has generally portrayed Iraq as an action that he supported, and then was so bothered by the poor execution of the administration that he thinks someone else should be in charge. I agree here as well. So where's the Belgian waffling on Iraq, and I don't mean soundbytes. List the Kerry Belgian Iraqi waffle evidence, puhleeease. Elroy

To: i-node who wrote (204802)	10/3/2004 12:21:29 PM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572946

You aren't being intellectually honest here. You're not objectively looking at the situation; You've gotta be kidding here. An objective view comes from outsiders with little stake in something. How do you explain the Brazilians hatred of George Bush, if not to say that the objective view despises the man? Most of the world is NOT directly (I said directly, don't go giving me the "9/11 changed everything" lingo) affected by the events in Iraq and Afghanistan, and most of the world doesn't like George. Isn't that the "objective view"? it is clear that despite your lip service, you are a liberal to the core. Same as JF -- come hear claiming to be objective, but having an agenda all along. Dude, I'm the guy promoting a program for forcible regime change in Saudi Arabia followed by the forcible establishment of a democratic society there - is that liberal?