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: Elroy who wrote (204805)	10/3/2004 12:52:08 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572953

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. No, they both have the same chance, which is nil. But Bush made the most important point of the debate (lost on 90% of the viewers) when he hammered the idea that Kerry would be able to convince other nations to join him in the "wrong war at the wrong time", etc. It is pure and utter nonsense. I agree with Powell's assessment -- we broke it, we bought it. It is our war. And that's as it SHOULD be. It is stupid to believe other nations are going to be materially involved. Even GB's involvement is marginal, at best. 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. Bush has been very clear as to the exit strategy. The turnover of control happened on schedule. It is totally, abundantly clear that the elections will happen on schedule. I believe it is highly likely we'll apply stepped up pressure against the insurgents over the next couple of weeks to bring about an end to it. Once again, the Left is playing the role of armchair quarterbacks who allowed the situation to get out of control for 8 years, only to bitch about it when someone finally does something about it. 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. I think the plan is abundantly clear, and it has been to me since the inception. There is no question that democracy in Iraq will have a tranformational effet on the Mideast, which is precisely the reason the terrorists have aggregated there to fight it. As to the other nations, it will take time. This isn't a one-decade problem. As a side-note, I think you'll understand more about this subject if you can get your hands on a copy of "The Great Reckoning" by James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg. This book is 15 years old, and while it missed some of the details, it discusses in stark terms the fact that Islam is basically in control of the Western industrialized nations by virtue of controlling oil wealth. In effect, you have these few dictators controlling our prosperity. When you add to this the threat posed by terrorism, it is clear the Left is so totally underestimating the scope of the issue that it is downright amazing. This problem is exacerbated by the "incentive traps" which exist in the Mideast -- a point we will see come to fruition as the infighting over water rights in the region heat up. 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. That's fine. I don't personally feel the execution has been that bad. I think we are much closer than people realize to getting control of the situation, and the number of war dead, while troubling, isn't surprising given the task at hand. To me, the disaster will be if Kerry is elected. He will turn tail and run so fast it will make your head spin. His entire history has been anti-war, regardless of the consequences, and it hasn't changed. Only the rhetoric has changed. I suppose some people need to be slapped in the face with it to see it.