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: SilentZ who wrote (205092)	10/4/2004 10:45:44 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573415

Sure. The "global test" is a "smell test." If an action could make sense to other liberal democracies (not countries like Cuba or Iran, as has been implied), then it's valid, except in cases of imminent danger. There was no imminent danger in the case of Iraq. Oh. Glad you have that all worked out. Unfortunately, it is totally inconsistent with what he said: "But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." Kerry doesn't address the obvious follow up, "What do you do if some people of the world (e.g., France, Russia, Germany) don't see things quite your way?" Do you just recall the warships from the Gulf and say, "Nevermind Saddam. You got me. You've refused to grant access to weapons inspectors demanded by the UN. You've refused to provide the disclosure demanded by the UN. You've refused to provide the required evidence of destruction of some 2 million liters of chemical agent. And you're still shooting at our planes as they monitor the no-fly zone. But Chirac says it doesn't make sense to him. Nevermind that we've repeatedly had to create massive military buildups in the region to enforce the UN's demands." "Just blow it off. We'll leave.". How stupid would that be? I disagree. The administration could've forestalled its tax cuts to pay for the war, but it did not, because it needed to pander to its base. Kerry's vote made sense to me. I get it. You [and Kerry] would deny our troops the support they need because you don't think there should be tax cuts to improve the economy. You guys really support our troops. You're all so two-faced I don't know how you tolerate yourselves.

To: SilentZ who wrote (205092)	10/4/2004 10:52:34 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573415

"The administration could've forestalled its tax cuts to pay for the war, but it did not, because it needed to pander to its base." Yep. The thing that got lost with all this discussion about Kerry not supporting the troops is that Bush had threatened to veto any version of the bill that required repayment... forbes.com If support of the troops was the most important thing, why would that have been an obstacle? I liked this part The House also backed Senate measures for expanding health care for veterans and troops that Bush opposes. Some big supporter of the troops, huh?