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: Michael Watkins who wrote (147391)	10/8/2004 12:32:32 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Mike, As a conservative, don't you worry whether kerry is up to the task? I am older than you are and i remeber vietnam very clearly and many vets today have an agenda--prowar guys like unclewest who feel that they were inches away from winning the war if only folks like kerry and fonda had shut up and antiwar vets like kerry who have never come to terms with their service and have become fundamentally pseudo-pacifists (my opinion). I have been arguing here that if bush fesses up tonight and uses the parts of the cia report that are positive for his position i will vote for him. I dont think i can vote for the rovian candidate otherwise. But vote for kerry is just as hard for me because the next four years of the WOT will be the critical ones imo and i clearly have more confidence in bush. I enjoyed your post and look forward to your reply. mike

To: Michael Watkins who wrote (147391)	10/8/2004 11:47:49 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

..why other countries did not join as part of an indictment on the current adminstration's decision to invade Iraq -- this is not water under the bridge,.. It is water under the bridge from the standpoint of why many countries ARE NOT joining the current effort in Iraq. Note: I'm talking present tense, what is going on now, not whether we should have gone to war in 2003. people from other countries were lining up to help. My understanding is countries were lining up to offer verbal support. There are int'l troops there now and most of them (not all) have not left Kabul. The effort was sanctioned, moral, had universal support from the world. Not exactly universal. Saudi Arabia opposed it as they did the Iraq invasion. So much for the Bush-being-in-the-Saudi-pocket meme. No, there is no doubt that retaliation and flushing out would happen quickly. Speculation in media about temperature and holiday seasons was just that... idle chatter for us television watchers, a blip in the plan for the military. It has since occurred to me that I ought to have pointed out that Carter failed to respond to the kidnapping and holding hostage our diplomats and many other citizens in Iran, a clear act of war. So I don't consider it speculation that some Presidents would not have responded as aggressively as Bush following 911.