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: michael97123 who wrote (147396)	10/8/2004 1:22:27 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

MIke, re: "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 think you do Kerry and a lot of others, like me, a disservice when you question our opinions based on some sort of "never come to terms with [our] service" assertion. The simple fact is that different people can look at the same facts and come to different conclusions. The test of which conclusions were most in tune with reality is one that relies upon history. The fact is that we did "win" the peace in Vietnam, at least from Americas's perspective. Vietnam is a trading partner, is not a threat to us and is not a threat to its neighbors. That's a win in my book. I think that Kerry and I and a lot of other veterans who felt that war was unjustified and unwinnable, should never be lumped together with Jane Fonda who had only an opposition to the war in common with us. Fonda turned against the American soldiers who were fighting that war. I, and in my opinion Kerry, accepted the facts of the war, including the frequencey and extent of the atrocities, and knew the pressures that drove our soldiers. We blamed those who lied about the facts and put them in deadly peril with no POSSIBLE way to "win;" we didn't blame them. Once again, for those who don't know the facts, it wasn't the 500,000 men in Vietnam at any given time who were susceptible to the pressures that led to atrocities, it was, according to a book I read recently, only 50 infantry battalions that took 80% of the causualties. That's a total of 25,000 men. When you consider that we were losing over 10,000 DEAD each year at the height of the war and then apply that 80% statistic, it may be more easily understood what kind of pressures and fears motivated those few men. Most of those veterans supported the invasion of Afghanistan and are cleary not "pseudo-pacifists." We are, however, more versed in the limits of conventional military power and less inclined to get all "patriotic" and start jumping up and down with pom poms whenever someone starts beating the war drums. War has smells, sounds and sights that we understand and that's part of the reason. The other part is that we understand that in the runnup to a war the hype is ALWAYS greater than the facts will support. By the way, in spite of your protestations I predict you will vote for Bush since you often slip into what "we" must do when you're talking about the Bush campaign. No matter, as I recently commented on another thread; those who see doomsday coming with a John Kerry presidency or, alternatively, see doomsday coming with a second Bush term, ought to take a deep breath and listen to themselves. Bush is wounded severely and has lost the support of the moderate Republican wing of the party and Kerry will have to deal with a Republican majority in the House, at least. Both will, therefor, be forced toward moderation no matter who wins.

To: michael97123 who wrote (147396)	10/8/2004 1:42:37 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Sure, I worry whether Kerry is up to the task -- but you better define what the "task" is. Bush has been trying to intertwine the Iraq issue with the war on Terrorism in a way that obscures their nation building agenda. Iraq wasn't a haven for terrorists - certainly not more so than Syria, Libya, Iran, Sudan, or Saudi Arabia. Iraq was a launching pad for a much bigger empire building plan that went something like this: (preface this with the supposition that the planners of the Iraq debacle assumed they would be welcomed by open arms and no real resistance) - rid Iraq of Saddam - get a nice functioning society going with a leadership that was kindly to the US and unafraid to use internal police powers (damn any human rights abuses) to keep internal terrorist development at bay - threaten other countries in the region with same - sit back and collect the rewards. But of course, the opposition to a US dominated M.E. is fierce and simply is not going away. Not now, not ever, not at the point of our weapons. Welcome to endless guerilla warfare and a widening conflict, thanks to the catalyst provided to terrorists throughout the region. As I've been slowly outlining here, I can not support the "mission" which Bush and his - can't even call them neocon because that isn't strictly accurate - inner circle envison. As a "democrat" (a staunch supporter of democracy, not a democrat in the liberal persuasion) I am completely against governments making big lies to the people. The people, if given the facts, will generally make the right decision. When a small group of people believe they know more than the collective wisdom of hundreds of millions of others, democracy has broken down. Bush failed in this very important test. Forget "global test" he fails the national test of confidence. They concocted a reason to go into Iraq to support their secret mission and goal for the region. It was a flawed plan which the world will pay for over the years to come. Is Kerry up to the task? I honestly do not know if anyone is up to the task of correcting the wrongs which Bush has started, but there is one thing for certain - the current administration must be called to account, they must be replaced, and we'll have to hope that the people will send that message very clearly so that Congress and the beauracracy can get behind the new leader and make something work. No half-assed support. Enough of this for me for now, its back to trading, golds made a nice dip which I am participating in on the bounce.