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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kumar who wrote (76315)	10/10/2004 6:50:42 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793790

it is possible that the NYT is correct in this instance. The Times source was one "man in the street." I am sure it was a combination. But the NYT had an axe to grind that it wasn't FA, and they used it.

To: kumar who wrote (76315)	10/10/2004 7:20:34 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793790

it is possible that the NYT is correct in this instance. Most Aussies I have met either dont care, or dont support Aus govt taking part in Iraq Now, if the NYT had gathered any data to support their assertion, instead of just assuming it, then we'd know, wouldn't we?

To: kumar who wrote (76315)	10/10/2004 11:40:58 PM
From: SBHX	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793790

Most Aussies I have met either dont care, or dont support Aus govt taking part in Iraq. Technically correct, however, the opposition was running on a "bring troops home by xmas" platform, and Australia is the ONLY country that has supported US in every coalition war so far, even the ones that UK stayed out of. I do know also that everytime australians are killed by terrorists, public opinion hardens for a while against the terrorists. I.E. they hate the fact they are at war, but will not bow to fear. If John Kerry did not have Diana Kerry actively encourage Australians to abandon the coalition, the Australian election result would not now be relevant to Kerry's campaign. However, after Diana Kerry's interview in australia, John Howard will remember that Kerry's campaign was actively campaigning against him. Though I don't think Howard would be so petty so as to hold a grudge, I think for pragmatic reasons, it is very likely that Australia is not likely to support any iraqi adventure under Kerry, especially since Kerry's camp has said the coalition members are corrupt or coerced. Which means according to Kerry, Australia is either coerced or bribed.