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: jttmab who wrote (147701)	10/13/2004 12:50:17 AM
From: Dr. Id	Respond to of 281500

Very good point.

To: jttmab who wrote (147701)	10/13/2004 8:29:09 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Yes, the other side of the same coin.

To: jttmab who wrote (147701)	10/13/2004 9:03:31 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I will retract my original reply because i fell into a trap in answering. My answer should have been that bushies were wrong in their assessment pre-9/11 as were many other conservatives (not neocons i imagine) but right post 9/11 in assessing the changed world. Democrats may have been more right about nation building prior to 9/11 but quickly have given this up because of their general pacifist nature. They will fight a war in serbia with zero casualties but once the going gets tough the democrats are against it. If we intervened in the sudan as some democrats and republicans want and things went badly, the democrats would be holloring at bush. If bush went in under blue hat leadership, and their was violence and losses, dems would then change their minds on the UN. Before iraq many dems were yelling about afganistan where casualties were light. But in contrast with iraq, they now are all for it. If you can make sense of democrat paranoia and schizophrenia(P&S), go for it. mike PS And kerry is the symbol of post-vietnam democrat P&S.