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: Lane3 who wrote (79317)	10/20/2004 9:57:57 PM
From: Gus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794024

We need a well-rounded long term strategy Well, you need to pay attention to the map and the logistics before you even start talking about strategy much less the nuances of that strategy. In short order we have removed our polarizing military presence in Saudi Arabia, the guardian of Islam's holiest sites, and we now have the logistical framework in place in Iraq and Afghanistan to support a wider range of missions, some of which are just too difficult to even publicly contemplate during a POTUS' first term, any POTUS. Is that good enough for ya'? Or you want more nuance? LOL!

To: Lane3 who wrote (79317)	10/20/2004 10:39:17 PM
From: SBHX	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 794024

Ok. Let's debate who Kerry is. I never shook his hand, so I can't say I know him that well, but he is a public figure and his voting pattern is a matter of public record. I think overall, at various times, Kerry has indeed said the right things, sometimes 90 minutes after he said the wrong thing, but lets assume he cloaks what he really means as a necessary defense mechanism for politicians, lets give him the benefit of the doubt that pandering is an accepted political skill. However, my observation is that when it comes time to vote in the Senate, his voting pattern is in the extreme minority of the anti-war faction. In fact, he has been very active at times in working against the interest of the reagan administration. Are these points in dispute? 1. Kerry's policy towards israel is an example of opportunistic yet incoherent missteps. He shows an inane capacity for trusting all the wrong people at the wrong time at the wrong place. By a few pretty words, Arafat snookered multilateralists like Kerry into the Oslo peace accord, while the west and Barak gave up practically everything to obtain a historic peace, Arafat walked away and gave away nothing. In fact in hindsight, other than to see his opponents' hands, it appears Arafat never had any intention to seek peace. Other than being fooled by a charlatan, there is no other way to describe the west's dealings with Arafat. Yet, Israel is heavily disadvantaged in the UN. Without US veto, Israel would be at a severe disadvantage. JK's administration will be a clearly multilateral one and WILL defer to the UN. When taken with JK's multilateralism, there is a compelling parallel to Chamberlain's selling out the Czech for the sake of peace with Kerry's attitude towards Israel. Think about this one. 2. In 1990, Kerry was against sending troops to Kuwait believing diplomacy would work. He voted against it. His words back then still ring clearly fourteen years later : My greatest fear is this issue is too much box and not enough capacity to move out --- That line is pointing in a very dangerous direction. Kerry was looking at negotiating with SH and urged bush 41 to signal a willingness to see Iraq’s claim on specific Kuwaiti territory adjudicated in an international forum Now, if you had read Chamberlain, Chamberlain's attempt during the Munich agreement was to study Germany's claim on Sudenteland in an international forum. The parallel here is hard to miss. 3. Kerry was supportive of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Kerry's words : I am willing...to take the risk in the effort to put to test the good faith of the Sandinistas. In fact, Kerry reached a deal with Daniel Ortega that the democrats will kill any bill in congress that attempts to fund the contras. The bill was killed and Ortega promptly went to Moscow. This is not the first nor the last time when Kerry's foreign policy attempt at diplomacy has left him snookered and looking foolish. Agaim. This is not the first nor last time Kerry was outmanouvered in foreign diplomacy. 4. In 1984, Kerry repeatedly criticized Reagan's assesment and policy against the soviet union as "misinformed". Kerry not only voted against euromissiles, he was a keynote speaker at an anti-nuclear peace summit two months before Reagan and Gorbachev's historic summit. Again, Kerry misread what was going on behind the iron curtain. If Kerry had his way, we would still be worrying about the doomsday clock. 5. Kerry was against the Grenada war, calling it "a bully's show of force." Later of course, Kerry's revisionist history showed he was supportive of the Grenada war counting it as one of his many many successes. Boston Globe has a telling article on this. 6. On Libya, Kerry said this in 1986 after the disco bombing that linked back to Gadhafi : two essential tests had to be met in determining whether or not the U.S. action was appropriate. First, the United States had to have irrefutable evidence directly linking the [Gadhafi] regime to a terrorist act and, second, our response should be proportional to that act. --- It is obvious that our response was not proportional to the disco bombing and even violated the Administration's own guidelines to hit clearly defined terrorist targets, thereby minimizing the risk to innocent civilians. If we understand the context of the growth of terrorism as a tactic, it became clear that while the funding of the mujahideen was the first spark, without the funding (conscious or not) by several regimes, they would not have been able to grow to today's strength. The policy of attacking Gadhafi turned out to be correct, this is another instance of Kerry being wrong on multilateralism as the answer to all problems. Gadhafi today has renounced his WMD plans and joined the path of peaceful nations (so far), a complete reversal for the colonel. Would he have done the same with Kerry? 7. Kerry has been outstanding at various times in his career to cut funding from the intelligence and military. His words on this are again a matter of public record : On cutting intelligence : (1997) “[W]hy it is that our vast intelligence apparatus, built to sustain America in the long twilight struggle of the Cold War continues to grow at an exponential rate? Now that that struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow even as government resources for new and essential priorities fall far short of what is necessary? Why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to roll on even as every other government bureaucracy is subject to increasing scrutiny and, indeed, to reinvention? . Yet Kerry's website now says this : John Kerry understands that intelligence information is the key to disrupting and dismantling terrorist organizations and that we need to improve our intelligence capabilities, both domestically and internationally, in order to win the war on global terrorism --- great but empty words since he did cut 80% from the intelligence budget. Notice that the failure of intelligence is the primary cause of 9/11. (1) frontpagemag.com (2) washingtontimes.com (3) newsmax.com (4) powerlineblog.com (5) boston.com (6) nationalreview.com (7) georgewbush.com washingtonpost.com militaryworld.com