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: Mary Cluney who wrote (80853)	10/26/2004 11:02:53 AM
From: Logain Ablar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793843

Mary: Dismmissing and disabanding them was a collosal error in judgement If we keep them armed and dangerous can you explain how we would go about trying to create a government not dominated by the suni's? The military did plan for over 150k additional troops but alas they did not arrive. The President was not able to bring NATO on board. In business, anyone making blunders on this magnitude would be fired. There is no accountability here. How can we go on without accountability? What is the blunder, not taking action in the first place? In business you make decisions based upon what is known today and always know Murphy's law comes into play. Smart leaders adapt to the changing circumstances.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (80853)	10/26/2004 11:12:30 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 793843

On the homefront, the budget deficit is in free fall. Simply not true. Federal outlays as a percentage of GDP in 2004 is 20.2%. That's the number economists crunch. 1994 21% 1995 20.7% 1996 20.3% 1997 19.6% 1998 19.2% 1999 18.6% 2000 18.4% 2001 18.6% 2002 19.4% 2003 19.9% 2004 20.2% 2005 (est) 19.9% Historially, government spending goes up during wars. Always has, always will. Should we cut domestic spending during war time if we don't have to? As for "conservative economists" -- the ones I like the best, the ones I thought were the smartest, long, long ago, endorse Bush. And so does my favorite liberal economist, Robert Mundell at Columbia. Nobel laureate for the Mundell-Fleming hypothesis, which explains why the currencies of little countries blow up, and why the EU is having a hard time with a unified currency. I never tire of trying to explain Mundell-Fleming to people, if only because it's the most complicated thing I understand about economics, and perfectly explains why the Great Depression happened in the 1930's, and why there was no Great Depression after the 2000 stock market crash, which was at least as bad in the NASDAQ as the Great Crash of 1929. The man's a freaking genius. If he prefers Bush to Kerry, you can make book that he's right. If he endorsed Kerry, it would shake me up. nationalreview.com I won't bother to comment on the rest of your post, it's just a rehash of your earlier posts. I've already shown you the error of your ways, but you remain in denial.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (80853)	10/26/2004 11:25:39 AM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 793843

Amazing how some people are so certain more troops would have been a panacea toward the war effort. More troops could have created a larger backlash; more Iraqi's may have felt they were being conquered. More deaths could have resulted with more troops taking more risks early on in areas like the Sunni Triangle. More troops could have enraged the Muslim world and incited more terrorists to enter Iraq. The point is, you don't know and the rest of the armchair generals don't know. It's utter speculation on a grand scale. The simple fact is the U.S. led invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan (a conflict we seem to completely forget since they are well on their way to peace and democracy), has been one of the most successful military efforts in the history of the world. It has cost less lives to remove a vicious dictator and despicable regime than any wars in recent memory. The progress is steady, the progress is difficult, but believing so completely a magic number of troops would have mollified terrorists who were hell-bent on creating a jihads state, is seeing the world through black and white shaded lenses. 400 thousand troops would probably not have sealed the border completely. I am really sorry the American people have to put up with a war against terrorism, which isn't over in 2 hours like a made-for-T.V. movie. But, the President never portrayed it as that. Arnold Swarznegger swooping down from the sky to end the conflict doesn't exist in real life. In real life, this war will be fought street by street, by Iraqi police coordinating with the coalition forces walking the beat, by collecting intelligence on this network of nut-cases one morsel at a time. And by leaders who are willing to stay the course, see the vision which lie a few years ahead, and see it through to successful completion. John Kerry is anything but a General Swartznegger from the sky about to swoop in and end this conflict with a magic word to France. The people in the armed services, the ones on the ground, in the air, on ships and submarines, willing to put their lives on the line understand this, and they are going to vote for President Bush in tremendous numbers. Why should Americans deny our troops the leadership they desire during a time of war, simply because they've read the latest political armchair generals, the ones who suggest there was a utopian path available had different choices been made?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (80853)	10/26/2004 11:26:12 AM
From: SBHX	Respond to of 793843

Mary, 1. The Iraqi military did not and would not fight for Saddam Hussein. Dismmissing and disabanding them was a collosal error in judgement. It may come as a shock to you, but Baath party officials and the military and police were not well-loved by the Iraqi public. Even today, there are reports of revenge killings of retired Baath officials by someone who lost family members during the Saddam reign. Hindsight will make geniuses of everyone, but keeping the military and police armed with weapons would likely make the hunt for SH much harder, as these people are not exactly incorruptible. 2. General Shinseki, Army Chief of Staff testified that it would require several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq after the war. Lawrence Lindsey, Whitehouse economic advisor estimated that the war would cost $200B. They fired Lindsey and they let Shinseki stay in office but named his successor thus effectively terminating him Shinseki's successor was already known and announced long before he testified. This is one of JK's campaign distortions that has been swallowed by many people. That a war is not like a clean chess game may also come as a shock to you. War is ugly and dirty, with dust storms and the requirement to seize opportunities as they come. Both tactically and strategically, at critical times you cannot stand frozen to find the best move, because time is one thing you don't have. However, I think the US military shows an incredible knack to adapt and improvise, and will learn new things from each war it is forced to fight.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (80853)	10/26/2004 11:28:13 AM
From: MrLucky	Respond to of 793843

What are Libertarians and big tent Republicans being suckered into? Mary, Nice try. The Libertarians and big tent Republicans that I know are being suckered into security for the country. Security, as being provided by the current administration, not as being offered by kerry and "his plan".

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (80853)	10/26/2004 11:32:54 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793843

You might find this interesting - today on Good Morning America, Bush said that he supports letting the states decide gay marriage. >>BUSH SAYS GOP PLATFORM ON CIVIL UNIONS IS WRONG: "States ought to be able to have the right to pass … laws that enable people to you know, be able to have rights, like others." Q: So, the Republican platform on that point, as far as you're concerned is wrong? BUSH: "Right." abcnews.go.com I concur. This is not a federal issue. Get the federal government out of our bedrooms. The Supreme Court has no business opining on abortion, homosexuality, or contraception, to name the most egregious incursions into state functions. Madison and Hamilton have been rolling in their graves for decades, let them rest in peace.