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: unclewest who wrote (149819)	10/29/2004 3:49:43 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

IMO, Defending Bush is like defending Ken Lay...Both of these characters used creative deception to stay in power much longer than they should have. You seem to be like an Enron shareholder who won't admit that the CEO has lied and made some serious errors in judgement...I know many veterans and lifelong Republicans that are crossing over and voting for a Democrat for the first time on November 2nd. You still have time to change your mind. It looks like the Bushies are trying to shift some of their campaign tactics too...fyi... ______________________________ When Animals Stop Attacking . . . October 29, 2004 electablog.com In the final days of the campaign, we can expect the Bush team to be in all 9/11 all the time mode. During a New Hampshire campaign stop, W momentarily dropped the tactic of attacking Kerry at every turn and instead paid tribute to some relatives of 9/11 victims. I'm not so sure about the idea of trotting out the relatives at this point in the campaign. But I am sure that Bush should have positioned himself more as a post-9/11 leader and healer than as a man constantly on the attack and a politician who behaved more like a desperate challenger than a war time incumbent. Trying to shift gears at this point comes off as yet more desperation. The Bush team would be better off staying negative. It's way too late to go positive and to focus on his own leadership. During the New Hampshire event, confetti and fireworks were prematurely released. Once they went off, there was no way to reload the fireworks or to stuff the paper shreds back into the canon. And so it is with the Bush campaign. Long ago (maybe way back in South Carolina during the 2000 campaign) this team took the low road and focused all of their efforts on smearing Kerry. There's really no going back now. And because of that, the next time the confetti flies, it just may land on the other guy. ..........................

To: unclewest who wrote (149819)	10/29/2004 5:21:14 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Iraq War: So What's The Deal? _____________________________ Iraq \| US Foreign Policy Posted by newt on October 29, 2004 - 4:44pm thisisrumorcontrol.org It's a question that can't be asked too many times about Iraq; just what, exactly, are Americans getting for their money, not to mention lost lives. Weapons of mass destruction removal and Saddam terror links are off the table. So, what is the benefit part of this conflict which, like all wars, was undertaken on the premise of a cost-benefit ratio? Based on a calculation that Iraq is costing about five billion dollars per month plus more than one thousand troops deaths and over seven thousand wounded, Robert Higgs, a political economist and senior fellow at the Independent Institute thinks it's time to reassess. In a recent commentary, Higgs reduces failures in Iraq down to one half of a simple contract between the administration and the American people. Higgs believes, if you put it his way, it's "an offer you would have refused." <<..."In the case of the Iraq War for example, the U.S. government, refraining from false advertising, might have presented to each adult living in the United States the following offer. We will bring about a certain state of affairs in Iraq as of September 2004: Saddam Hussein will be imprisoned and his government overthrown; widespread fighting between U.S. troops and resistance forces; extensive public disorder, rampant crime and personal insecurity; autocratic government and lack of civil liberties; widespread lack of basic public services, such as reliable water supply, sewerage and electricity supply; and seething political discord among tribal, ethnic and religious factions struggling to control the country after they have driven out the U.S. occupation forces and their allies. That's what you'll get for your contribution." "In exchange, you and everyone else in the country, should you all agree to the contract, will each make a pro rata financial contribution of $2,000 for each household. In addition, you will each agree to bear your pro rata share of the casualties by participating in a lottery in which each ticket holder will place members of his household at risk of death injuries or wounds. Your chance that a household member will be killed is approximately one in 108,000 and your chance that a household member will be seriously wounded or injured is approximately one in 15,000."..>> War hawks might quibble with Higgs' description of the offer because it leaves out some things of value; that is, the Administration's claim that toppling Saddam and installing an Israel-friendly democracy in the Middle East is a good hedge against the growth of terrorism in the region; and that they hoped to guarantee access to Persian Gulf oil -- which has proved illusory at best. And they would be right, he did leave those out. But that outcome seems so far from the current Iraq reality, it isn't even part of the equation.