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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (23282)	7/8/2006 11:57:06 AM
From: Jim S	Respond to of 541457

Thames, according to the article you cited, Speaking after talks with French President Jacques Chirac, Mr Bush bluntly stated that those nations not "for" the US were "against us". [sic] All nations, if they want to fight terror, must do something... You're either with us or you're against us. This was in November, 2001. For some reason, rhetoric was a bit hot. Can't imagine why. I mean, it wasn't like emotions were running high or anything. Perhaps you are like some here in the US -- this country "deserved" a good whollop? Like the 7/7 train bombing in England or the similar train bombing in Spain were "deserved?"? Just what alternatives do you suggest the US should have taken? Beg for help? Sit back and lick our wounds? When Europeans took terrorist hits prior to 9-11, they didn't seem to care a whole lot, shrugging their shoulders and continuing with business as usual. That isn't the typical American response, though. Americans are more inclined to try to stop the problem rather than live with it. If Europe was to be induced to join in that effort, it needed some strong words to get them off their chubby, sanctimonious, apathetic posteriors. The US is grateful to Britain's Blair for his response. If the rest of the world wants to learn to speak Arabic, so be it. Re-order it: "with Bush as Prez the US can do nothing right" and I think you come closer. Put the blame where it belongs. That tells it all. You not only can't see the forest for the trees, you can't see the tree for a single leaf. As for Kyoto and the so-called "world court," thank goodness the US decided to stay out of those patently anti-US "agreements." Both have the effect of, "ok, America, you cut your own throat, and we'll like you more. Maybe."

To: thames_sider who wrote (23282)	7/10/2006 2:58:10 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541457

What he said was to the effect, "if you support or tolerate terrorism, we will consider you opposed to us." I thought he said "If you're not for us, you're against us" news.bbc.co.uk Which is admirably Manichean, if you admire such; but certainly has more of the sense of "if you don't like what we do, go swivel" than you make out. Indeed, it's even a threat - "if you don't do as we want, you're an enemy and we may attack you". "If you're not for us, you're against us" can mean anything from "if you support or tolerate terrorism, we will consider you opposed to us" to "if you don't do as we want, you're an enemy and we may attack you". Its not very specific. To consider what was meant it makes sense to analyze the context, which was in the aftermath of 9/11, in a speech that warned that "Osama Bin Laden is seeking to acquire nuclear, chemical and biological weapons." It was obviously a comment that if you support or accept OBL and terrorist attacks that you are no friend of the US. It was not a threat to attack anyone who was less than enthusiastic about any particular current or future US policy.