Re: Erick

Submitted by HARRAK (Canada), Mar 2, 2006 at 20:33

Dear Erick,

Actually there is no means your point can be discredited, you are absolutely coherent in detailing the variables..But my point saying Kerry could have invested more money and sent more army is based on the projection, not the electoral debate. I however -respecting of course your point- aimed at saying that Kerry would better handle the situation considering the following factor:

Kerry is less influenced by the corporate machine. The corporate machine could be itself in favour of instability (including the US military Industrial Complex). in other words, who can trust the sayying that the USA can not make peace in Iraq? legitimate question...with W Bush in power, if the instability and civil war in Iraq will be an incentive for selling to neighbouring states arms with long term plans witjh profitable interest rates, believe me, W Bush will sign for that option. Kerry will not

But do appreciate your other way of analysis..

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".