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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Asia Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Liatris Spicata who wrote (8702)	6/7/1999 10:04:00 AM
From: Bosco	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9980

Larry, what you were suggesting is essentially the Jean Kirkpatrick doctrine. Unfortunately, IMHO, the study of history is an art as much as it is a science. Instead of proving an absolute villain of the US policies, many of the so-called policies were reactive to the one before. Even now, scholars still debate whether Kennedy's policies were a reaction to his father's siding with the appeasement camp before WWII etc. Then, history is a funny thing, reactionist or not. One would have to ask oneself, what if Secretary Dulles willing to shake hand [literally speaking] with Cho En-lai in Geneva. Could the whole Vietnam saga be averted? best, Bosco

To: Liatris Spicata who wrote (8702)	6/7/1999 10:35:00 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9980

Not terribly original, Larry, it (at least the SEA part of it) is based on people like Daniel Ellsberg (you could have guessed that one, I suppose), David Halberstam and Neil Sheehan, as well as going back into the archives of numerous magazines, newspapers and the US government back in the late 60s and early 70s when I was trying to formulate my own position--since I was of draft age at the time, it was critical, not to say an obsession, to me. But I look forward to hearing your version.