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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (56276)	9/27/1999 5:17:00 PM
From: Michael M	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Excellent, Neo. I have great admiration for the way Bush ran the Gulf War and believe his finest hour may have been not giving in to urges to press on to Baghdad. Consequences of that would have been a disaster, I believe. Japanese economy always a little tricky to get a handle on. In fact, my experiences there in the 80s, left me thinking it somewhat analogous to the "Wonder Bra" -- what you see not always what you get.

To: Neocon who wrote (56276)	9/27/1999 7:18:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Meanwhile Clinton has disgraced his office, and lowered the standards by which we evaluate officeholders. If you do not think that that is very real damage to the country, then you are mistaken. I am not entirely sure this is the case. My own feeling is that anything that diminishes public trust in public leaders - and thus leads people to suspect, question, and challenge those leaders - is ultimately good for the country. The more we assume that our leaders are screwing us (and whoever else they can get their hands on) and the more we watch their every move, the better off we will be. I don't really think that anything is much different, just that we are looking more closely now. Perhaps we should thank the Republicans for abandoning issues in favor of scandal-seeking. I do hope the Republicans win this time 'round, though I wouldn't want them to have Congress as well. I did support Clinton in his first campaign. This has nothing to do with the individual candidates, who I find mainly irrelevant. I don't like to see either party hold both the executive and legislative branches, and I don't like to see either party hold either branch for more than two consecutive terms. This could mean that I am a believer in checks and balances, or that I think a paralyzed government is by no means the worst kind.

To: Neocon who wrote (56276)	9/27/1999 8:24:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

The Soviet economy was not near collapse, but it couldn't keep up with our commitment to increasing military spending and funding research and development, especially the Strategic Defense Initiative. With military spending at about 25% of Soviet GNP, increasing consumer unrest, and the explosion of the black market, reformers were able to gain control of the government, in an effort to lull the West into complacency, and to resuscitate the economy. However, as glasnost shattered the last bits of Soviet legitimacy, and perestroika proved to be too little, too late, the system began to crumble. Gorbachev mainly survived because of his relative success in dealing with Reagan, but eventually the Politburo sought his removal, and it was the Russian people, most especially the people of Moscow, who supported Yeltsin who brought the system crashing down. As you know, I am not sure that this picture - especially the part of it that concerns the US policies of the time - is entirely accurate. I do hope that someday we can coax Joan into exposing her opinion on the subject; since she knows more about Russia than all of the rest of us combined, it would be interesting to know what she thinks. reformers were able to gain control of the government, in an effort to lull the West into complacency This sounds to me like a bit of a stretch.