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: Dayuhan who wrote (56808)	10/3/1999 12:03:00 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

I once represented a man who worked for the CIA ~ well, that's happened more than once, but I am referring to one man in particular, and, really, to one conversation, and one point, which put much into perspective for me. Pretty much everything a president knows on any given topic is what he's told by his advisors. The most powerful man in the world isn't the president, but the person who informs the president, because the people who inform the president can decide public policy. As for what's happening or happened in Central or South America, it strains credibility that any president in living memory had an actual stake in what happened there. Sorry, but it's simply impossible for me to believe. Whoever actually had something to gain, and knew what was actually going on, and was willing to do what it took to get his interests advanced, well, that's who was in charge of that particular enterprise. You know I am right, look at your own bailiwick. Has any president ever actually understood what was going on, or actually cared? But there is the hope, perhaps vain, perhaps not, that people whom one respects are well-intentioned. Reagan had no more, nor less, clue, than Carter or Clinton. I believe that Nixon knew what was actually happening, but I can't prove it.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (56808)	10/3/1999 12:56:00 PM
From: nihil	Respond to of 108807

I always preferred covert action to overt action. My policy would be "and 10X to you." When agents of an enemy killed one of mine, I'd kill ten of their's -- anywhere -- preferably diplomats -- no politician's wives - why let them off that easy. Since it is obvious that politicians cannot be completely moral and survive, they should at least try to be efficient. Assassination is no worse than killing the enemy on the field of battle, and well-managed may prevent much greater losses in war. If our ambassador to Saddam had blown him up instead of kissing his ass before the war, I think every one (but her) would be better off. The Czar should have had Lenin murdered. The British should have had Hitler murdered and should have (in Churchill's terms) strangled Bolshevism in it cradle by murdering Lenin and Trotsky. When world history comes finally to be written, the wonder will be that purposive predictive assassination was so seldom used. Many years ago, as a young Marine, I entered into an assassination plot to be triggered by an event that never happened. The pact has expired now. I'm glad I didn't have to carry it through. I cannot say I wanted to kill anyone, only if some condition prior had been satisfied. Still think it was the right thing to do -- as a matter of policy had worse come to worse.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (56808)	10/3/1999 3:53:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I was not at all surprised that jla dove into insult mode rather than addressing the point. I have a tendency to do that when the point is so silly. We are talking geopolitcal strategy here, not knitting. This situation happened to be in our own back yard and it needed to be addressed. It was and in the end the pressure from the Contras had the desired effect. Dirty but ultimately effective. JLA