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: jbe who wrote (65535)	12/6/1999 11:46:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Joan, just a couple comments to add to your points on the Gulf War. IMO, backing off after all those comparisons of Saddam Hussein with Adolf Hitler looked pretty darned odd. I don't think that was quite as odd as the old "the Iraqi people should rise up against Saddam!" postwar line, with the unspoken "not those people!" amendment when the Kurds and Shiites took the exhortation a little too seriously. The Kurds should have known better, anyway, having been sold down the river by the U.S. on previous occasions. The other problem with the Gulf war is that it may well have been easily avoided if anybody had been on the ball policy wise. But the U.S. was so used to cozying up to Iraq from the Iraq-Iran war, the signals sent on Kuwait were very mixed. Poor April Glaspie, hung out to dry afterwards by James Baker, comes to mind. And why were we so cozy with the invader Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war? That takes us back to Iran-contra, the less said there the better, of course. Some (Israel for sure) would argue that Iraq was enough of a threat that it was good they invaded Kuwait and got crushed. I very much doubt the Bush State Department was capable of that level of intrigue, though. Cheers, Dan.

To: jbe who wrote (65535)	12/6/1999 2:53:00 PM
From: Michael M	Respond to of 108807

Hi Joan - Re your comments about my comments about your comments - Room for discussion of treatment of civilians in WWI. I'll try to get back on this later tonight or tomorrow. Minimizing casualties among your troops is good. Not sending ground troops into combat in the Balkans was very good. My problem was that we intervened at all. I don't think any sane military commander wanted to send in ground troops (not sure our NATO CC was entirely fit in this regard). I think many military leaders were frankly surprised that "air" alone worked as completely as it did. I was frankly surprised that the Serbs didn't blow up a thing or two in the U.S. and/or Italy. Support (acceptance?) of NATO action in the region almost entirely due to fear of having large numbers of Albanians dumped on neighboring countries. In my personal contacts, I have found Serbs, Greeks, Bosnians, Croats and Bulgarians in total agreement on one thing -- Albanians suck. I doubt the last hand has been played in Kosovo. Please understand, I was completely against going in. Once that political decision was made, the course that was followed was sensible but the outcome was surprising to me. So much for any claim I might make as a "military expert," huh, Joan? I'll stick with my remarks on Gulf War. Plenty of room for discussion of "balance of power" moves in the Gulf region and other places throughout history. One of the difficulties, I think, in dealing in the mid-east is coming to terms with what leaders are saying "publicly" vs. "privately." Not unique to mid-east, of course, but the game is played to the max there. Bush very wise to keep all the cards in plain sight, IMO. Re. sanctions - if they are removed, would you be willing to concede they don't work and promise not to support factions that demand they be tried first in any future "dispute"? I think we are in agreement on most, if not all, aspects of Russian action in Chechnya. If credible reports of ALL Chechens being killed ("accidentally," of course) were broadcast in Moscow, there might be a party. There ARE some distinctions made in the Army that affect draftees. Not good news for the draftees. Since draftees serve for a shorter period and are all physically fit, they are much more likely to end up in a low tech specialty, like carrying an M-16 around. Makes sense, really. If the army only has you for two years, why spend a year or more training you for "other" duties. BTW, I don't know if our draft system is still organized as a lottery system. If so, money and education won't matter much (amazing how active in protest students became in Vietnam era AFTER the system became more fair). If you think political leaders ought to adopt policies that coddle draftees, I think you risk military interest in political affairs. We are very fortunate in having a completely apolitical military in this country. Finally, with regard to career people in the military - they are absolutely necessary if we are to have national security. I believe all Americans should be grateful for their service. In any case, infantry platoons would not be all they can be, if comprised entirely of middle-age Lt.Cols and NCOs -- unless, of course, the intent is to remove this class of person from the landscape. later - Mike

To: jbe who wrote (65535)	12/6/1999 6:33:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Terrible news today re: Grozny/Chechnya (jbe obviously already knows this but for others that are interested) cnn.com I heard on NPR that the Russians are dropping leaflets that essentially say that the Chechnyans have to leave Grozny immediately or die. This is a troubling attitude from a country armed with a Nuclear weapons, "We will destroy them. If they run away, we will destroy them in the mountains," said Russian Army Gen. Vladimir Bulgakov. "We will beat them until the last bandit is buried under ground."