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 (86106)	8/22/2000 7:34:05 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

(they didn't need an arms race; we weren't going to attack them and they had no need to attack us) In the Fifties this was far from established. They were winning the race for territory, they were winning the one-up game of military capability, they were winning the space race, which became the standard by which a superpower's fitness was to be judged. The seams in their long-term economy weren't showing yet. Curtis LeMay argued strenuously to his commanders-in-chief that the single smart way to deal with this very frightening situation was to use our atomic and then thermonuclear monopolies and either dictate terms or drive them home in the bay of a dozen B-29s. Fortunately, three Presidents told him to stuff a sock in it.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (86106)	8/22/2000 8:17:19 PM
From: Michael M	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I personally think we had some very excellent generals and a few damn good spies -- certainly much better than the opposition. We had some real sh*thead policy makers. In the case of developing nation "battlegrounds," I can't think of one that tolerated Soviet or Chinese military presence well. Can't argue with you on the importance of economic factors. Got an errand to run. Later - Mike

To: Dayuhan who wrote (86106)	8/23/2000 5:25:48 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 108807

We also won it because we countered Soviet ambitions in Europe through NATO, because we took advantage of the rift with China, because we stopped expansion at the 38th parallel in Korea, and because we made it clear that we would not cede the Third World to them, even in a place like Afghanistan, and certainly not in Central America. The closest we came to losing in the developing world was after the malaise that set in after Vietnam. The Soviet Union tried to neutralize NATO, became more prone to Third World adventures, and increasingly sponsored terrorist networks in Europe and the Middle East. Reagan became president, and all of that changed........

To: Dayuhan who wrote (86106)	8/23/2000 6:08:31 PM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 108807

I wonder sometimes how much much American public attitudes towards communists in the 50's and the post WWII Nazi war crimes trials shaped the perceptions of the leadership of the Soviet Union toward the U.S. Perhaps, even enough to exacerbate, if not cause, the Cold War. If we HAD entered into a war with them and won, or they had had a coup that put a more pro-West government in place, do you think we would have had a war crimes trial with Soviet leaders as the defendants? I think that is pretty likely with Stalin and anyone in his chain of command at risk. Funny thing about communists. The biggest security breaches in the U.S. has had little to do with ideological sympathies. There was that British guy who was a mole, but I seem to remember that he became disillusioned with the Soviets as "Communists". Maybe if you're a commie, you feel so strongly about your cause that it is difficult to worm your way into the system with your ideological baggage. Going to work 9-5, getting promoted, kissing the boss' butt. None of these activities are particular palatable to someone who is a revolutionary at heart.