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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (153934)	6/18/2001 12:07:28 AM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 769670

Article...Before an unappreciative audience... June 15, 2001 Linda Chavez washtimes.com The European elites can´t stand George W. Bush. He´s just not their sort of leader, a point they will try to make subtly clear on his visit to several European capitals this week. Of course, they´re not very fond of American presidents in general. The one exception being Bill Clinton, whom they didn´t think all that much of either when he first took office. But at least Bill had studied in Europe (well, Oxford anyway, which isn´t quite the Continent, but close enough). And charming Billy was oh so European when it came to the ladies. But Mr. Bush, like his Republican predecessors, is another story. Why the nerve of the man, coming to Europe to explain why it´s in everybody´s interest for the United States to pursue missile defense. And how dare he reject the Kyoto treaty to reduce greenhouse gases? Not that a single European nation had any real intention of abiding by it either, but the point is to maintain a certain facade of rhetorical obeisance. Now in comes Mr. Bush and ruins it all by talking straight. What´s more, the man is a veritable American archetype. He´s a businessman, who has little sympathy for the European-style welfare state. He believes Americans pay too many taxes, even though they are a fraction of what most Europeans pay. Why, the fellow even goes to church a place most Europeans will only be caught dead in. What most frustrates the current crop of European leaders, however, isn´t Mr. Bush himself, but what he stands for: a powerful United States, to whom they are beholden for their very existence. Not only did we save Europe from Adolf Hitler, paying in American lives to liberate much of the Continent, but we spent trillions of dollars protecting Western Europe from a Soviet takeover after the War. But somewhere along the line after the Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe and the Berlin airlift saved the western half of the city from the same fate as its eastern sector European leaders began to resent the United States, big time. Remember the contempt Europeans showered on Ronald Reagan? He was depicted in much of the European press as an ignoramus, a dangerous cowboy who would lead the world into a nuclear war. The European Left took to the streets when Mr. Reagan announced he would station Pershing II missiles in Europe, in response to a buildup of Soviet SS-20s. There were massive protests in every major city in Europe, with thousands of Europeans demonstrating their desire for "peace" by violently attacking U.S. bases and property. Willy Brandt, the former chancellor of West Germany and a leader in the Social Democratic Party, said at the time: "What good will a few more weapons do for the alliance when it risks hearts and minds?" What good indeed. Thanks in large part to Mr. Reagan´s sustained military buildup, the Soviet Empire collapsed, the Berlin Wall came down, and Europe today is united, East and West. But the collapse of the Soviet Union did not end all threats to Europe or the United States. Those threats now come mostly from rogue states in the Middle East, from North Korea, and, potentially, from China. The United States has every right to protect itself from future missile attacks, and the 30-year-old Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty should not stand in our way. Negotiated between the United States and a now-defunct nation, the U.S.S.R., and operating under the obsolete theory of mutual assured destruction, the treaty itself is an anachronism. President Bush is right to pursue missile defense, even if he isn´t likely to convince the Europeans so in the next several days. One thing Mr. Bush lacks in this fight that Mr. Reagan benefited from in his, however, was a staunch ally of the caliber of Margaret Thatcher. But he shouldn´t worry too much. Once the United States has developed a missile defense system, the Europeans will be only too glad to share it, should the need arise.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (153934)	6/18/2001 2:33:38 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

dear nadine, >>>>>>It has worked 100% so far. anyone who wished to strike the US would never use something as traceable as an ICBM. Whay you fail to understand is the complexity of failsafe and the fact the the number is countries who need failsafe is ever increasing. Could not some group hi-jack a facility and launch for what ever purposes. Now you talk of 100%, I see the hatred of the Cole and other bombings. You also may not understand that all the technology to assemble and operate and the parts from what ever surplus are available for any with the money. Also many countries have the ability to manufacture the technology and sell to anyone with the money. What is the difference between a rocket to launch a satellite into obit and an ICBM, the software or program. >>>>>Trust me, this thought has occurred to one or two people outside our borders. For many years the US has had the ability to be an Imperial aggressor and has not taken that path. What did America do at the end of WW2. All larger countries if ruled by anyone with half a brain know America is not about taking over the world. So I don't see any reaction to deploying a Missile defense system other than a lot of whining to con folks who think like you do. >>>>>If we paid them to do something useful, instead of work on this immense boondogle? Nadine trust me, I'm an engineer, their are no boondogie in pursuing high technology systems like Missile Defense. The applied science advances have numerous benefits. Many times the greatest advances come about not out of planning but as an artefact of some other goal. The tangible value of a Missile defense system is that such and attack will never be planned and the cost of the technology will turn out in the long run to be negative anyway. But don't spend it on technology and it will be spent on congress. tom watson tosiwmee