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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (137818)	6/30/2001 7:49:47 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584910

Combjelly RE. . While I thought that he should have at least tried those sanctions he implemented with great fanfare, once the decision was made to invade, he should have finished it. leaving things half-done meant that we will likely have to kill more of our troops some other day.<<<<<< By finished it, I presume you mean got rid of Saddam. But, that wasn't the mandate. According to the mandate, the war was finished, when we recaptured Kuwait. We were part of the UN coalition. If we had gone alone into Baghdad, we would have been seen as an invader, and the rest of the arabs could very well turned upon us. I am not so sure the consequences of that would have been any better than what we have today. After all, a lot of our prosperity and influence in the middle east of the 90s had to do with the gulf war and as a result, cheap oil. "This statement is ridiculous. Suppose, just for a minute, that the likes of Clinton and Carter had been managing the situation. We'd STILL have a Cold War today!!!" That is a brain dead statement if there ever was. Of course, you have nothing but empty words. <<<<<< I think both of you could be right. It is possible the the USSR would still be intact today if a more intelligent Bresnechev, succeed Andropov. We have seen many companies limp along until they correct their problems and take off. Russia could very well have survived, if Reagon hadn't forced the issue in Afganistan; by downsizing its military, and devoting more resources to the private sector. One could very well compare it to a long distance runner, who if he doesn't pace himelf, and chases the hare, will himself be exhausted and caught by more patient runners. By exposing the militarys weaknesses, Reagon may have forced Gorby to set in motion uncontrollable events, which lead to Russia today. Gorby may have been able to control a less chaotic situation. . While Carter deserves blame for not standing up for the military more, he doesn't deserve all the blame. And even if he did, it does not change the fact that the big deployment of smart weapons occurred under his administration.<<<<<< Very true words. Carter was a much better president than people give him credit for. He tried to change the tone of politics, by injecting human rights into the discussion; something which is done all the time now. He also foresaw the need for a smaller but more professional army; like the Dutch. It was a very shrewd decision; and has paid off handsomely in better professionalism, and morale amongst the military. Smart weapons fit right in with his thesis. If not for unfortunate circumstances which he couldn't control, OPEC, and Iran; and the resulting runaway inflation caused by OPEC, Jimmy would have had a much higher place in history.