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: hmaly who wrote (137829)	6/30/2001 3:00:02 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1584945

"I presume you mean got rid of Saddam. But, that wasn't the mandate." Yeah, that is what I mean. And that is a good point, the mandate wasn't to get rid of Saddam. This kind of limited, politically oriented goals are what got us into so much trouble in Korea and then Vietnam. It gets men killed for no other reason than the kill some more later. Bush was too eager to get the coalition together and free Kuwait. There was a golden opportunity to take out Saddam because all of the other Arabs were falling all over themselves to distance themselves from him. If he had been taken out, they would have officially frowned on it for political reasons, but wouldn't have done anything about it. " It is possible the the USSR would still be intact today if a more intelligent Bresnechev, succeed Andropov." I will grant you that it might have been possible, under some unlikely circumstances that the Soviet Union could have worked, bribed and/or intimidated themselves out of their predictament. However, I don't think it was a slam dunk under any circumstances. Reagan deserves credit for pushing them with both arming the Afganis and for pushing SDI. But to say that he caused the collapse of the Soviet Union single-handedly is either a gross exaggeration, or shows pretty much zero understanding of what was going on at the time. "He tried to change the tone of politics," He was too idealistic, unfortunately. Congress screwed him, and he either didn't see it coming, or didn't see how to dodge the bullet. Personally, I don't think anybody who had been President at the time could have come off very well, the deck was stacked against the office. The press took every opportunity to redicule him (remember the "attack bunny"?), and the Congress was looking for blood. There were plenty of things he did wrong, pulling the plug on the hostage rescue ranks up there and we could argue the pros and cons of the Panama Canal for a long time, but I rather liked him. Didn't vote for him, but he turned out better than I thought he would...