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 (137830)	7/2/2001 10:55:43 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1585018

This kind of limited, politically oriented goals are what got us into so much trouble in Korea and then Vietnam. This is funny. You are criticizing Bush for defeating the 4th largest military power in the world with a total of maybe 300 Allied casualties. It was nothing short of military genious. 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. Ask Margaret Thatcher. He was too idealistic, unfortunately. This is a liberal trait. I just can't agree with either of you about Carter. It was simply an abismal failure, not likely to be matched in our times. Carter was a nice guy, I like him (unlike Clinton, a liberal that is disgusting in all respects) but he simply didn't have what it takes to run a country. One of the consistent characteristics of liberalism is weakness, and Carter exemplified it in every respect. It took the strength of Reagan to push back the threat of nuclear proliferation (now, that threat reappeared after eight short years of Clinton). BTW, I voted for Carter (I was a kid, didn't know better).

To: combjelly who wrote (137830)	7/5/2001 10:43:50 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1585018

"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. The overall strategic goals are always politically oriented. The tactics and operational methods used to achieve these goals don't have to be. In Vietnam they where politically oriented. In the Gulf war they where not. You can argue that the specific goals in the Gulf War were poorly chosen, but it doesn't make sense to complain about them being politically oriented. Tim