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: TimF who wrote (138253)	7/23/2001 12:15:24 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1583982

Bush and Putin Tie Antimissile Talks to Big Arms Cuts For all the criticism, Bush just continues to roll. This deal looks like a major win, any way you cut it. Chalk up one more quiet victory for the conservative principle of negotiating from a position of strength. While the Democrats continuously put Bush down, criticize, and second guess, the guy is focused like a rocket on the agenda, or it just seems that way after eight years of Clinton incompetence. I distinctly remember the liberals pooh-poohing SDI when Reagan introduced it. Carl Sagan gets on Nightline going on about how the technology limitations make it a waste. How absurd. Even today, you have these shortsighted liberals suggesting that missle defense can't be done. To me, it is ridiculous to assume that we can't, over a period of 10, 20, 30 or more years develop technology to deal with the whole decoy issue -- even if it means shooting down each and every one of them. I find it fascinating that for years, liberals have been the primary complainers about nuclear proliferation but only conseratives have what it takes to do anything about it. You'd think they would pick up on that fact.

To: TimF who wrote (138253)	7/23/2001 9:53:54 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583982

Tim.....Re Bush and Putin Tie Antimissile Talks to Big Arms Cuts nytimes.com. GENOA, Italy, July 22 — If, as we understood from each other today, we are ready to look at the issue of offensive and defensive systems together as a set, we might not ever need to look at that option," Mr. Putin said. <<<<<< This could be big. We could have a whole new framework for peace that doesn't rely upon the MAD concept. And Ted said GW wasn't visionary. By reducing our and Russian nukes down to 2500 or less, the world will be a far more secure place. If Russia comes over to GW's side, missle defense will easily pass; and the dems will still be defending a 30 yr. old treaty which doesn't make sense anymore. That is a leader. One who has the vision, and the determination to carry it out, and have the rest of the world follow his lead. Will missile defense cost money. Yes, but it also costs money to maintain 7500 warheads. While it won't be a wash, the world will be a safer place because of it.