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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Win Smith who wrote (5613)	10/16/2001 5:01:22 PM
From: LLLefty	Respond to of 281500

>That we should have played a more direct role? That's not exactly a different explanation, or something I would dispute.< Sure, with hindsight, we should have taken an aggressive role. Had we done so, we wouldn't be in the mess were are today. We'll see how much backbone we have now.

To: Win Smith who wrote (5613)	10/16/2001 5:14:45 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Respond to of 281500

Too simplistic? That article is five years old, and I wouldn't call it simplistic at all. Mostly it's too bad people didn't pay more attention to it. What's your alternative, presumably more sophisticated explanation? That we should have played a more direct role? That's not exactly a different explanation, or something I would dispute. Perhaps its as simple as: a win, inspires. They pushed out the Soviets, and that was enough to demonstrate to any who would listen that ' we can defeat the big guys '. But there's been dozens of governments and agressors toppled over the decades. The difference being, these guys had a transnational vision and money. Shoulda, woulda, coulda, not really sure if there were options.