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: i-node who wrote (149951)	8/19/2002 3:07:12 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1570096

Several things could and should have been done differently. The first was coalition maintenance. The anti-Saddam consensus had been allowed to weaken. In diplomacy, neglect is almost never benign. The United States did precious little during the past few years to keep the coalition intact and robust. I'm sorry but are you this naive? It is not naive to think that any man who gets elected to the presidency will understand the importance of maintaining existing international relationships. The point is this would never have been a problem had our leadership not failed us. My point re your naiveté is that most military coalitions which come together for a single purpose usually are difficult to maintain over time. They went through the hell of the military incursion and now want to put it behind them. Your feeling that Clinton dropped the ball may be correct......neither of us were in cabinet meetings to see what was discussed; however, I don't think the coalition was good at most for more than a couple of years after the Gulf War. They tend to have short lives.