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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (41608)	9/2/2002 7:18:11 PM
From: Elsewhere	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

[Bush:] I don’t give a shit what the Europeans think. He should say this in public, it would save a lot of discussion time and effort. As I wrote in #reply-17937892 - just get rid of the pretense, it's Imperium Americanum times now.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (41608)	9/3/2002 12:06:05 AM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>The generals were worried about whether the kit would work, and even if it did — the final, gut-wrenching fear — would the men fight? Around Christmas 1990, it was hard to find many senior figures in Washington who would reply to both those questions with a confident affirmative.<< If that's true, I'd say, then and now, the generals and policy makers should get outside of the Beltway more. Even right after Vietnam, I never saw a generation of young soldiers unwilling to follow orders to fight. I suspect Anderson is hypothesizing; if not, our leaders have lost all touch with the real world. >>Finally, if you do go ahead, then for God’s sake be as quick as possible, and make a thorough job of it — unlike last time.’ << Again, I seriously doubt the Saudis think this, because it was SA and other Arab allies, that mandated the half-measures to begin with. >>If the US backed down now, nobody anywhere would still believe in America’s ability to assert itself.<< The "said it, gotta do it" argument rises again. Anderson's preconceptions are so flawed that his analysis is suspect.