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: SirRealist who wrote (42467)	9/7/2002 9:38:21 AM
From: SirRealist	Respond to of 281500

amazon.com

To: SirRealist who wrote (42467)	9/7/2002 12:10:15 PM
From: Rascal	Respond to of 281500

Thank you for sharing your gift. In depth research supporting a flawlessly written argument. A standard for us all. The only thing I can add is this comment on one sentence: And I continue to think it oddest of all that if Hussein is this great big threat, why is there not more criticism of the guys who helped arm Hussein.. I have been instructed here that: everybody does it better our guys then foreign guys it is legal so unimportant that it's not worth mentioning Rascal@very impressed.com

To: SirRealist who wrote (42467)	9/7/2002 6:13:32 PM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Respond to of 281500

Way Interesting Post SR.Much to Ponder There.Thanks. (EOM)

To: SirRealist who wrote (42467)	9/7/2002 6:15:00 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

And I continue to think it oddest of all that if Hussein is this great big threat, why is there not more criticism of the guys who helped arm Hussein and, with Desert Storm, left the job of finishing him off incomplete? That's easy. Because the guys who would most like to criticize them are remembering Reagan's 11th commandment -- Thou shalt not criticize another Republican. Though if Scowcroft writes any more self-serving pieces, they may forget that rule. Besides, while it was clearly a huge mistake to stop the Gulf War the way we did, that was not entirely clear at the time; many, including Our Friends the Saudis, were convinced that Saddam would fall. And as for Jimmy Carter's record, please remind me what his great foreign policy achievements were? I only remember a series of setbacks and embarrassing fumbles (after the botched hostage rescue, the entire world said, 'now the Israelis would have managed it better'), accompanied by high-toned moral scolding. Please do not reply with Reagan's sins in Iran-contra, they don't answer the question.

To: SirRealist who wrote (42467)	9/7/2002 6:58:44 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

President Carter made some mistakes. Oh, Yeah, "Mistakes were Made." I think this quote from Columnist Michael Kelly, back in February, sums up Carter better than I ever could. >>>Now, in our time of crisis, helpfully comes former president Jimmy Carter to pronounce that the current president -- this would be the president who actually has the job at the moment as opposed to the president who set a record for incompetence that will stand until the seas run dry when he did have the job and has been tediously nattering away at his infinitely superior successors ever since -- has erred.<<<<<

To: SirRealist who wrote (42467)	9/7/2002 7:09:14 PM
From: gamesmistress	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I would never equate "Southerners with simpleton attributes" in order to criticize Jimmy Carter because I was watching Bill Clinton's performance during his 8 years in office. :-) I remember ol' Jimmy too, though I would call him a pessimist, not a pragmatist, and pessimism is a lousy atttitude for the leader of the free world. FDR had a lot more and bigger problems to wrestle with than Jimmy Carter did, and FDR never talked about "malaise." Carter was (and is) personally very ethical, but he wasn't an effective politician at the national level. He should have stuck to engineering. And wasn't it under Carter that the decision was made to gut the overseas bureaus of CIA personnel, relying mostly on satellite transmission for intelligence?

To: SirRealist who wrote (42467)	9/7/2002 10:19:16 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Lemme see now. The hostages are released at the very minute that Reagan is being sworn in, but Carter gets the credit? In your dreams.

To: SirRealist who wrote (42467)	9/9/2002 3:22:06 AM
From: FaultLine	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

>>What people often forget--or at least try to forget--is that Carter actually served a term as president of the United States, and during that time such fatuity was official American policy. The results included the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the seizure of power in Iran by Islamic lunatics, who invaded the U.S. Embassy and took dozens of Americans hostage, releasing them only after Ronald Reagan had been inaugurated.<< I was fascinated by the interview with Zbignew Brzezinski we read the other day. Remember, he fully admitted we lured the USSR in it's own Vietnam in Afghanistan specifically to weaken the Soviet Empire. When asked if he would like to apologize for all the subsequent chaos and the rise of the Islamists, he replied, "Of course not. It worked perfectly." His point? Which is more important in world history: The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? A few over-exited Islamists or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War? -Zbignew Brzezinski --fl@yougetthirtysecondstocomeupwiththerightranswer,startingnow.com :o)