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: JohnM who wrote (47905)	9/29/2002 4:00:54 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

making certain he had as much support in the North as possible. I am down to the last section of that book. He made me realize just how "Touch and Go" Lincoln's support by the Border states was. No doubt the best "War" President. The Ben Gurion section was amazing. His decision to do complete interviews with all of the Military Officers before the start of the War, and his ruthless running of it, was well laid out. He completely reorganized the Army. My sympathy was with the Irgun. But Cohen does a good job of proving that Ben Gurion did what was necessary. I am in the middle of the last section on Vietnam. and am conflicted on it. He starts off by rebutting conventional wisdom on the war and saying that the Civilian leadership did not reject the Military advice, but did what they wanted. His main point is that the Military did not have anything to offer except "more of the same." That is true. Since this book is about Civilian vs Military leadership, I will give his that. However, I will never get over McNamara and Johnson picking over targets, and refusing to go "Downtown." However, I am not willing to accept his POV that it was legitimate to not escalate because the Chinese might come in. Boldness in War is crucial, and Blockade and mass B-52 bombing might have brought them to their knees. It almost did for Nixon much later. In any case, it is "water over the bridge." I may change my mind, not done with the book yet.

To: JohnM who wrote (47905)	9/30/2002 5:40:06 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

That is the most important variable, just what will populations support. Which population are talking about, John? The General Assembly of the UN? The majority of Americans support invading Iraq. You have on numerous occassions poo pooed the threat posed by Iraq because you claim he can't and seemingly has no intention of attacking the continental United States. That is not, has never been, a condition for an Act of War. And if that WAS the sole condition, history shows there has only been two wars, the Mexican War, and the Civil War, which threatened the territory of the CONTUS. So precedent is against you there on defining "threat." Derek