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: tejek who wrote (156036)	12/11/2002 8:00:36 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575781

After WW II the allies took a different tactic; the much harder one. They helped in the rebuilding of Germany with much different and much more positive results. But the positive results were from being nice AFTER defeating them. Being strong and winning, then being nice, not from being weak or seeking peace without strength (either in arms or in determination). Tim

To: tejek who wrote (156036)	12/11/2002 8:17:48 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1575781

You say starting a war is a sign of strength. I've never said anything of the kind; in fact, using our strength wisely is what avoids war. Reagan won the Cold War by using America's strength appropriately. But not by "starting a war". Sometimes war is necessary -- if it is, you have to be fully committed. The lack of commitment is what makes liberals unable to effectively protect our nation. The best example is LBJ, who started a huge war, used our military strength unwisely, and killed 58,000 Americans in the process. Another example is Clinton and the "Black Hawk Down" incident, in which Clinton's weakness resulted in the unnecessary deaths of 18 Americans. Contrast these with the Gulf War, probably the most decisive win in our nation's war history. By all accounts, the Gulf War was going to involve thousands, or tens of thousands of Americans coming home in body bags. But Bush knew not to use America's military mite unwisely, and allowed the military to do what it knows how to do -- kill the enemy. Result: Tens of thousands of dead enemy, a few hundred American losses. Impressive, by anyone's standard. not the ones who are ready to go to war at the drop of a hat. Who is ready to "go to war at the drop of a hat"? The great leaders recognize the perils of war, but also recognize the dangers of the world. I know of NO president who has been ready to go to war "at the drop of a hat". But you can't use the kind of empty threats that Carter did during the Iran Hostage Crisis. Weak, weak, weak. Result: Dead Americans in a failed rescue. As for Reagan, yours is not the common view but rather the one held by fervent Reps. Most other Americans as well as most Europeans believe the old USSR fell from its own gross negligence and overspending. No STRONGER words have EVER been said by an American president than when Reagan said, "Mr. Gorbochev, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL". For those of us who were aware of the significance of the event, the words crystalized the moment. For most liberals, you simply would never comprehend it. Reagan exemplifies presidential greatness.