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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (70236)	1/25/2003 1:00:33 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

There is no comparison between Germany, an industrial co-equal of other continental powers, and a 3rd world dictator like Saddam. Why didn't Bush, Sr. do it while he had the support if it was such a good idea? The conversion of China to trading partner was far more stabilizing than marginalizing them further in 1970's. We could have had a super-sized North Korea had they not developed. Much better model than one of Nazi containment and appeasement analogs.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (70236)	1/25/2003 7:55:48 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Except that Iraq isn't taking over the gulf. And if they tried to the Saudis would probably kick their butt- and that would be a GOOD thing, since it is their part of the world. When Hitler invaded another country the world should have reacted, and when Sadam invaded Kuwait we DID. But he has not invaded anyone now. It isn't fair to mind read the invasion. Anyone can do that to anyone. Russia might as well have bombed us thinking "Well, they;ve got weapons of mass destruction and gosh darnit their going to use them on us, so let's get them first...." But they didn't. Aren't we glad they didn't? Germany and Iraq are not analogous. I know everyone wants their enemy to be Hitler, but it isn't always possible to have that. Sorry. Better luck with your next enemy.