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: KonKilo who wrote (74699)	2/16/2003 8:18:50 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Besides the divide-up-the-territory approach in Germany lead directly to the Cold War, if I recall correctly. That's silly. Stalin's imperial ambitions lead to the Cold War. Our military will have no trouble winning the war. Without doubt. However, our diplomats are having some problems giving them the 'go' signal. We must disentangle ourselves from our "allies" in the UN and NATO first. We must have our endgame in place before starting, if we intend to have a total victory here. As much as possible. However, no plan survives the onset of war. Remember, lots of the squawking about endgames comes from people who are trying to prevent us from doing anything in the first place.

To: KonKilo who wrote (74699)	2/16/2003 8:34:02 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

It is winning the peace that bothers me, and the concern that our cure might be worse than the disease. No it doesn't bother you. Why is it I don't believe you when you write this? Because I know you don't want us to liberate Iraq. Your arguments on that score keep getting shot down, so your "What will we do afterward?" and "Oh God, it will go bad" is your way to argue against going. Don't feel I am singling you out. We are seeing this type of posts from all of the "Anti-War" crowd.