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: aladin who wrote (75969)	2/20/2003 12:32:23 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

Anyway - who really cares about 3rd world countries? Why Clinton cared, didn't you know? He did apologize to the Rwandans for failing to intervene in that bit of genocide. I guess his neglect was simply a plan to keep American foreign policy "peaceful." The apologies were helpful, however, even if the dead couldn't hear them. C2@meaculpameaculpawinkwinkwinkcrocodiletears.com

To: aladin who wrote (75969)	2/20/2003 12:36:08 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

The bubble that burst was the stock market; how that would have affected the economy had Clinton had another four years is very debatable. I continue to be struck by Rubin's deft hand. As for the "peaceful line," the Clinton folk were able to address Bosnia and Kosovo with a reluctant Europe, without doing a Bush II of arrogance. Take a look at Halberstam's book, at Clark's book, etc. As for Reagan, you and I will just have to note that we disagree there. My evaluation of the Reagan presidency is extremely negative but a discussion of it right now would not get either of us anywhere. As for your genocide comment, are you arguing that Bush II would have handled Bosnia and Kosovo in some different manner? Better? As for Rwanda, everyone that I've seen write about it from the Clinton administration regrets that. But surely you would not wish to argue that Bush II would have done something different. Hard to find evidence for that.

To: aladin who wrote (75969)	2/20/2003 1:11:42 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Well, I think you're being mean-spirited in not recognizing that Clinton himself is responsible for the wonderful economy during his presidency. It is true that the most recent recession started in the spring of 2000, but that's due to the fact that everybody knew that Clinton couldn't be president for life. And it's also true that the last recession ended before Clinton took office, but that's because everybody knew that he was going to be president. A miracle worker, that's what he was. We should amend the Constitution so we can elect him president for life. Then we'd never have another recession. Nothing but eternal peace and prosperity.