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 (75977)	2/20/2003 12:50:39 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

"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." Thats because he picked the easy ones. He also signed a deal with the North Koreans that apparently wasnt verifiable and by 1998 the North Koreans were in default. He backed off taking out iraq in 1998 as well. Perhaps his administration was fixated on monicagate as nixons was on watergate. Bush on the other hand came into office and regarding iraq and north korea had his head where the son dont shine as well. 9/11 changed that. In my opinion, it would have for clinton or gore as well. Yes Clinton and Gore would have had more political capital than Bush has so maybe the war would be over by now. But the fact that Europe has deep seated prejudices in place against American conservatives of the Bush/Reagan variety is not exactly our fault. Also i agree, pre-9/11 Bush was terrible on international politics. Post 9/11 perhaps it was those europeans who were in sympathy with us who should have at least listened to the argument against iraq and not let narrow parochial issues define their policy. Oh well, we can argue this forever. I think we can agree on the following though: If we go to war, a quick win and a good peace/marshall plan would be nice. If we dont go, hopefully saddam can be contained without american troops on his border in some fashion. Of course war is always an unknown and the failure of deterrence could be catastrophic. Lets pray. mike

To: JohnM who wrote (75977)	2/20/2003 2:11:28 PM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>> I continue to be struck by Rubin's deft hand.<< Move a little faster next time, is my first thought.

To: JohnM who wrote (75977)	2/20/2003 9:53:05 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

JohnM, We will agree to disagree on Reagan. I disliked Carter (as President), Bush 1 and Clintons second term because weakness in the White House fosters unrest abroad. As for Rwanda, everyone that I've seen write about it from the Clinton administration regrets that. Regrets do not help the dead John. But surely you would not wish to argue that Bush II would have done something different. Hard to find evidence for that. Especially since there has been no similar incident. When one occurs and he sits it out - I will agree with you. You cut Clinton tremendous slack when he stood by and watched millions die, but condemn Bush for something that has not happened yet. Maybe he will regret not helping the next genocide (and by not getting involved - be peaceful?). John