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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (16127)	3/5/2003 9:23:24 PM
From: Augustus Gloop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

<<But we live in different times and unfortunately, our president simply isn't up to the job>> Thats why we have the military GW couldn't possibly do it all on his own...only Rambo can do that <g>

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (16127)	3/5/2003 9:51:34 PM
From: Machaon	Respond to of 25898

<< Well, why did we leave Stalin in power? >> Interesting question. Our war weary troops and people might have tolerated an invasion of Russia, after we defeated Germany. It may have cost tens of thousands more lives. And yet, we were still at war with Japan. Did we want to have another war on two fronts? At the time, do you think that America's leaders felt that we could find a way to deal with Stalin? Were we totally aware of all of Stalin's crimes against the Russian people. After all, back then we didn't have Satellites, or CNN. Would you have declared war on Russia, while we were still at war with Japan?

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (16127)	3/5/2003 10:12:56 PM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Karen re: <i.Forty to 50 million lives, oh you're adding on Stalin you are obviously not very well educated so please take own advice about deep breathing and stop talking (or typing) :-)) ..... users.erols.com

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (16127)	3/5/2003 11:41:49 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 25898

Well, Stalin did not sneak around invading countries, until WW2 was a clear thing to come, the Ribbentrop deal (to prolong the time until WW2 would start at its fullest) But from that deal on it was a tough time for the russian people and those inbetween, also much later when USA noticed that they too better get into WW2, not to have Stalin taking over all of it. Some who criticize Lenin do it for one reason, handing over independency to too many small nations,creating an unstable power vacum, those same small ones which become too small areas to make it through WW2.(well, we made it, complex thing too) Too small, easy to drive through in a couple of days or weeks with tanks, compared to horseback or just walking as earlier, with napoleon,turks, preussen,sweden,etc,etc.. (all those who in general had attacked Russia twice per generation as Russia does not have natural borders, ever since Djingis Khan and before him) On the other hand, tanks and oil-driven armies, not even really railroads, were not a clear thing at the turn of the century, in terms of defining "spheres of influence" and how far an army gets in a day. And then all the spheres and distances, natural borders, changed again when a little sputnik beeped all over the globe, with a little dog, same weight as a small nuclear bomb, in it. Kind of like terrorists striking Manhattan, changing distances.(for terrorists) Plus talk about "pre-WW1 power play" (WW2 was anyway just a continuation of WW1, with some added colonial stuff about those oil-driven tanks, while hay for the horses was more important earlier) Ilmarinen That is, then we got into oil-driven tanks, next is Iran-Irak-etc and the middle east, Suez channel and more. (as well as banana republics and once again, trade and naval embargos) Btw, Stalin died exactly 50 years ago. (in general there was some extra sets of trousers in his waiting room, if accidents happened while waiting for audience, fear has always been important) Btw,btw, Stalin learned some from the successful movements, long marches into and through deserts of natives in USA, as well as re-education, clearly also from colonial working camps and regular cheap labor in fields (but the russians could never really compete colonially, no harbors to launch any great navy from and too much troubles with home land security, no natural borders)

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (16127)	3/10/2003 4:50:23 PM
From: Mark Konrad	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Yes, Karen, 40-50 million is consistent with historical estimates for combined civilian and military losses but any "numbers game" only begs the question: would an armed effort against Hitler in the late 30's have prevented WWII? I think most historians would say so. If the assessment of Hussein is correct (and I think it is) our President's actions and abilities (so far) are more than "up to the job," imo--MK--