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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SilentZ who wrote (163243)	3/7/2003 1:37:29 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574505

The question remains- how good are they at peacemaking? They did an excellent job taking out the Taliban, but Afghanistan is a mess Only time will tell us this. I think clearly Afghanistan has the best opportunity for lasting peace that it has seen in many, many years.

To: SilentZ who wrote (163243)	3/7/2003 1:42:07 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1574505

We've gone from an administration of pssies that really were very strong in negotiating skills and almost managed to get a peace agreement between Israel and the PA* It was a good effort on Clinton's part. However, it wasn't really the major issue. As I just responded to ted, while Clinton was focusing on the Palestinian issue, he allowed bin Laden to escape (twice), entered into what can only be called a HORRIBLE agreement with NK which effectively allowed them to become, possibly forever, a nuclear power, and allowed Iraq to thumb its nose at the UN. Clinton was lucky to have had a great economy during his term in office, and he'll forever receive credit [erroneously, in my view] for it. But nobody, nobody, can sensibly conclude that our foreign policy was anything other than a disaster during those 8 years (we haven't even discussed the selling of national secrets to China, etc.). I hope history gets all this straight; lots of times, history is written by the Howard Zinns of the world and as a result the facts are deeply hidden.

To: SilentZ who wrote (163243)	3/7/2003 4:55:04 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574505

RE:"We need an administration somewhere in between. I do know Bush isn't there, but I haven't seen any evidence that any of the Dems would fill that happy medium. Until I do, I'm going to end up voting on domestic issues only, though foreign policy is very important to me." We will get that administration, just as soon as we clean up the mess of the last 30 years or so. Jim

To: SilentZ who wrote (163243)	3/7/2003 5:21:26 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574505

Until I do, I'm going to end up voting on domestic issues only, though foreign policy is very important to me. Interesting idea. Vote for president based on the policy area that is the domain of Congress, ignoring the domain of the president. It would seem to make more sense to vote for president based on foreign policy and vote for Congress based on domestic policy. While the president has elements of control over domestic policy, the big items (the economy, spending money, tax legislation) are pretty much handled by Congress with the president ultimately signing off on it. Could it be you have it ass backwards?