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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (83497)	3/11/2003 7:41:48 PM
From: Edscharp	Respond to of 122087

Dale, If you argument is that the U.S. should've been in Bosnia/Croatia sooner then I agree with you. I remember some of the debates that went on in this country. Many of our politicians felt that the Balkan situation was primarily a European problem which should've been handled by Europeans, but there was never any debate about the U.S. providing financial aid, logistical or air support for the problem. The biggest hitch was whether or not the U.S. should commit troops. I also seem to recall that the Russians were supporting or at least sympathetic to the slavs living in the region and they helped delay or shoot down some of the early peace proposals for the region. In truth, we made a similar mistake with Saddam Hussein. We should never have tolerated him throwing out the inspectors in 1994 (or, was it 1995?). Unfortunately, the politics of the region made it all but impossible to act against him. In this post 911 environment it is not a mistake we will make twice. I don't know why Europeans don't understand this. If the Eiffel Tower had been intentionally obliterated in the fiery impact of a fully-gassed passenger jet I bet the French would feel differently about things. One thing I do know for sure. Had it happened that way they would've had the full support of the United States.