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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (2815)	2/21/2004 4:19:31 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7936

Americans now are only beginning to reflect what the world has thought about Bush for a long, long time. The man should have remained governor of TX. Some Americans and some of the world, and the percentage of neither is significantly rising at the moment. The fact that you can make the above statements suggests you live in an ivory tower, or in some kind of major denial. Both world and American polls show Bush's popularity declining significantly. In the US, that number will reach a stasis in the near future because there are Reps. like you who stubbornly cling to a sinking ship. What damage was done by our minimal support of Saddam in 1980 rather then waiting until Iraq was under more threat by Iran. The damage is the considerable amount of hate in the Islamic world directed at us. So the fact that we may have sent him a tiny bit of aid in 1980 makes them hate us when they supported the idea of sending him much more aid a couple of years later? That doesn't make any sense. That's because the aid was not tiny. Who supported sending him more aid later? He's been a problem since the 1970s. The best behaved he's been is during the '90s and NOW you want to take him out. Go figure! He was particularly a problem in the 80s and early 90s. Later in the 90s he was a bit under control because of US power and pressure but that control couldn't last forever. Damn it, you don't know that.........you are not clairvoyant. In fact, there was every indication he was becoming more manageable because of the simple fact that he was getting old. He was more concerned about keeping his skin intact rather than annexing countries. And you know what Tim, this stuff is not rocket science. The a-holes in DC knew that Saddam was contained but they didn't care. They wanted Saddam's ass for whatever reason and the son and daughters of the poor and lower middle class made it happen for them. You should be angry instead of defending them! With or without the Russians, we would have won the war with Germany. Probably but maybe at a cost of a longer war and perhaps another half million or more (possibly much more) American dead. And maybe not......we dropped the bomb on Japan. We could have done the same with Germany, or even threatened them with it. I am sure it would have done the trick. And without the Eastern front the Nazis might have lasted long enough to get nukes. In any case "without the Russians" wasn't a choice. Once Germany attacked the USSR we where allies. Any fighting of the Nazis that we did then was helping Stalin. Stalin was going to dominate Eastern Europe unless either 1 - The Nazis won on the Eastern front which would mean we would face a longer bloodier war that might have included nukes in Europe or 2 - We had a third world war against the USSR right after the 2nd ended. Why would we have had a war with USSR? All we had to do was threaten them with the bomb? Why didn't we? ted