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 : New FADG. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (865)	5/24/2007 5:52:46 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

It really doesnt pay to debate you. Your mind is like a steel trap. Not unless you can "afford" spending some time and effort finding some better logic. I'm just telling you the facts... The only nukes that would have going off in 1945 and 1946 would have been American nukes because the Russians had to wait 2 full years (and to a large part by stealing US nuclear secrets) to detonate their own nuclear device. We were the undisputed power on the face of the planet in August, 1945, while the Red Army had bled itself to death during the siege of Berlin. We had the advantage then, and do you really think Stalin would have risked nuclear destruction for the sake of dominating Europe? However, we settled for "detente" with a totalitarian power (the USSR) because we were tired of having expended tremendous amounts of our national treasure and blood destroying another totalitarian regime (the Nazis). And there was also that very "inconvenient" fact that we had Allied for four years with the USSR to bring about the defeat of the Nazis. But in arriving at that "truce", we permitted hundreds of millions of people to be imprisoned behind the "iron and bamboo curtain". I'm not saying we should have kicked the Soviets out of Europe in 1945-46, when we had the military and strategic means to do so. It just wasn't politically "palatable" to a war-weary American people. But don't try and come out here on this discussion thread and attempt to rewrite history by ignoring, or discounting, the tremendous oppression and death that WE PERMITTED to dominate over Eastern Europe, and other parts of the world, because we were selective in the kind of totalitarianism we were willing to confront. People died Michael.. by the MILLIONS because of communism. Pol Pot should be sufficient evidence of what we permitted to occur by settling for "detente". And like it or not, we ARE the world's policeman. We have been during the past two world wars, except that we didn't get involved until the thugs were shooting up our precinct station and making us spill our coffee onto our donuts. I don't like it either, but that's the cost of being a democratic society living in a world of brutish and repressive tyrants. We're only safe when we permit the forces of freedom and human rights to make our governments subject to the will of the PEOPLE, not the other way around. All you have to imagine is living in a city where there are NO police to keep the thugs and gangs in line and preserving social order (Or even worse, where the police ARE the thugs). There HAS TO BE a policing power in this world. I just would rather we not be forced to do it alone. After all, isn't that why we created the UN, as a kind of global "town council" which would set the rules of civilized conduct between nations, and assign the penalties for violating those rules? Hawk