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: Lazarus_Long who wrote (956)	5/25/2007 4:29:34 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4152

Thats ridiculous Laz. Would you have beeen for fighting the soviets in 1945 or the communist chinese in 1953. We dont automatically win wars. In the darkest days of 1942, many in the US thought we were going to lose. No what you need to do is read ed's post. My position fits in there. Containment and deterrence were the best we could do against the USSR and China. How did you like the nixon china gambit that really set the stage for winning the cold war. In one decade russia falls and communist china becomes sort of capitalist. Thats a better way to win. With al queda that wont happen but because al queda is a mortal enemy and wont respond to normal diplomacy doesnt automatically mean we start a war in iraq, and fight it in stupid ways.