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: tejek who wrote (347464)	8/18/2007 6:01:08 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576851

"But then, isn't it ironic that 3 of the biggest wars since WW II involving country were fought under Texas presidencies......" Yeah, it is. Oh, don't get me wrong, there is a strong streak of pugnaciousness because of the Scottish influence. And certainly the stories with respect to the Revolution and the Civil War could breed a feeling that war is a glorious thing. But, a lot of Texans served in WWI, WWII, Korea. Not to mention later wars. So there is experience, either direct or through an immediate family member. And nothing discourages discretionary wars than that. Of the three, Johnson was probably the outlier. We know that Smirk is a man of limited vision. His father launched a limited war against Hussein because there were few choices. Although, an argument could be made that they screwed up and unintentionally gave ambiguous signals to Saddam. But, what about Johnson? I think at least part of it was hubris. He was arguably the most powerful congressman at the time. In the mold of earlier, powerful Texas congressmen. When the responsibility for Vietnam passed into his hands, he figured he could make the stand for democracy. He was wrong.