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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (243888)	10/3/2007 6:13:54 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

You are 100% right chris. Nadine's solution to everything is alwaays war. She must be childless. Whatever ones view of FP is, one must always be cognizant of the cost of war. Some wars are right, some are wrong and some fall in the middle. I debated folks in grad school who saw taking out the soviets as a cakewalk and FDR and Truman as traitorous for not undertaking such and adventure. Folks on this thread should talk to their granddads who served in WW2 to see what the appetite was for fighting our former allies. What we did was to secure what we could in western and central europe, used the marshall plan and even saved a few countries like greece. By the way, its my guess that the soviets had no stomach for war either. Stalin was crazed but not totally dumb. So many russians died in ww2 they needed some time to heal as well. Nadines missed opportunities seem to be: 1. 1945 taking on the ruskys 2. 1948 taking on the chinese 3. korea nuking the chinese 4. 1956 fighting the russians over hungary 5. 1968-1973 escalating the war in vietnam 6. Iraq now and soon iran