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: Brumar89 who wrote (365098)	1/3/2008 12:56:16 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574212

Yes, but in the end Stalin screwed the West. When you break bread with rats and pigs expect to get up with fleas and very little in your stomach. Okay, so you're saying we should not have allied with Stalin, but let Hitler crush the Soviets. Of course, once their eastern front was taken care of, we would have had a much bigger task invading and conquering Nazi-occupied Europe. What makes you think the Soviets would have stood by as Hitler tried to annex Russia....Hitler's and Stalin's little non aggression treaty notwithstanding...after all, they trusted each other about as much as they trusted a rattler. So then, the same thing would have happened to the German army that did happen to them....the Russian winter.....Russia's best defense....cut their legs right out from beneath them. --------------------------------------------------------- And if you insist on perfect purity for your allies, you won't have any. There is a huge distance between criminals and imperfect purity. It doesn't do anyone any good to put everything in a black or white context. I agree. Course, I don't really see Mushareff as a criminal. Even if he were, if there were no more reliable ruler of Pakistan in the wings, he'd still be preferable to a hostile islamist regime. Musharraf is a scumbag.......he's somewhat elevated from a Saddam. That ain't saying much. -------------------------------------------------------- Dude, I would gladly give Bush more positives if only he made them happen. This is an administration that doesn't know what's it doing half the time while blundering through the other half. What infuriates me is people like you who pretend otherwise. The Bush administration has made plenty of blunders. I don't see the point in attacking the Bush administration though when the leftwing is engaging in insane attacks on them. Look, Brumar, if Bush were a Dem., the GOP would have had him impeached by now. ---------------------------------------------------- The fact that it has nukes is worrisome..but then India has nukes.....so they in a sense neutralize each other. If the islamists are reasonable calculators. If they aren't there could be a nuclear war with hundreds of millions dead. I see no evidence that AQ leaders want to die. They let their underlings do that for them. Then there is the issue of whether an islamist ruled Pakistan would give nuclear weapons to other parties - say Al Qaida. All Al Qaida would need would be a ship to float it into any harbor in the world. I suppose the Proliferation Security Initiative (something the Bush administration organized) member countries might catch it. Then again they might not and we wouldn't find out the failure till a mushroom cloud showed up over NY harbor (or San Francisco, Seattle, etc.) If that were to happen, what would prevent us from wiping Pakistan off the map? And if we know that, don't you think AQ knows that as well. ---------------------------------------------------- AQ taking over a gov't may be the best thing to happen......they can not act the renegade and get away with it so easily. Secondly, what do you think they would do with those nukes? I think they are not just big talkers. They would use any nuclear weapon they got hold of. If we received such a nuclear strike, what would you propose to do in response? Wipe out Pakistan? I really don't think it will come to that. See above.