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: beach_bum who wrote (449551)	1/21/2009 7:16:37 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575047

sweet talk with Iran and NK won't work, they will see it as a sign of weakness

To: beach_bum who wrote (449551)	1/21/2009 8:11:15 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575047

The people with no clue of the outside world (or with their noecon agenda) stamping their world view on these 90% of clueless Americans. I have never seen the cluelessness of the electorate exploited the way it was by the Obama campaign. Imagine, these gullible fools were convinced to vote for a guy whose sum total of experience amounts to 100+ days in the Senate representing one of the most corrupt states in the union. I mean, really. Lousy communicator but an effective leader? As with most things, it is never as simple as some want to make it. But there is no indication he ever had a problem with communicating with the people working for him. He did do a poor job of explaining why it was essential that we invade Iraq. But, dont go around being arrogant about it. I believe he acknowledged publicly, time and again, that he made mistakes in this respect. So, Bush decided to threaten his 'enemies'. Whats the results: Success in Libya. Failure (In fact, Acceleration of enrichment) in N.Korea and Iran. With Korea, Bush eventually ended up on negotiating table anyways. With Iran, threats didn't work. In fact Bush policy has brought the Mullahs closer to Irans scientific community. Yes, success in Libya. NK and Iran are pretty much like he found them, except that Iran now has a next-door neighbor that is an ally of the US rather than a bitter enemy. That's a pretty big deal. Both NK and IRAN had major nuclear weapons programs UNDERWAY when Bush took office. Throughout history, NO COUNTRY that has ever developed a nuclear weapon has ever given it up. Why are you holding Bush to a higher standard than, for example, Clinton or Carter? In fact, I don't know of any that has VOLUNTARILY given up a nuclear weapons PROGRAM, before Libya did so. So, give the MF credit for what he accomplished and don't criticize him for what nobody else could have done, either. Bush did, after all, have a little more on his plate than any president since the 40s. The reality is that Bush is directly responsible for preventing another attack on US Soil during the last 8 years. That's a fact. There are many other important successes, but that's the big one. On 9/20/2001, 85% of all Americans believed we'd see another attack before the end of a second Bush term. Today, the Left and many moderates have forgotten this little fact.