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: michael97123 who wrote (453689)	2/3/2009 11:02:17 AM
From: Wharf Rat	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572970

"This logic would have kept us out of WW2" Not quite. Japan, Germany, and Italy all declared war on us before we did. Not to mention attacking before declaring.

To: michael97123 who wrote (453689)	2/3/2009 11:11:54 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1572970

Both say either the soviets right after WW2 wasnt a threat to western europe or if they were, they dont care because we should be concerned with the US only. I wonder if anyone told Europe that.

To: michael97123 who wrote (453689)	2/3/2009 11:15:39 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572970

Because we have over-internationalized, first in vietnam and then in iraq, doesnt mean we will go all the way back to isolationism and protectionism. Its a big question...people supportive of the invasion of iraq like to tell us that the history of our action won't be written for 50 years or more...but that's a self serving (and frankly obvious) argument. Consider the evolution of vietnam and china and then try to imagine what the history of iraq might have been of its own accord, without our intervention or with a different style of intervention. I believe in internationalism...a world community that solves problems in concert through a world body like a reformed UN for instance...but not in the way a right winger (like bolton) thinks of reforming the UN (which is with a hand grenade) by subjugating its will to those of its most powerful member (us)...maybe it's too idealistic, but weren't the realities many of us enjoy today a dream in somebody's mind centuries ago? Al

To: michael97123 who wrote (453689)	2/3/2009 12:55:04 PM
From: tejek	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572970

Do you buy into the isolationism of road walker and tejek You have a way of emotionally charging your posts and exaggerating the positions of others that is patently unfair. I am not an isolationist and I don't think RW is either. What we are saying is that the US doesn't have to play world cop. Let a consensus of credible nations make decisions; not the US unilaterally. In any case, whether you agree with that approach or not, its moot. We shot the kitty and don't have the money to play world cop any more. The militarists in this country finally bankrupted us.