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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: j_b who wrote (3119)	8/25/1998 2:52:00 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

You can't trust the guy not to spooge on his office carpet. How the hell can you trust him to run a war? He keeps Yassar Arafat waiting while he masturbates with his girlfriend in the other room. Who can concentrate on the merits of this terrorist war? The man who would have to run it is totally unfit. He's got to resign before more lives are lost.

To: j_b who wrote (3119)	8/25/1998 2:58:00 PM
From: RJC2006	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

<<<As to the "virtue" of the Sudanese government - Hitler's forces did extremely well because they were convinced of the rightness of their cause. They had no problem doing what they thought needed to be done. By the time America entered the war, we (the allies) were just as convinced of our "rightness", and some Germans had started questioning there's (as the truth about the death camps started coming out). Of course, there were many other factors (dumb luck, weather, Hitler's stupidity) that helped us win, but without being convinced of our moral high ground, we wouldn't have fought as hard, and might have given in to the Neville Chamberlains.>>> Hitler did well initially for a variety of reasons, most had nothing to do with high moral ground. 1) He crafted a very keen propaganda machine of lies and manipulation. 2) He disarmed the citizenry. 3) He declared himself dictator. 4) He understood the spinelessness of liberal thinkers such as Neville Chamberlain. 5) He distanced himself from engaging the US. 6) He assassinated any and all opposition. 7) He honed his military on the backs of defenseless countries. Neville Chamberlain and people like him were discredited long before we entered the war and when the bombs dropped on Pearl Harbor the doom of the Axis was assured. I don't disagree about the issue of morale but.... <<<The same holds true here - today, 20% of America disagrees with the bombing. There was less disagreement at the start of the Vietnam war. If it turns out the factory can't be proven to be a legitimate target, the support may erode further. Partly, that's because Clinton's motives are in doubt. If he REALLY makes this a war on terrorism, the people will line up behind him. If it starts to look like he pissed off some crazy people in order to distract us from domestic issues, we may not be willing to support further strikes.>>> ....20% doesn't constitute a morale problem IMHO. It's something to be concerned about if it continues to erode but we are on the same page here. Just don't expect me to feel sorry for the Sudanese and the Afghanis.