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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (31628)	2/2/1999 2:02:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

If you were to install a security system in your plant, you would call it a capital expenditure, and rightly so, not cavil over whether or not it was "productive". Since I consider the military to be in a dangerous state of unreadiness, I think the peace dividend has been pretty large. Most people thought that it was pretty large, actually, regardless of political affiliation, but I guess if you think it should have been larger, the perspective is different. Whether or not the Soviets were as formidable as was commonly perceived, the supposed strength of their forces fueled European neutralism, and the soviets themselves seemed to have overestimated their own strength. Why do I say that? Because even after the decline of the Soviet Union, Russian military officers were predicting that the Iraqis would prove to be much more formidable opponents than they turned out to be, because the Soviets had armed and trained them. A belligerent power that overestimates itself is also dangerous, since much harm can ensue before it is vanquished. Look at Hitler: he essentially doomed himself by declaring war on the United States, and opening the Eastern front. But it was not only the German people who paid for his folly.