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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (132623)	10/5/2001 11:04:04 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

>> Irrelevent. Distances mean much less today than they did 60 years ago. That ocean didn't prevent 9/11, did it? << i fail to see the logic behind your thinking. the argument centers on whether or not we should have intervened after saddam took kuwait. my argument is that saddam was no threat to the united states so we need not get involved. your counter is that saddam had to be stopped early before he eventually attacked the united states. for starters, we did intervene early and were attacked anyway. so that argument doesn't hold up. but more importantly, the issues are completely separate. the attacks on 9/11 were a direct result of our govt failing to provide for the common defense by protecting our country from illegal immigrants. i would argue that while we engaged in intervention & hegemony around the world we forgot to lock our own backdoor. instead of fighting illegal wars around the world and carpet bombing countries we should have been focusing our time, money, effort, and manpower on protecting our own citizens. our intervention in the middle east is what spawns terrorism, and it also diverts our attention from focusing on more important issues like immigration and homeland defense. we are so involved in being traffic cop to the world that we can't even protect our own citizens. >> You mean by surrendering one after another until the only holdout was a country with a natural defensive barrier? (Which Middle Eastern country would that correspond to, anyway?) << well take your pick. do you want to argue the merits of WWII from europe's point of view, or the united states? if you want to argue that europe made a mistake by not standing up to hitler earlier, try on some different opinions on the matter. for example: The British-French declarations of war [after Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939] impelled Hitler to attack in the West to secure his rear before invading Russia. By redirecting Hitler’s first blow upon themselves, Britain & France bought Stalin two extra years to prepare for Hitler’s attack--and thus saved the Soviet Union for communism. Had Britain & France not given the guarantee to Poland, Hitler would almost surely have delivered the first great blow to Stalin’s Russia. Britain & France would have had additional years to build up their air forces and armies. Had Britain & France not given the war guarantees to Poland, there might have been no Dunkirk, no blitz, no Vichy, no destruction of the Jewish populations. Ultimately, it was not Poland that benefited from Britain’s war guarantee to Warsaw -- but Stalin. Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.266 Oct 9, 1999