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: craig crawford who wrote (133750)	10/28/2001 11:23:25 AM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

i never said hitler's or saddam's aggression should be FREE, i simply argued that american's shouldn't pick up the tab. can you understand the difference? Sure. Reagan backed up his words with actions, in Libya, in Grenada, and in El Salvador, whereas you would not, thus rendering the words meaningless. it was to benefit the pride of chamberlain, who had that pride stepped on by hitler after munich in '38. So you're saying Chamberlain's only fault was in not staying true to appeasement. That brings me back to my earlier question, just how far would you have taken that policy? How close would the Nazis have had to come to our shores before you would finally admit they were enough of a threat to do anything about? Would you defend Puerto Rico or would you abandon it in the name of anti-imperialism?