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.

Pastimes : My House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (2477)	10/9/2002 7:23:53 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 7689

Not just Arabs. At the time it was widely viewed that way both here and abroad. Part of it was this wasn't a sale for cash- -we took an IOU from Israel for the goodies. And the timing: large deliveries of military supplies during a war and just as the Arabs were going to floor the Israelis. Look at it this way: We don't sell the Arabs our best weapons at all. But we do sell them to Israel. Even though they have used them against us, such as in the USS Liberty incident. Does that not strike you as one-sided? This is why the Arabs went to the Russians for weapons. They could get the latest Mig fighters from them; they couldn't get the latest US fighters from us. Remember the deal we cut with Britain before our entry into WW2? The destroyers-for-bases exchange? And the US declaration that US ships would sink on sight any German subs near US ships carrying supplies to Britain? Didn't this indicate a tilt by the US in favor of Britain? It certainly struck the Germans that way. It probably had a lot to do with Hitler's gratuitous declaration of war on the US after Pearl Harbor. He probably figured he was already at war with the US; let's make it official so we can shoot back.