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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (163671)	3/10/2003 2:59:10 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573782

That Germany from the earliest days after WWII had begun to figure out ways of getting around the disarmament requirements [just like Saddam]. Please read the paragraph below from the Weimar Republic I: Economic and Political Problems. It would seem that Germany was figuring out squat. Even as early as 1923, Germany could not retaliate when France invaded the Ruhr Valley, Germany's most important manu. center at the time and the one where it derived much of its GNP. And economic conditions only worsened during the '20s. By 1928, the price of a loaf of bread might double during the course of a business day. You think Germany had the economic wherewithall to rearm itself. I think you're whistling Dixie. And just for the record, I too read the book on Churchill and saw the HBO film based on the book as well. As I understood it, Churchill believed Germany began its rearmament when Hilter took over in the early '30s and not in the early '20s as you suggest. ted ___________________________________________________________ mars.acnet.wnec.edu "The situation changed after the French, realizing that Germany was deliberately evading reparations payments, decided to go and get them and occupied the Ruhr district in January 1923. The German government tried at first to resist and retaliate, but soon found this impossible. A new government was installed for the purpose of appeasing the French, getting the Ruhr cleared, and negotiating some revision of the reparations burden."

To: i-node who wrote (163671)	3/10/2003 3:01:29 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573782

>You don't get it? You don't notice the fact that Germany had been ordered to disarm (just like Iraq) after its defeat; that instead of verifying the disarmament the 'League of Nations' decided that Appeasement was a better alternative (just like today's UN)? That Germany, from the earliest days after WWII had begun to figure ways of getting around the disarmament requirements (just like Saddam)? That the failure to act of the League destroyed it, just as apparently will the UN's failure to act. You really think he's that dangerous to us? Hitler could've taken over the world. There's no way Saddam is anywhere near that, and never will be. I just can't see it. >The fact that the objectives and methods of Hitler vs. Saddam are different is totally immaterial. It is clear that neither finds/found anything wrong with the wholesale slaughter of humans given the means and opportunity. True, but if he's not really given the opportunity... it's still bad that he's in charge... but on the grand scale of bad things, him being in power certainly isn't among the worst. -Z