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: d[-_-]b who wrote (182787)	2/16/2004 1:00:37 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578134

I wasn't addressing the 80's at all to tell the truth - but not to support Saddam, I would say he didn't have enough history as a tyrant (or at least not known to the public) to be compared to the Ass-hole-a-tolla. Besides every fu**ing day we had the news regarding the Iranian Hostage crisis day 125, 272, 342.. Actually, he did........there were at least two attempts on the part of Congress to put him on their badass list but the Reagan administration talked them out of it. If you asked anyone in the USA who was worse in the 80's I bet you can guess the answer. Carter looked as helpless as could be, and his naturally wimpy demeanor didn't help - not that he could have done much about it. I think the only alternative was to go to war with Iran but that probably would have guaranteed the deaths of the hostages. I am not sure what could have been done otherwise but I can undestand the hatred Americans have for Khoemeni. However, once again, we chose to ignore who are gov't was supporting. The Shah was a ruthless tyrant nearly as bad as Saddam and we had supported him from the 60s going forward. Why do we choose repeatedly to support the bad guys?