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 : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (95337)	1/31/2005 3:21:59 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Does reading long tracts of information you don't want to absorb strain your eyes and make your mind go all wobbly? Talk about funky! Perhaps just one paragraph at a time would be more efficient, then. This is from the longer tract I posted to you this morning. You can ramble on about Nixon all you want to, but this paragraph specifically deals with our complicity in Pol Pot's ascent to power, which is what I was complaining about originally: "It is all too easy and too dangerous to remember Pol Pot as a unique monster. What is remarkable about the U.S. coverage of his death is the omission of U.S. complicity in his rise to power, a complicity that sustained him for almost two decades. For the truth is that Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge would be historical nonentities--and a great many people would be alive today--had Washington not helped bring them to power and the governments of the United States, Britain, China and Thailand not supported them, armed them, sustained them and restored them. In other words, the iconic images of the piles of skulls ought to include those who, often at great remove in distance and culture, were Pol Pot's accessories and Faustian partners for the purposes of their own imperial imperatives."