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: Taro who wrote (293021)	7/2/2006 10:45:26 AM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571973

I don't know Taro, with the libs on record as stating things were better under Saddam, you have to wonder about Stalin and the others...

To: Taro who wrote (293021)	7/2/2006 10:55:26 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1571973

"Back then, however, that was not understood by the Western socialistic camp including their so called "progressive intellectuals" and other leading brains." During the great failure of capitalism during the 1930s, there were those who championed communism as the future. Can you really blame them? When what Stalin did in the Ukraine started to come out, there was significant erosion of support for him by intellectuals. When he refused to release Americans of jewish, german and russian descent who were liberated from German POW camps, that accelerated the erosion. Mao had some supporters, but that mainly was in reaction the the American adventure in Vietnam. By then the USSR couldn't be embraced by anyone with half a brain and Mao looked to be a good antithesis of capitalistic America. His Cultural Revolution pretty much brought that to an end. It didn't escape notice who got rounded up . I don't think anyone supported Pol Pot.