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: TopCat who wrote (360143)	11/24/2007 8:10:34 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578498

"So now you think you were wrong to agree with me." I learned something since I posted that. "Figures. It would be very shameful for you to agree with me on anything." I don't mind agreeing with people who are actually correct as opposed to someone who is just wrapped up in their own ego. I've openly disagreed with Ted and Z on more than occasion. So it isn't as partisan as you try to make it.

To: TopCat who wrote (360143)	11/26/2007 5:28:24 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578498

So it is not even clear that Ted was wrong." So now you think you were wrong to agree with me. Figures. It would be very shameful for you to agree with me on anything...makes you look bad to your buds. I am sure it looks that way to you.....but truly the only place where I was wrong [I guess] was linking Reagan directly to the Shah. In fact, his behavior towards Iran while he was in office suggests someone trying very hard to punish another for doing away with a good friend. So then, there were many indirect expressions of his strong feelings for the deposed Shah.....here's just one example: "He believes that the United States should have aborted the Khomeini revolution in Iran just as we overthrew the Mossadegh Government there in the early 1950s. ''I believe at the time the revolution was just riots in the streets, we vacillated. We did not keep the promises we'd made to the Shah," Reagan said last fall. He would have admitted the Shah to the United States for medical treatment and, furthermore, after the hostages were taken would have given him permanent asylum in the United States. Would that not have jeopardized the hostages? He said their captors "made it plain it didn't make any difference if he was here or if we let him go." He advocated cutting off food shipments to Iran and suggested a naval blockade and the mining of Iranian harbors. Might the latter two measures endanger the hostages? He did not believe the militants would kill the hostages because of that. He favored a "date certain"--a deadline--for the hostages' release, after which the United States should take "unpleasant action," the nature of which he did not specify." thenation.com