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 : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (3235)	9/7/2001 9:00:42 AM
From: LV	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

<<These weapons include Syria's surface-to-surface missiles (which can reach most of Israel) and its chemical and biological weapons. Further off, Iraq and Iran are well on the way to arming themselves with nuclear weapons>> World is becoming a very dangerous place. But if you think that you in Europe are safe from Syrias and Irans of the world, you are sadly mistaken. That is why I totally support Bush’s National Missile Defense Program – yes, much work remains to make it practical, but how else can we protect ourselves from unstable tyrants of the world? Besides, we need an economic stimulus just about now and can you think of a better one?

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (3235)	9/7/2001 11:02:41 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 23908

re: Declarations like this demonstrate the erosion of Israel's strategic deterrence. This contributes to an increasing sense among many in the Arab world that there is nothing real behind Israel's claim to military superiority over the Arabs, or, if Israel does enjoy such superiority, it is a theoretical one and should not prevent the Arabs from challenging Israel. Violence, in short, has become once again a legitimate and effective tool to promote Arab interests. I think the majority opinion in Israel has concluded that the Likud was right when they warned that the risks Israel was willing to take for peace in Oslo -- risks whose worst-case scenarios have now come true -- were naive and suicidal. Israel is going to concentrate on reestablishing its strategic deterrence for some time to come, imo.

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (3235)	9/7/2001 11:33:15 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 23908

Interesting article, Gus. His conclusions concerning the best policies for Washington and Tel Aviv to avoid an all-out Middle East war seem to line up with Bush's and Sharon's current policy: The U.S. government. Washington also has a major role in advancing regional stability, for it was the erosion of Washington's image as an effective and decisive actor that led, in a way, to the current crisis. To promote peace and stability in the region, Washington should support the moderate camp in the Arab world in its efforts to avoid escalation; should support Israel in its determination not to accept the use of violence as a legitimate move, and should send a clear message to the radical camp in the Arab world that those who try to destabilize the region, will find a firm American administration ready to consider them as its enemies and to treat them accordingly. The Israeli government. Much must be done to return the Middle East to its right course. The Israeli authorities must project more firmness and decisiveness towards Hizbullah and the Palestinian Authority. The question is not necessarily how much force should be used by Israel, but rather what should be the general approach, i.e., violence and acts of terror must not be left without answer or retaliation; the use of violence by those considered Israel's partners in the peace process should not be accepted as a legitimate tool in negotiations; and finally, no concessions should be made as a response to pressure or violence.