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 Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: daryll40 who wrote (54962)	11/1/2001 8:43:11 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Darryl and Cary, Zbig actually is quite good. HIs joint appearances with kissinger are classic. The balance approach in the mideast is one which i have supported. After the 1967 war, the settlement policy, originally designed to scare the jordanians/palestinians to the negotiating table, became a cancer for israel. First for the right wing it became the beginning of the "Greater Israel" concept and then even for the moderates it became a fact of life on the ground that now is one of the many intractible problems in the area. Remember it was carter/zbig/begin/sadat who made peace. If the Palestinians had foresight the settlements could have been dealt with then. That was the goal of US policy then and now. If there is to be a deal Gaza settlements are gone and many west bank settlements fall within the arab state. A binding peace treaty with all parties in the area including palestine, syria, saudi arabia with full diplomatic recognition and guaranteed by the US is worth it imo. I am jewish but i am not a zionist and as an american must put US global interests first. As a Jew i dont want to see israel go down the road as an occupying colonial power. Take the enforceable, verifyable deal with recognition now and deal with reality. My words for the palestinians would be more harsh for since 1967 they have had many chances to peacefully regain all the land thru recognition of israel and peace. Better late than never. And there should be no misunderstanding. If one day the israelis are overrun by arabs of whatever stripe, the arabs will be nuked and the world will be plunged into darkness. Sorry for the rant but knee jerk anti carter gets me going. By the way i thought for other reasons that carter was the worse president we had in my lifetime and i go back to FDR. I would make JImmy one of the 10 worse of all time. His only saving grace is the mideast peace between egypt and israel. Otherwise i would have him in a tie with Millard Fillmore for last place. mike

To: daryll40 who wrote (54962)	11/1/2001 9:15:23 AM
From: Mark Marcellus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

The administration that allowed and even encouraged the overthrow of the Shah of Iran (that could have been prevented with US support)? The administration that was in power when this whole Islamic Jihad thing REALLY began to spin out of control? OT: I thought this stuff was supposed to be on the other thread, but no matter where you put it, it is nonsense. Our problems in the Middle East, and in the rest of the world, will never really be solved until Americans legitimately try to understand what's going on in the world around them instead of using jingoism and scapegoating as a substitute for thinking. For the record, the Iranian revolution had its roots in 1953, and had been simmering for a long time. The best opportunity to prevent it came in the late 60's and early 70's. Let's try an analogy. Suppose the bomb squad is called in to defuse a bomb and someone snips the wrong wire by mistake. Who is to blame for the resulting explosion, the guy who cut the wrong wire or the one who planted the bomb in the first place? Finally, supposing we had moved to support a corrupt, decaying regime headed by an aging ruler and hated by most of its people? This would have given us another staunch, loyal Middle Eastern ally just like... Saudi Arabia? As bad as it turned out, I don't think that you can assume things would have turned out any better in Iran had we propped up the Shah at that time. It's not like the people of Iran turned to Khomeini because they yearned for an Islamic fundamentalist regime. It's more like they had no other acceptable choice.