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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KyrosL who wrote (20221)	2/28/2002 3:52:55 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The argument that they are needed for defense in a world of flying airplane bombs, anthrax, and a future nuclear-armed Arab world is ridiculous. Last time I checked, wars involved ground troops seizing ground...didn't the Northern Alliance do this for us in Afghanistan? I'm sure the military men on this thread will correct me if I'm wrong. Dismissing so easily a proposal that offers Israel a good chance at genuine peace is very shortsighted It offered a good chance for peace in 1967, when Israel offered it. The Arabs turned it down flat at the Khartoum conference. To think it offers a good chance for peace now requires a large dose of amnesia. Without genuine peace, Israel's long term prospects are bleak Without genuine deterrence, Israel's prospects are even bleaker. Long term US support is highly uncertain, after the stakes for such support were raised so dramatically. Polls show support for Israel is rising, while Americans now class our friends the Saudis third in terror-supporting nations, just after Iraq and Iran. You want to see someone with dubious long-term prospects, check out the House of ibn Saud.