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: stockman_scott who wrote (23042)	4/1/2002 6:54:20 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

Been there, tried that. Remember Taba? Arafat just responded with more bombings. Besides, the advice has the small drawback of rewarding suicide bombing as a strategy, which isn't really in our interests. Hizbullah and Al Qaeda are watching results in Israel.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (23042)	4/1/2002 7:04:42 PM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Jude Wanniski recommended tactic does not work at all. Just see the response of the Bush administration to 9/11 Bush comments of today and today press conference of the Pentagon. Wonder why Jude Wanniski does not recommend that to the Bush Administration in regard to Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia. Further - Jude Wanniski has great friends and confesses "The idea is not my own, Mr. Prime Minister. There is an American Muslim named Louis Farrakhan who is a friend of mine.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (23042)	4/1/2002 9:18:03 PM
From: epsteinbd	Respond to of 281500

This Wanniski post wins the "Chamberlain Award". "Grant Arafat with Small victories, some tiny concessions" That's the right policy, mister Bush ! We tell you (and Farrakhan agrees): You father missed badly with Saddam, who wanted, needed, deserved even, little Koweit. Why didn't Daddy top it with Quatar ? It's tiny, and surely doesn't smell so good. Gift him with Koweit now that he doesn't expect it any more. It'll do wonder. You would surely avoid yourself a war whose outcome is problematic, not to speak of reelection. Iran took your diplomats as hostages. No fight requiered, after all they weren't going to keep them forever. Bin wanted, needed to expel you guys from the Saud's continent. It is his right after all, and he didn't do it for money. So, he had good reasons. Move out. What kind of policy is it to say 'no' to Bin, (see the cost!) and later 'yes' to prince Abdullah ? See, no small gift, no WTC. Simple. The Syrians blew you building in Beyrouth (28O US deaths). Did they get any gifts before ? Nothing ! Do the math yourself. Remeber the SS Cole ? Did you let it sink ? No, you saved the ship. At what cost? Next time they try a boat, sink the Enterprise, they'll love you. But that is nothing compared to the harsh inhuman way you treated Fidel, back then. Your Kennedy almost went into a thermonuclear war against us all. For what ? A couple of boxes of cigars ? A boy's fight with mister K. All he had to do was to gift him with some blond he didn't want any more. Don't tell us it is too much to ask ? And now, again we face a world war because of a few Jews killed per day! What kind of a price is it to pay for a billion ++ Muslims who pray five times a day. After all, if they tell you it's good for them, it must be true. As Mister Farrakhan said last december "this is not empowering the terrorists." And if he said so, it must be true.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (23042)	4/1/2002 10:43:30 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Obviously Mr. Wanniski has never ran for, or held a high public office in which his very legitimacy as a leader depends upon being seen as taking effective action to solve a problem, and preserve security. Sharon is being forced to act, or lose his office. Mr. Arafat, also, is being forced to do things that are counterproductive to the goals he claims to be trying to achieve, a Palestinian state. But Sharon actually is an elected leader, where as Arafat's election was only a manipulated affirmation of the power he created for himself as a dictator who controls the purse strings of the Palestinian Authority. It would be interesting to see how Wanniski's logic would have applied to the manner in which the US conducted foreign policy with Japan prior to Pearl Harbor. Maybe if we hadn't cut off oil and scrap iron shipments to Japan they wouldn't have felt compelled to invade Burma and the rest of the Pacific.. Maybe if we had given them "small victories" they wouldn't have crashed Kamikazes into our ships. Sorry... I just can't buy it.. His logic is far too "utopian" and downright surreal, no matter how logical it might seem.. It's illogical to perceive that the victim of terrorist attacks against non-combatants would be able to provide aid and comfort to an enemy who has taken no steps to ensure the other party's security. Hawk