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: Cary Salsberg who wrote (62764)	4/8/2002 3:05:48 PM
From: willcousa	Respond to of 70976

OT - I agree But be careful, Fred may give you what you asked for.

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (62764)	4/8/2002 4:56:41 PM
From: Fred Levine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

OT OT Cary-- Read some of my older posts. I regard the WTC as a stupid, destructive, and personal attack and want a no-hands-tied response. Indeed, my regret is that W is doing what his father did in Iraq -- failing and calling it a victory. We had a military mission, to get Bin Laden and the leadership, and we failed--so far. Now we're involved in nation building, which looks very "iffy" given the historical animosities. However, I see a huge difference between Barak, Peres, and Sharon. Don't forget that Sharon was found guilty by an Israeli military tribunal of contributing to the massacre of Muslems at Sabra and Shatila by Christians. Read Tom Friedman's book, "From Beirut to Jerusalem," for a full account. However, and, this is obvious, I do not equate a military incursion with indiscriminant massacre of civilians. It is not common knowledge that Arafat prevented the Palestinian news media from even revealing the peace proposal by Barak. However, we must ask whether things got better or worse with Sharon. I think there is a role for the military, but I stand by my statement that Sharon is blind to other alternatives. I also take issue with your statement that you resent my comments. Certainly it is your perogative to do so, but it is just that sort of intransigence that contributes to the quagmire. Rarely is the world divided cleanly into good and bad. Bin Laden may be an exception, but even he is motivated by love of god. Indeed, there is too much finger-pointing and righteousness and precious little attention being given to finding workable alternatives. Notice I did not say "solutions". I am pessimistic about near-term prospects, but Germany and France could never coexist, Northern Ireland looks better, we don't hear about Cypress, and we no longer at war with Mexico or the Phillipines (Both sides were guilty of monstrous atrocities in the Phillipines). After maximum pain, in the long run, IMO, it will be economic self-interest that determines the outcome, and the LT seems clear that both sides will be better off with peace. Currently, the whole thing makes me ill. fred

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (62764)	4/8/2002 8:32:42 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

semi-OT: war risk for equities: re: <<I resent your balanced treatment of Sharon and Arafat>> Sure, one was elected, and the other wasn't. But both are universally acknowledged as the leaders of their peoples. And there is one basic and crucial similarity: both see violence as the only way to deal with problems. That's why I am so worried about the current situation. With those two in power, I don't see even the potential for peace. And the wider implications are: There can be no American-Arab coalition against Terrorism as long as either Arafat or Sharon are in power. Sharon is going to make it impossible for us to win the War On Terrorism, because he is making it impossible for moderate Arab leaders to work with us. Sharon said, very clearly today, that he will not negotiate with Arafat, and that he intends on a military solution. Israili diplomacy will be designed to do the bare minimum needed to placate the U.S., and nothing else. The Iraqis (this is Bin Laden's plan, also) are trying to line up the entire Moslem world on one side, with the U.S. and Israel isolated on the other side, and force all Arab governments to either side with Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, or be overthrown. Unfortunately, that scenario looks more and more likely. The sad thing is, everyone knows what the eventual Arab/Israeli peace will look like. The basics are now agreed to, by all sides: In general: land for peace. Specifically: 1. Israel returns to her pre-1967 borders, with minor modifications. In the last Clinton negotiations, the Israelis offered to return 95% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, and autonomy for Arab E. Jerusalem. 2. all the Arab states, including the new Palestinian State, agree that a Jewish nation will exist in the Middle East, permanently, and with normal diplomatic and economic relations with her neighbors, and a peaceful frontier. They just offered this, in the latest Arab summit. 3. Like in the Sinai, there will be wide demilitarized zones around Israel. These will include all the Palestinian State, the Golan, and perhaps parts of S. Lebanon as well. 4. The right of return: this is the only major point not already agreed on. Perhaps it could be finessed, with the Israelis accepting it in principle, but the numbers sharply restricted in practice, so it wouldn't change the demographics of Israel. Both sides could claim victory, if it's worded correctly. So, all that's needed, to reach agreament on all issues, is for Israel to give a little on E. Jerusalem , and the Palestinians to give (a lot, but not all) on the "right of return". But it won't happen, and the killing will go on and on, and U.S. interests will be severely damaged, because the two people in charge are committed to violence. And this means more days when we are all watching CNN all day, and the Nas gaps way down. Because you asked: The only thing Bin Laden knows is terrorism, and the only thing Bush knows is.........gee, I'm not sure what he knows. And the only tool Sharon knows how to use is a tank. (Can you say that?)