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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (28579)	5/6/2002 8:14:27 PM
From: SirRealist	Respond to of 281500

Robbins is correct. But since we know Arafat won't deal, I think it useful to push our allies to maintain a constant stream of criticism directed at Arafat, while consistently downplaying the importance of the meeting. There's no sense in enlarging his stage.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (28579)	5/6/2002 8:27:24 PM
From: Dennis O'Bell	Respond to of 281500

Somebody please give me some reason to believe that Robbins is wrong in this assessment Well, we have the 27 year Angola civil war as a data point (link below from a month ago). A civil war with a civilian death and mutilation toll that makes the Mideast look like harmless child's play. The accord is the culmination of a process of talks that began after the death of Unita leader Jonas Savimbi six weeks ago. news.bbc.co.uk So, yes, it's reasonable to conclude that Arafat will stir trouble as long as he is alive. The world has barely lifted a finger for Angola's citizens, though there's been no shortage of profiteering in arms sales to both sides. How can anyone seriously conclude otherwise concerning the Mideast ?