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: carranza2 who wrote (32538)	6/18/2002 10:44:00 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi carranza2; Re: "Reading the Palestinian H-bomb issue alongside the article on US hegemony pointed out how easy it is to become arrogant. Israel is in many ways in the same hegemonic position in the ME as the US is globally. This has not stopped a cheap, effective means of creating disruption from being used. Why is the US in any different position?" The US is not in a different position than Israel. If we occupied a foreign country filled with a numerous people who hate us for 50 years, we'd be getting suicide bombers too, and wondering why our military couldn't win anybody's hearts and minds. Our military is probably even less effective than the Israeli at bringing civilians to heel. By contrast, any of the primitive and brutal 3rd world dictatorships are better at controlling civilians than the 1st world professional armies. Think about it. As a civilian in nonaligned country X, would you be more afraid for your life if the US Army invaded or if the Cuban / Iraqi / Iranian / Chinese / etc./ Army came through? I wouldn't worry too much about the Americans (or Israelis), but I'd definitely keep a low profile around the others. We can kick their asses, but we can't make them say "uncle". We're too refined for that. -- Carl

To: carranza2 who wrote (32538)	6/18/2002 2:39:14 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The writer concludes that there is ultimately very little that can be done to counter terror bombers, that they have tremendous support in even moderate Palestinian populations because they cheaply and effectively counter Israeli military advantages, and that the only way to deal with the terrorist bombers is to engage in negotiations I was sorry to see a member of the IDF add their voice to the counsels of surrender. There is no rational reason to believe that negotiating with the PA under terror would bring a decrease in terror no matter what was offered. If you say, but they will have territory, a new state, to protect, then I would answer, that was the rationale with Oslo too. The PA is not running a rational polity and what Israel can offer -- a state -- turns out to be quite far down its list of demands. They are gunning for victory or bust. Israeli surrender would only bring on the next round of fighting, as we see in Lebanon.