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 (37139)	8/12/2002 2:04:27 AM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

And For Those Who Did Not " GET " The Israel Thangy.... Letter From President Johnson to Prime Minister Eshkol (October 23, 1968) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- President Johnson wrote to Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol in an effort to pressure Israel to be more flexible in peace talks. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Mr. Prime Minister: I have appreciated your recent letters, and I had a good talk with Foreign Minister Eban yesterday. He will be reporting in detail our strong feelings on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but I wish to write you this personal note to be sure our emphasis on that issue does not obscure a larger point. I know you face a difficult series of meetings this week and wish to send you this word of encouragement. I am deeply concerned, as you know, Mr. Prime Minister, about Israel's future, and I understand how strongly some of your colleagues feel that Israel's future can best be guaranteed by military means and expanded borders alone. It is so much easier to argue in terms of military balance and lines on a map than it is to argue the case for political compromise. But our own experience has proved that real peace is not found alone on the walls of a fortress---or under the umbrella of air power--or behind a nuclear shield. Every American President knows that our most secure borders are the open borders with Mexico and Canada. That day may not be close for Israel with the UAR, but it could be close with Jordan. I feel so strongly about the irrationality of trying to make peace by force alone that I must urge you to resist those who find it easier to risk Israel's future on today's expanded boundaries than to reach out for real peace. From my own difficult personal decision last March, I can say with feeling that it is not easy to lead a nation toward a necessary peace without jeopardizing hard-won gains and the future those gains have earned. But I can also say that it is worth reasonable risks, measured compromise, and personal pain. I do not presume to say what your Government should do. But I pray that you and your colleagues will find the courage to seize this moment of opportunity so that peace may be "within thy walls." I look forward to seeing you later this year. Sincerely, Lyndon B. Johnson -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Smith, Louis J. (Ed.). Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964-1968, V. 20, Arab-Israeli Dispute 1967-1968. DC: GPO, 2001.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (37139)	8/12/2002 4:43:29 AM
From: SirRealist	Respond to of 281500

Not just for political reasons. Winter might be easier on our troops.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (37139)	8/12/2002 9:22:16 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hmm, interesting thoughts. Creative way to get behind the surface and resolve the inconsistencies. You clearly have more respect for this crew than I do. And, continue to do so, despite all this flim and flam on the surface. I assume that something in Iraq will happen simply because Bush will have to do so to save face. As I continue to argue, if it goes quickly and well, he will have popular support; if it goes slowly and badly, he will not. Also on GWB's leadership abilities, the item Paul Philp keeps bringing up, the weak economic team he has suggests his weakness, the fumbling of the foreign policy actions suggests a weakness. Best I can tell, the votes still out.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (37139)	8/12/2002 10:31:59 AM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

Then the concensus shifted. Bush said to himself, not only is this not working, but I am being played for a chump. You think I can't tell that they feed the fire behind my back while begging me to put it out? Nothing will improve, least of all Arafat, Hizbullah and Al Qaeda, until I cut the Gordian knot of the radical Arab regimes and their fantasies of victory. Iraq's a logical target and we have unfinished business there. So Rumsfeld's "forward-leaning" policy came into ascendance. I think that this is the way historians will eventually sort it out. Either that or Bush read Wohlforth's and Brooks' article in FA and said to himnself: "Damn, I get no respect around here. Time to bare the fangs and watch the fleas jump." There is some evidence available to the casual observer to support this view. It incudes the "axis of evil" speech in which Syria was conspicuously absent and the volte face on Arafat. C2@BBM.com