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: jcky who wrote (39915)	8/26/2002 1:35:17 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

In order to facilitate the end of the violence between the Israelis/Palestinians, it is necessary to act as a balanced and neutral broker for both parties to enact a fair settlement...Providing carrots as the sole basis for peace has failed so it's time to bring out the big stick too for both parties. This means any misbehavior by the Israelis and it's no more foreign aid. For the Palestinians, any more misconduct and it's no Palestinian state with the accompanying financial aid. No exceptions. Explain to me one thing, jcky. Supposing the US did become a "neutral" broker in your estimation. Suppose it then used your recommended "big stick" on one of the parties...it would no longer be a neutral broker, would it? for it would have acted decidedly in favor of the other party...neutrals cannot judge, for judgement is not neutral. It's deja vu all over again. The US tried to be a neutral broker under Clinton, though I'm sure you don't agree they succeeded, but Clinton did go to bat for the Palestinians like nobody else in history. The Palestinians responded with loads of "misconduct" and after 5300 warnings, the US stopped talking to Arafat. Now you complain that the US is not neutral. Isn't this just another form of saying that the Palestinians MUST be victims because they are weaker so they must NEVER be judged for their misconduct?

To: jcky who wrote (39915)	8/26/2002 10:26:25 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Claims that invading and occupying Iraq will drain the swamp of terrorists are misguided because there have been no direct link established between Iraq and a global network of terrorists known as al-Qaida And I guess Iraq has no "direct link" to Abu Nidal, either?? Come on now.... This war isn't just against Al-Qaeda.. It's against terrorism and any state that has lent support or safe haven for terrorists who have attacked the US. Iraq definitely qualifies, as do many others. Personally, I hope we don't have to get to the point where we have to invade or take direct action against Saddam. I would rather he fall due to internal pressure as Milosevic did. But if we're not willing to present the US as being deadly serious about deposing him and replacing his regime, nothing will happen. If the US shows sufficient perseverance and intent we likely won't have to take any major action. Those interests in Iraq who hide behind Saddam will recognize that he is now more of a liability than an asset. In fact, they will realize that he is "bad for business" (most of it smuggling related).. But we have to present the attitude that if the situation doesn't change soon, we'll change it ourselves. Hawk

To: jcky who wrote (39915)	8/26/2002 10:50:44 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

Nice post, jcky. Well thought out. I even agree with most of it. ;-)

To: jcky who wrote (39915)	8/26/2002 3:10:20 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Do you honestly think that there is no direct link established? Just what would you say if there IS a direct link ....?? And if there isn't, then you are saying "OK, just sit around, waiting for Saddam and his henchmen to do something...and if "something happens, something happens".... If one or several of our cities are vaporized, and/or cities throughout the world contact Ebola or smallpox or whatever else.... Would that be proof enough? Then what? Claims that invading and occupying Iraq will drain the swamp of terrorists are misguided because there have been no direct link established between Iraq and a global network of terrorists known as al-Qaida, and terrorist organizations are transnational requiring only a loosely coordinated structure to survive