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 (43093)	9/10/2002 8:19:08 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

Only The Nation among all of America's newspapers and magazines has dared to point out that a large number of former Israeli lobbyists are now working within the American administration and the Bush plans for the Middle East – which could cause a massive political upheaval in the Arab world – fit perfectly into Israel's own dreams for the region. This can't be true. I've read this observation more than once, and said it myself more than once. The observation has certainly been made frequently by those who use the term "Zionist" as an epithet, which means not the mainstream US press. The problem with the observation is that it's hard to formulate precisely without coming across as someone who uses "Zionist" as an epithet. So one must simply grab the bull by the horns. What's wrong with wanting something that is consistent with what Israel wants? Is what Israel wants automatically a bad thing? Israel wants peace in the Middle East, a good thing. Israel wants recognition by its Arab neighbors, also a good thing. Democracy in the Middle East would be a good thing, too. Defanging Saddam would be a good thing, too, something that Clinton, Daschle, and fellow Democrats agreed about in 1998. I thought both Clintons and Tom Daschle were supporters of Israel. I find their silence and demurrers puzzling today. Has any Democrat discussed this here on this board, or only Republicans? >>Among the Democratic co-sponsors were Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Max Cleland of Georgia, Robert Torricelli of New Jersey, Bob Graham of Florida and John Kerry of Massachusetts. These days, they and other Democrats express doubt and reluctance to use force, but four years ago, Democrats in the House and Senate got downright hawkish, advocating an attack if Saddam Hussein did not comply with every detail of all the United Nations' weapons sanctions. "If not, it's back to business. It is the use of force. It is a swift response militarily and by whatever other means may be necessary," Daschle said in a speech in late February 1998. "I think that it is going to have to be more than a mere thump, as we say in Missouri. It's going to have to be a major, major strike," said Democratic Rep. Ike Skelton.<< foxnews.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (43093)	9/10/2002 11:18:21 PM
From: epsteinbd	Respond to of 281500

The Arab street! Beware of the Arab street! During the summers of the mid upper seventies, riots broke out in Tunis, Casablanca and Algiers over tax raises on flour, sugar, tea and olive oil, because the heads of states or king had dams, or Migs in mind. Bourguiba, Tunisia, and Hassan II, Morocco, send the army to shoot out the streets, mainly women and children, as the men didn't want to be accused of provoking confrontation. Between five hundred and twelve hundred people died in each city, according to Nouvel Obs, Canard Enchainé and people I knew who were there. For Algeria, sorry, I forgot the numbers... None of it made any headline or fuss. Internal matters. Friday, after prayers and Bush sermon, a couple of US consulats could get burned down by the furious crowds. This time they won't take hostages, though.