SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Fred Levine who wrote (65925)9/16/2002 7:52:30 PM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 70976
 
Fred, re>> He must be required to comply with the inspection agreement or the Un will be just an advisory voice.

I'm curious as to whether you also think Israel must be forced to obey the Security Council resolutions demanding it withdraw from lands it occupied in its 1967 war ?

Sarmad



To: Fred Levine who wrote (65925)9/16/2002 9:43:34 PM
From: Cary Salsberg  Respond to of 70976
 
RE: "...your comments make you appear closed minded and strident."

I am not "closed minded" and I don't mean to be "strident", but I have a stong emotional component involved in many of these discussions.



To: Fred Levine who wrote (65925)9/16/2002 10:51:27 PM
From: Zeev Hed  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 70976
 
Fred, the difference between us and Israel is that Saddam used to daily state that he'll eradicate the state of Israel, so their bombing was self defense (and actually, not even an act of opening a war, Iraq never even signed an armistice with Israel, so when threatened, they are right to take preventive defensive actions). On the other hand, Iraq bombed Israel (not military targets like their bomb making facility, but civilian targets) with scuds during Desert Storm, so Israel still have the right of "retaliation" if nothing else on that unresponded act (g). Maybe, there is a legal way to transfer those retaliatory rights to the US? (vbg).

Zeev