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 : World Affairs Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (1966)	9/19/2002 10:15:03 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Respond to of 3959

Re: The Belgians need to develop and market a condescending term for anyone who dislikes them or just their foreign policy. I'm afraid Belgium no longer enjoys an independent foreign policy.... Its diplomacy is merely a proxy for France's. Take Africa for instance: if the French stick their necks out in Africa... Bang! world media and public opinion cry foul and call the clumsy frogs neocolonialists! However, should Belgium do the same, it'd just go unnoticed --below the radar beam of would-be protesters. Gus

To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (1966)	9/19/2002 11:59:11 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3959

Instead of talking about relocating the US embassy to Jerusalem, wouldn't it make more sense for US authorities to relocate the White House itself to Tel Aviv?? Here's a clue..... Experts agree Israel has most to gain from Saddam ouster Matthew Gutman Sep. 18, 2002 An American attack on Iraq would have sweeping regional implications for non-combatant Middle East states, with Israel the nation that has the most to gain from the ouster of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, according to panelists at a Bar-Ilan University seminar yesterday entitled "The Regional Implications of a US Attack on Iraq." The US campaign against Iraq could just as easily consist of "a bullet in Saddam's head" or a weapons inspection regime with teeth, as a massive and costly ground invasion, according to Dr. Amin Tarzi, Radio Free Europe's regional analyst for Afghanistan and Iraq, and Prof. Ephraim Inbar, the director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies (BESA). "I don't think the US is ready for a large number of body bags," Tarzi said, referring to the loss of American lives an invasion could entail. [snip] jpost.com Of course, Dr Tarzi didn't get it... The question is not "how many body bags can the US sustain during its war against Iraq?" but, rather, "How many more 911s can the US withstand before its society collapses?" That's what the new paradigm is all about: Terror Diplomacy has replaced the Gunboat Diplomacy of yore. () I think it's clear that a new battleground has emerged on Sept 11, 2001: the battleground of terror... where aircraft carriers, stealth bombers and cruise missiles are just IRRELEVANT. Gus () Message 16607328