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: Hawkmoon who wrote (46551)	9/24/2002 10:41:39 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

Bush catches it both ways, Hawk. If a move looks favorable to the Israelis, it's "Rich Jews," to the Arabs, it's "Oil Interests". Thats Politics!

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (46551)	9/25/2002 12:06:22 AM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Respond to of 281500

Here We Go Again. >>I don't think we should overstate, or get hung up on, "jewish influence" in the Bush administration... It's obviously strong... << I believe I posted an article that merely brings attention to the fact that there are individuals in the Bush administration with a decidedly pro – Israeli persuasion.These folks are in extremely influential positions. >>But so is the strong and direct influence that exists between the Arabs and Bush family, as well as the Saudis and Carlyle Group. Bush opponents have spent years griping about Bush's "oil ties".. And while a few of the oil interests might be clamoring for entree' to a few Iraqi concessions, few of them seek to see a disruption in oil supplies that would result from trying to overthrow every Arab nation in the region.<< Agreed.Their interests are taken into account as well. >>And considering the degree of outright anti-jewish sentiment that finds it's way into the global media, I can't blame the Israelis for having such an active lobbying effort. << I’ve noticed little “anti-jewish sentiment “ if any.I have noted some publications actually dare to take an objective and maybe even pro –Pal position regarding the Israel – Pal imbroglio .Thank goodness for free speech.So far so good. <G> >>And once again, while I'm cautious about tying US policy too closely to the Israeli agenda, in the matter of regional security the US has a vested interest in preserving the concept of democracy in the region. And Israel and Turkey are the only two nations in the mid-east which take democracy seriously.<< Yer getting way out here Hawk, and I don’t’ know why. >>It's better that ALL SIDES come looking for the US to solve their problems so we don't catch the blame. But it's also important that once we take on that role, we do it OUR WAY, not theirs... << Ideally , they solve their own problems, but once you’ve entered the fray by supplying money and massive amounts of arms to one side over the other, your effectiveness as an honest broker is diminished and may at some point become irrelevant. >>That will convince them that forcing the US to become involved invokes a price that the despotic governments of the region must pay.. namely political and economic openness.<< The UN is set up for much of what you envision for the US, however, if countries fail to abide by UN resolutions there must be a mechanism to persuade them to comply.That mechanism is too often thrown a monkey wrench by partisan parties. I don’t know the answer for this. >>And given the fact that few, if any, truly and fully democratic nations have ever engaged in open conflict with one another, we have a vested interest in revising the political structure in the region.<< The only large scale war since WWII not directly involving Israel in the ME has been the Gulf War with Iraq. To state that democratic nations are less likely to become involved in war requires only an assessment of the current policy of G.W.Bush. But to finish off here…….I find it troubling that you feel compelled to argue a post I made that merely substantiated a statement you yourself made. What’s up with that? Peace - KC