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 (47767)	9/28/2002 6:12:33 PM
From: epsteinbd	Respond to of 281500

Right you are : "The US invading Irak will not drain the swamp, or solve the Is/pal conflict". I never thought it would. I think that invading Irak will have, among other consequences, a 50% chance of destruction of the greater Tel Aviv area. I sure hope its simplistic, too. I fear it is realistic, and todays Reuters 33 pounds enriched uranium news made me feel ever more simplistic. I guess the same is true for Bush senior... As to the perpetual war solution, you seem to privilege, for Sharon: I have hears that theory by legions of Communists, Euro Trostskists and World White Educated Anarchists. They all were pretty convinced that capitalism cannot survive nor make money without perpetual war, and no set of arguments could shake their theory. I doubt that debate needs to be addressed again. History gave a clear cut answer to it. And if you want to know more about the guy Sharon, he happened to have written his memoirs ten years ago, some five hundred pages, and it's quite interesting because, at that time, he had no reason whatsoever to think than one day Arafat will vote him in.