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: PartyTime who wrote (64132)	1/2/2003 10:09:38 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Moving militarily into Iraq could fan the hot flames all throughout the MidEast, most of which fires glow harshly upon Israel As opposed to what we have now? Open warfare is actually the least of Israel's worries, as they are best positioned to deal with it. No way Egypt or Jordan are going to attack. Iraq may try but it's questionable what they can accomplish against the Patriot and Arrow defenses. The most likely war is Hizbullah opening a second front in the North, and that is coming in any case; it would probably have come by now if everybody wasn't waiting for the US campaign. Don't be fooled by Arab rhetoric. The Arabs are willing to fight to the last Palestinian. Regarding the breaching of U.N. resolutions, one has to also consider that Israel also has been in such violation and this will invariably complicate and perhaps aggrevate potential widening MidEast conflict, especially in the winds of war. That's definitely the Arab view of things, but the US points out the Israeli relsolutions are not Chapter 7 (binding), and Resolution 242 does not call for unilateral Israeli withdrawal, but for negotiations, which is why all the Arabs rejected it for the first 20 years. Heck. Our nation doesn't even like the world court You got that straight. The US Constitution is much better.