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

To: JohnM who wrote (79473)3/4/2003 12:30:04 PM
From: michael97123  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
John,
I have taken a step toward your view in the following sense. The Turkey setback and the looming setback in the UN gives the perception that the US FP team is the gang that couldnt shoot straight. Add NK crisis to the mix as well and stir. The a sprinkle of moving ever so slowly with UN votes has led to a growing anti-war movement over time. Now the question.
What could a face saving deal look like that might be acceptable to Bush? Not to you but to bush. Not to neocons but to bush. Where is there a deal to be had that doesnt destroy credibility and hurt our position in the region? This is not a rhetorical question at all. I am hoping for an answer that averts war without the disasterous consequences i fear. Mike



To: JohnM who wrote (79473)3/4/2003 12:40:17 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 281500
 
Always picking sides, huh, Bill. On this one, I'm just reading and reading and reading. My guess is, given the lack of diplomatic skills of these guys, whichever way they go will turn out bad. But you knew I thought that before you typed the query.


"reading and reading," huh? Yeah, I knew you couldn't come out with a choice on that one.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News