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 : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Machaon who wrote (12659)	4/12/2003 2:47:12 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

Up to now I thought that you were fair and balanced. Youn seem to think ANYTHING that is not 100% pro-Israel is not fair and balanced. Jews are prosecuted and punished if guilty. Sometimes. 1956? Eisenhower and the US gov't considered that an attack by Israel, France, and the UK on the Arabs. And demanded they withdraw. Which they did. Egypt initiated hostilities against Israel starting in 1949 with closing the Suez canal to Israel. Imagine what would happen to Panama, if Panama closed off the Panama canal to America. The US, when it had the Panama Canal, always claimed the right to close it to enemies. Technically, Egypt and Israel were at war in 1956. Difference? The current treaty regarding the canal that the US has with Panama denies panama the right to close the canal to US shipping. It also allows the US to take control of the canal in time of war. Did Israel have those rights wrt the Suez Canal?

To: Machaon who wrote (12659)	4/12/2003 3:29:41 PM
From: Anthony Yeung (Hijacked)	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

" Up to now I thought that you were fair and balanced." He was fair and balanced in your view as long as he supported your myopic Zionist rhetoric. Now that he too raises questions about your misdeeds he has suddenly become anti-semitic. Right?

To: Machaon who wrote (12659)	4/13/2003 6:14:40 AM
From: craig crawford	Respond to of 21614

>> If any nation on this planet was faced with such hostilities and threats, that nation would have no choice but to defend itself by a pre-emptive strike. This is similar to what America did to Iraq, but with MUCH less of a direct threat. << so according to your post, since the arabs have openly declared their hostility and desire to see israel eliminated, all wars (even pre-emptive ones) conducted by israel are justified because they are simply defending themselves. in other words israel is justified in waging war whenever and wherever it feels like it, because its existence is continually under threat. am i understanding you clearly? israel has the right to conduct war anytime it chooses because arabs continually want to destroy them? considering how the jews employed terror to ethnically cleanse the arabs since before the state of israel even formally existed, i guess the arabs feel they have been under constant threat of destruction so all their wars against israel are justified as self-defense as well.