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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (69738)	4/12/2003 10:15:16 PM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

>> ... Sharon will not act until Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. are destroyed and WMD programs in Iraq, Syria, Iran, etc. are eliminated. When there is no threat to the US and Israel, then Palestinians become an economic asset to both Israel and a Palestinian state. << Well, first there is no threat from Palestinians or any of the named countries to the US. So let's tentatively remove the US from that sentence. Neither its meaning, nor the motivation for the invasion of Iraq will suffer. If we try to get to the core of your argument, I think it is this. When the two conditions prevail: 1) Israel feels in absolute mastery of its region by using its capabilities and employing the military power of the US to neutralize any potential enemies; and 2) When the Palestinians are totally crushed, enclosed in walled enclaves, economically destitute, and absolutely unable to resist in any way no matter how futile; Then, perhaps Israel may be magnanimous enough to let them work as domestic servants, gardeners or laborers to earn a subsistence. I do think this has been the direction that the middle east is taking, and it got a big shove in that direction with the defeat of Iraq. It's a brilliant plan and it is working.

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (69738)	4/13/2003 1:22:24 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

There is some truth to the core of your argument but just as Saddam being such a brutal thug made invasion of Iraq easier for some people, oil and economic incentives make it so much more easier to push such policies. I'd say they are a significant part of it if not the major part. As to the greater issue of 9/11 effect on US policy, what is missing from this stance is an understanding that (excluding neocons) war is the last choice for most people. This is even more so when waging it at an enemy who is a zillion times bigger than you. Therefore the logical conclusion here is that there are things that are crucially important to others which are not available to them in normal channels. Until those needs are not addressed, the current militant strategy will not be effective. In combination with addressing those issues, then current strategy can work. I find it beyond stupid that we spent billions to bomb Afghanistan and push it into conditions that gave rise to the Taliban in the first place, but we are not willing to spend that same money to see to it that these conditions are removed all together.