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 : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dave rose who wrote (18219)	5/6/2003 4:07:02 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81434

Dave > Here is an article that is rather even handed. It shows warts of both sides. Indeed, but I will not utter even a single peep about the Holocaust. That is such a contentious subject that to venture into it, even superficially, is like walking drunk and barefoot across a minefield strewn with broken glass. My attitude to the MidEast polemic is perhaps different from the generally prevailing ones which attempt to reward or penalize either Israel or the Palestinians on the basis of how the debater sees the relative merit of each side in the argument. In my view, it is simply impossible to unravel the knot of history or rectify the wrongs of the past/present. My approach is pragmatic --- peace should just have been enforced either by the US or UN or NATO or whoever. There is no way debate can remove those fundamentalist Israelis who have settled in Palestinian land. They believe they have a Biblical right to it and will die to maintain that right. They have already showed us their feelings by what they did to Rabin who wished to make the land-for-peace deal. Similarly the Muslim fanatics believe the Zionists are the Devil incarnate and will do whatever they can to remove them. You spoke yesterday of force. Actually I agree with you. Force is necessary, but not in the way you intend. I see that force is necessary to separate the fighting dogs and restore peace --- not to destroy one of the dogs --- which is, in fact, the present intention. In this regard, now that the US has clearly sided with Israel in its global war against "terrorism" (which brings us again to the reasons for 911), it has lost its former moral high ground and apparent impartiality. Thus any peace which the US now attempts to enforce will always be viewed by the Muslims/Palestinians/Arabs as biased in favor of Israel especially when many/most/all Palestinian demands remain unfulfilled. Furthermore, the US will be viewed for all time as the enemy of Islam --- a status which I do not believe is of the slightest benefit to America. Perhaps this might give you some insight as to why I am so upset by what is occurring and why I am so critical of the present US administration. In my opinion, simply, Mr Bush & Co screwed it up. They have got the US involved in a dog-fight and, in the end, it's obvious that both dogs are going to turn on the US and bite it. Why is it obvious? Because the US will be blamed for whatever happens and whatever injury or loss either of the dogs sustains.