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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (100558)	6/7/2003 12:47:37 AM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

>>Wish I could find someplace to fault him, but I cannot<< Unfortunatley,you too often look at things the way many want you to,or the way you yourself want to and want others to. But I will say one thing in our old friend Dave’s favor.He is right that if this one blows up in our/their faces,it may well be the final blow to any chance of peace for decades to come,if there is anything left worth making peace for. Bush has cleared the way by giving Iraq an enema ,no doubt part of the " deal " with Arik,that if successful , would have them both emulated as joint Nobel Peace Price Laureates ,and virtually guaranteed re-(s)election. If after this they are unable to navigate the treacherous waters of reconciliation ,due to special interest groups sabotaging the process and being allowed to have their way against the World's ONLY superduberpower and it's little cousin, the ME Superpower,then its obvious that terrorism does indeed get results.The fallout will be monumental. But that is where you both lose it Nadine.You are unwilling or unable to connect those two simple little dots.You know,the ones that draw the connection between the radicals and their desire to quash the peace process.Until this is spelled out clearly and handled from that very perspective, both Hamas and those in Israel ( or the US ) who don’t want this to work will be allies. The road needs to be driven ,regardless of distractions and hazards,and those groups need to realize they do not have the means to crash this vehicle.They need to know that they are “ irrelevant “,and the process will continue with or without them.It will be at that point where those who want peace will turn on those who are attempting to derail the process,if they feel the process is fair and are given the opportunity to clean up their own backyards. Every bombing,every incursion ,every setback,must be considered just a bump in the road,if they really want peace. The alternative is not pretty. Regards, KC@OnTheRoadAgain

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (100558)	6/7/2003 1:38:56 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Quotes from David Warren about those missing WMDs: David Warren November 21, 2001 ... Owing to the lapse of U.N. weapons inspections, of the U.N.'s sanctions programme, and of the U.S. enforcement of Iraqi "no go" areas by the Clinton administration, Saddam has recovered a lot of ground, and is probably more dangerous today than he was when he invaded Kuwait in 1990. He has almost certainly mounted biological, chemical, and possibly also low-grade nuclear weapons (not proper nuclear explosives but so-called "dirty" radiative materials to be spread by conventional explosives) on the tips of his Scud fleet. ... davidwarrenonline.com September 5, 2002 ... At any moment, before or after the first formal U.S. strike, Saddam is likely to try to hit any U.S. base he can reach with biological or chemical weapons. ... davidwarrenonline.com December 21, 2002 ... The task in Iraq is no conventional invasion. It will be the first time the Americans, or any other large civilized military force, has gone in to disarm and remove a dictator whose defence depends almost entirely on the use of biological and chemical weapons. ... davidwarrenonline.com February 6, 2003 ... This is why the publication of actual proof is so anticlimactic. The people demanding proof [that Iraq has WMDs] were not going to change their positions after it was supplied. They predictably shifted the criteria for action another step higher, so that now they demand even more U.N. inspectors. ... davidwarrenonline.com March 19, 2003 ... To the west of the country, he has left disguised missile emplacements in the hope they can get off quick shots at Israel. ... In order to assist in spreading panic, this IV Army comes equipped with chemical weapons suiting; and may well have the weapons, too. ... There may well be little horrors scattered among them, in the hope of creating the appearance that the allies are themselves using chemical and biological weapons in attacks against civilian neighbourhoods. ... davidwarrenonline.com March 25, 2003 ... Moreover, as we shall soon learn, many of the most accomplished of Saddam's defenders behind the lines are, indeed, members of Al Qaeda, Hamas, and other terrorist groups who have received training in Iraq. We are unlikely to hear much about this, or about the capture of biological and chemical weapons sites, until the war is over (despite several interesting independent reports). This is because the allies are still benefiting from Saddam's hesitation to use weapons that may immediately cost him the support of his few remaining foreign friends. (I invite selected readers to look between my lines.) ... davidwarrenonline.com March 29, 2003 ... A Saddam content to fight by conventional and legitimate means, without terror connexions and international ambitions, would not have been invaded. ... I think the Iraqis were expecting the allies to take it [i.e. Basra] quickly, which they may have been wise not to do; for I fear a nerve gas or other chemical attack may be waiting on the inhabitants once the city falls -- as a warning to Baghdadis of what their fate could be. ... davidwarrenonline.com -- Carl Also see: davidwarrenonline.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (100558)	6/7/2003 12:27:53 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I'm sorry, I can't see any way out: no solution, no alternative course, that does not rest on some sort of fantasy -- everyone is trapped. The more peace is sought, the more war becomes inevitable; and yet peace must be sought. The kind of failed traditional solutions that have been tried establish the truth of Warren's thinking, as far as it goes. But there have been other, more creative, proposals than the ones currently on the table that might stand a chance of success. I recall reading about the one that follows--an imposed peace--thinking that the FA editors must have been smoking rope when they selected the article describing an imposed peace for publication. However, it seems more and more like a potential alternative. Treat the whole bloody bunch like a rowdy bunch of teenagers. An imposed peace might be the only way... foreignaffairs.org Summary: Faced with spiraling bloodshed between Israelis and Palestinians, many observers think the only hope now is for a cease-fire followed by incremental talks. In fact, the opposite is true. Interim solutions will never work, and the time has come for outsiders to put forward a comprehensive plan for a final settlement. Hussein Agha is Senior Associate Member of St. Antony's College, Oxford University. He has been involved in Israeli-Palestinian affairs for more than 30 years. Robert Malley is Middle East Program Director at the International Crisis Group. Between 1998 and 2001, he was President Clinton's Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs. CUT TO THE CHASE Since the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and the outbreak of the second intifada, two propositions have gained wide acceptance. The first is that trying to find a comprehensive solution to end the conflict has already been attempted -- and at this point, if tried again, can only fail. The second is that an interim solution is therefore the only way out of the current crisis and might succeed if properly implemented. The mounting death tolls on both sides seem to confirm the notion that conflict management rather than conflict resolution should be the order of the day, and that now is the time for taking incremental steps in order to rebuild the torn fabric of trust. In fact, now is precisely the time for a U.S.-led international coalition to put forward an end-of-conflict deal. The idea that only incremental steps can resolve the current crisis flies in the face of the experience of the past decade. Everything Israelis and Palestinians have tried since 1993 has been of the interim sort -- whether the Oslo accords themselves, the 1995 Interim accords, the 1997 Hebron agreement, or the 1998 Wye memorandum. However sensible it may have seemed at the start, in practice the incremental approach has demonstrated serious shortcomings. Lacking a clear and distinct vision of where they were heading, both sides treated the interim period not as a time to prepare for an ultimate agreement but as a mere warm-up to the final negotiations; not as a chance to build trust, but as an opportunity to optimize their bargaining positions. As a result, each side was determined to hold on to its assets until the endgame. Palestinians were loath to confiscate weapons or clamp down on radical groups; Israelis were reluctant to return territory or halt settlement construction. Grudging behavior by one side fueled grudging behavior by the other, leading to a vicious cycle of skirted obligations, clear-cut violations, and mutual recriminations. By multiplying the number of obligations each side agreed to, the successive interim accords increased the potential for missteps and missed deadlines. Each interim commitment became the focal point for the next dispute and a microcosm for the overall conflict, leading to endless renegotiations and diminished respect for the text of the signed agreements themselves. Steps that might have been easy to win support for domestically if packaged as part of a final agreement were condemned as unwarranted concessions when carried out in isolation. Increasingly beleaguered political leaderships on both sides thus were tempted to take compensatory actions: incendiary speeches by Palestinians, building more settlements by Israelis, and from the two parties, a general reluctance to prepare their people for the ultimate compromises. Designed to placate angry constituents, these moves had the unintended consequence of alienating the other side, making a final deal all the more difficult to achieve. Finally, the succession of piecemeal, incremental agreements made it more difficult to mobilize the support of other countries. Yet another interim agreement could not cure ills that are inherent in ... >>End of the free stuff. Anyone who wants to read the entire article can buy it or go to his or her FA magazine>> As I recall, the article had a number of concrete suggestions that more or less made sense.