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: Neocon who wrote (156470)	1/18/2005 9:33:12 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

The problem has never been Greater Israel, although some Likudniks were enamored with the idea when they first took office. The reality of the situation and their need for american aid tempered any desires in this regard. Begin learned that during his term in office. So the problem has never really been Greater Israel. The real problem is Greater Palestine--the inability of the Pals to accept anything less as a permanent solution than Jews out of the entire area. One wonders if the Pals had been able to defeat Israel whether they would have insisted on slaughtering all the Jews as well if there was an alternative in place to move them out peacefully. But these are the freedom fighters whose values are extolled by Marcos, GST, and the rest. Israel will just have to take the hit for all of the colonialism, western imperialism and what they consider to be american imperialism to have taken place since the beginning of time. Dont you get it Neo, someone has to pay and there are only and always only 6 million Jews available. Next stop perhaps North America where the Jewish population has just had to much success for their small numbers and or have largely been ardent supporters of the right of survival for Israel. I am not accusing any of our threaders with feeling that way although sometimes when you here talk of the American Jewish Lobby and aipac one wonders. Mike

To: Neocon who wrote (156470)	1/18/2005 9:49:45 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It is obvious to me that there are many brave iraqis planning to go to the polls. And there are also many who will not be able to go becausae of lack of protection. It is also obvious to me that the US cannot committ more forces to the battle. It is also obvious to me that it is in Europes and the Middle Easts interests for Iraq to survive. Even the middle easterners should see democracy as a better alternative to terror and chaos. Europeans, Turks, Egyptians and Jordanians to name a few, should be committing forces right now to help put down this insurgency. Hell if they intervened perhaps a one month hold on the election would be warranted but apparently they dont have the stones to do it. Under these circumstances how can the US act in any other way than unilateral regardless of whose defintion of the word we use? mike

To: Neocon who wrote (156470)	1/18/2005 2:05:07 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Jabotinsky rules today, in zionist factions that use any and every arab reaction to justify their version of Drang nach Osten, the advance of fortified 'settlements' and roads prohibited to indigenous Pa' la Cruz y Santiago, was the way the castellanos put it ... no Neo, Jabotinsky lives, and feeds daily his muslim counterparts with cause for reaction 'A claim to sovereignty has to be reasonable in order to be recognized' One man's reasonable is another man's intolerable ... here you appear to be just restating the right of conquest, which hands straight back to your opponents the right of reconquest ... and so the world turns, same tomorrow as today, which is same as yesterday ... oh lord, if you're out there somewhere, prithee deliver us from these mad priests .... got to go, cheers