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 Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (240031)	7/4/2005 3:57:18 PM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574056

You blame that resolution on the US, but as I recall, the US wasn't the only party to that negotiation. The only "no" votes on that resolution were by every Arab nation, and one non-Arab nation (I think Greece?, maybe Cuba?). But if your neighboring countries don't think you should exist, what does Paraguay's, Iceland's and New Zealand's votes really mean, anyway?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (240031)	7/4/2005 4:41:33 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574056

You blame that resolution on the US, but as I recall, the US wasn't the only party to that negotiation. The main actor of that day was Britain. And as I recall, the UN isn't dominated by the US. That much was made clear prior to the Iraq war. So if things have gone wrong at the UN, it is not only the US' fault. Some other major country's share the blame just as equally. Up until the end of WW II, the UK was Israel's sponsor. After reviewing the issue, the Brits. decided to back off. They felt the creation of an Israeli state would cause too much turmoil in the ME and would be unfair to the Palestinians. It was at that point that Truman picked up the ball and pushed Israeli statehood through the UN over the objections of the Brits. And things have never been the same since. ted