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: neolib who wrote (176298)	11/29/2005 2:38:28 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Neolib, the difference in the case of Israel is that it's not government policy to create greater Israel. In fact, they have withdrawn from Gaza and have built a big wall to define their area [some of which is still under dispute, including within Israel]. Because Israel won in Arab instigated wars of conquest and genocide, it would be reasonable for them to keep that territory. That's the rule in dog-eat-dog tribal conflicts and why we need a border-setting and enforcing NewUN. It's not just a few mad Mullahs ranting about Israel. It's the president. That means it's the country. There is a difference. Similarly, when Americans were funding terrorism in Northern Ireland, to help the heroic IRA who conducted hideous crimes such as in Omagh and the Tower of London [they will be pedantic and say it wasn't the real IRA what done it], that's different from the USA government funding terrorism, which would be an act of war. Which is what Saddam used to do against Israel. Mqurice