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: geode00 who wrote (192253)	7/20/2006 11:34:11 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

When did MY ILK ever say that and what exactly is MY ILK? Gee.. if SI had a decent search engine that could query specific to member screen names, I could surely provide you a wealth of links. But suffice it to say.. those who have consistently been critical of Israel's policy towards the Palestinians aspirations for statehood are "your ilk". You are critical of Israel in that regard, are you not? Should we count you as a supporter of Israel, then?? I thought it was Israel who wanted a two-state solution so that it wouldn't: Actually, I think Israel actually wanted King Hussein, and the Kingdom of Jordan, to resume control over the West Bank and sign a peace treaty with Israel. But then the good King abandoned his subjects and firmly placed them in the grasp of Arafat. And I can't say that I really blame the Jordanians given that Arafat had previously attempted to overthrow the Hashemites in 1970. Thus, now I think Israel would be happy to merely have a Palestinian government that focused more upon their own internal problems and economic development, than trying to continue to prosecute a fruitless, but very destructive, war of annihilation against the Israelis. These two side obviously cannot arrive at a peace settlement on their own. Methinks that the one solution is going to be that the international community impose a peace upon them both. The question is going to be exactly where those borders are going to be finalized. The incompetence of Republicans in military matters has not only blown the lid off of longterm conflicts, it has incited civil war. After Iraq was defeated in 1991, the Shi'a rebelled against Saddam and were brutally put down by his security forces. The Kurds did the same thing.. Civil war was going on WELL BEFORE Saddam was overthrown. It's the result of Iraq having been artificially carved out along arbitrary borders after the defeat of the Ottoman Turks. But I also believe that sub-dividing countries along ethnic lines is not going to prevent civil war. The root of the problem is the fight for natural resources which equates to wealth. If these various ethnicities were more focused upon evenly dividing the wealth derived from these natural resources, they would have far more incentive to remain together.. But of course, the Shi'a want to control over 80% of the oil in Iraq and not share that wealth with the Sunnis or Kurds. The Kurds are the same way with regard to oil resources in Kirkuk.. And the Sunnis?? Well.. the Sunnis are currently the "odd man out" since they no longer control any oil related resources of any consequence. Hawk