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 (195394)	8/6/2006 6:42:20 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

But here is the odd thing: Nobody is paying very careful attention to the alternative. The criticism of Israel's ground campaign — however sound much of it may be — takes place against an implicit assumption that peace could be at hand if only Israel stops fighting. Right there, paragraph 2. Another neandrathal that can't think past two options. And his "implicit assumption" is false. No point reading past paragraph 2 unless you're a dummy. Did you read the whole thing? jttmab

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (195394)	8/6/2006 10:41:52 PM
From: Katelew	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So what can Israel do? For one, Israel can stop trying to get UN/Lebanon/Nato force to take over the fight for them. Basically with the proposed UN resolution, Israel is trying to get someone else to do the fighting while reserving the right to step back in with their military force if the peacekeepers can't do the job. So, the doves' implied solution is that Israel withdraws from Lebanon and stops bombing, and that Hezbollah goes on its way. This is why they've pointed out that not many Israelis have died from rocket attacks since 2000. A classic Republican strawman argument.....state a false premise then proceed to defend it.