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: jttmab who wrote (195395)	8/6/2006 7:47:19 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Right there, paragraph 2. Another neandrathal that can't think past two options. And his "implicit assumption" is false. Let's see Israel leaves Lebanon in 2000, and Hizbullah gets even stronger, eventually aquiring over 12,000 rockets from Syria and Iran, and continues its aggression against Israel and threatening Lebanon's soveriegnty. Israel destroys (or at least severely reduces) Hizbullah's military ability to threaten Israel, but increases (possibly only temporarily) Hizbullah's popularity amongst Lebanese? Either way, the Lebanese people who don't have affliation with Hizbullah suffer. So geez whiz.. what other options can you provide for the Lebanese to secure their sovereignty? What kind of options can you provide to protect Israel from a heavily armed, and dedicated, terrorist group bent upon waging endless war upon Israel? Please show us "neanderthals" just how a sophisticated intellect like yourself can solve these problems. Hawk

To: jttmab who wrote (195395)	8/6/2006 9:02:45 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I certainly read the whole thing. Did you? Since you are among the crowd saying Israel should just stop shooting, that will solve things, he's waiting for your answer. BTW, since you call him a 'neanderthal' it's obvious you have no idea who Jonathan Chait is, so let me toss you a clue. He's a Democrat who writes for The New Republic who wrote this in 2003: THE CASE FOR BUSH HATRED. Mad About You by Jonathan Chait Post date 09.18.03 \| Issue date 09.29.03 Printer friendly E-mail this article I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it. I think his policies rank him among the worst presidents in U.S. history. And, while I'm tempted to leave it at that, the truth is that I hate him for less substantive reasons, too. I hate the inequitable way he has come to his economic and political achievements and his utter lack of humility (disguised behind transparently false modesty) at having done so. His favorite answer to the question of nepotism--"I inherited half my father's friends and all his enemies"--conveys the laughable implication that his birth bestowed more disadvantage than advantage. He reminds me of a certain type I knew in high school--the kid who was given a fancy sports car for his sixteenth birthday and believed that he had somehow earned it. I hate the way he walks--shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo. I hate the way he talks--blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudo-populist twang. I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him. I hate his lame nickname-bestowing-- a way to establish one's social superiority beneath a veneer of chumminess (does anybody give their boss a nickname without his consent?). And, while most people who meet Bush claim to like him, I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more.