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 (201232)	9/5/2006 10:23:29 AM
From: SARMAN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Olmert casts doubt in far reaching consequential quarters: Sharon's years of close co-operation are lost on Olmert. President Bush last month ordered from his intelligence chiefs a fresh evaluation of the robustness of the Olmert government, DEBKA-Net-Weekly revealed Sept. 1 September 5, 2006, 1:51 PM (GMT+02:00) DEBKAfile reports that their unfavorable findings have prompted urgent trips to Washington by prime minister Ehud Olmert’s top advisers this week. In his directive for an updated National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Israel, the US president wanted to find out if the mismanaged Lebanon War was a curable hiccup or the symptom of a deeper malady. He asked whether Israel is robust enough to continue to count as a strong and stable political and military force able to serve the United States as a Middle East ally and a strategic mainstay in the region. the cracks are showing

To: neolib who wrote (201232)	9/5/2006 10:32:25 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I note that most recently Israel has the UN attempting to obtain release of its two soldiers. Why didn't they try that in the first place? Why didn't the UN do that in the first place in order to avoid the Israeli retaliation? Maybe because the UN is impotent, under its current leadership? AFAIK, Israel did not gain anything by invading Lebanon, but perhaps I'm incorrect. They forced the Lebanese army to deploy to the borders, thereby changing the political equation. If there are future attacks, then Israel can directly state that it is an attack that has been facilitated by the Lebanese government. It has also obtained a stronger UN commitment, and apparently (if current information is correct) they will be permitted to patrol the Syrian-Lebanese border to interdict weapons smuggling there. And finally, they managed to force Narallah to apologize to the Lebanese people for what he got them into. That was a particularly humiliating event for Hizbullah, IMO. But I think it's good that the UN is so involved. They created this problem by passing UNSC 1559, and doing nothing to back it up. In fact, Israel was the only nation that actually observed the requirements of that resolution. Hawk

To: neolib who wrote (201232)	9/5/2006 10:51:10 AM
From: Ichy Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I note that most recently Israel has the UN attempting to obtain release of its two soldiers. Why didn't they try that in the first place? AFAIK, Israel did not gain anything by invading Lebanon, but perhaps I'm incorrect. There is a discussion between the US and Canada. It involves the North West passage. The Americans believe that if Canada cannot patrol and protect the passage, it is an international waterway. The Canadians believe that it is Canadian Territory and that the Canadian Government should be notified and be able to approve or not approve who traverses what it considers Canadian Territory. At the present time, Canada does not have the Capability to protect or patrol the passageway. Being able to protect your people and to control your borders is important. Much of the land that Israel took in 1967 was taken so that israel was safe from attack. Much of it has been on the table to be returned since 1967 in return for a lasting peace. Had peace been achieved in 1967, do you honestly believe that the palestinians you claim to care so much about would still be in the position they are in. Israel needed to prove that they could protect themselves, and to disarm or at least use up some of the colossal store of weapons that Iran and Syria were putting on the Israeli Border. It is okay to say that the Missiles were simply not very accurate or various other things, it is entirely different to live with 15,000 missiles pointing at your home, and more missiles arriving day by day. And the missiles were getting bigger with longer range. Hizbollah spent six years digging tunnels and putting up fortifications getting ready for this war. But they made no preparations for the people who lived where they planned to have a war. Israelis have been getting ready for war for years. They had plans to evacuate 2 million people, and they did, 2 million Israelis Arabs and Jews were evacuated. They had bomb shelters for everyone. The Lebanese did not. Why. Why didn't Hizbollah make the same provisions for the lebanese that Israel did?