SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (228706)4/25/2007 2:53:00 PM
From: michael97123  Respond to of 281500
 
You are right but it cannot be done by bush. He has no creds with arabs and the israelis probably would also not be thrilled in dealing with a lame duck out for his place in history. We have two more years in iraq and two more years in i/p before positive change can occur. I hate saying that.



To: neolib who wrote (228706)4/25/2007 7:47:15 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 

I'm not so sure that Pals won't accept something close to 67.


Their current PM Haniya (in the sense that they have a government at all) is quite clear about it - the "occupation of 48" is no more to be accepted than the "occupation of 67."

What's amusing, in a mordant sort of way, is that their PM is a "moderate" under attack from the more radical factions in Damascus for suggesting that there are conditions under which Hamas might make a temporary truce. Just temporary, mind you.



To: neolib who wrote (228706)4/25/2007 8:09:18 PM
From: geode00  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Dubya just got through repeating that Saddam was a supporter of terrorism because he paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000. He wasn't talking about 911, he was talking only about Israel.

The US has spent $500B and reduced Iraq to chaos and enough people suspect that at least part of that is for the sake of Israel. Exactly how is this helpful?