 | | Re: Conflict in the Middle East
|
|
(...) Just to start the flamethrowers: I don't think this White House is going to do that. It would jeopardize their rhetorical position, which wants so desperately to be black-and- white about states vs. terrorism that they can't see how grey the (...) (23 years ago, 31-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Conflict in the Middle East
|
|
(...) I agree with some of this. The problem is that the USA has a much louder voice in this due to the $,$$$,$$$,$$$.$$ it gives to Sharon. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 2-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Conflict in the Middle East
|
|
(...) This is an interesting point! However, I think that if there is one nations' government which is respected in Israel, it must be that of the US. Israel, being the strongest part in the conflict, should take the initiative and responsibility (...) (23 years ago, 2-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Conflict in the Middle East
|
|
(...) I believe they tried that. Oslo, and a any other agreement signed - however, agreements don't do much unless both sides do their part. As far as I know, the PA has never actually done anything that it said it would. Dan (23 years ago, 2-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Conflict in the Middle East
|
|
(...) If those were two euro-cents, it would have been me saying it. ;-) I share this oppinion entirely - especially what you say regarding the Chinese stand, I think that is a pretty clever reading of the situation (but then again, China has (...) (23 years ago, 2-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Conflict in the Middle East
|
|
(...) True, but the USA is so biased that its endeavors would be seen as possibly self-interested. Trust would be better placed in a third party that is strong enough to be immune to US strongarming. best LFB (23 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
