Re: OT: HP P*sses off China
- From: Alan Feldman <alanfeldman48@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 19:10:02 -0700 (PDT)
On Apr 16, 4:17 pm, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bob Koehler wrote:
I agree. Same for the Arabs. Except that Israel is the only
seriously democratic government in the conflict. I don't think
we did the right thing supporting dictators or facists who helped
us out in the past, and I don't think we should do so now.
There is no need for the USA to support dictators or anything of that
sort. The USA can simply support Israel when it does good things, and
widthdraw support when it does bad things. It shoulw no longer use its
veto at the UN to protect Israel when the later has done bad things.
With a more neutral position, the USA would then be able to talk
peer-to-peer with the arabs on how to solve the situation, instead of
the current situation where the USA represents Israel's interests and
this makes it not a negotiator, but a representative of only one side.
Neutral .ne. objective .ne. fair .ne. right
neutral |ˈn(y)oōtrəl|
adjective
1 not helping or supporting either of two opposing sides, esp.
countries at war; impartial : during the Second World War Portugal was
neutral.
But you favor punishing Israel harshly and little or no punishment for
the Arabs. Just how is this "neutral"?
AEF
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT: HP P*sses off China
- From: G Everhart
- Re: OT: HP P*sses off China
- References:
- Re: OT: HP P*sses off China
- From: Bob Koehler
- Re: OT: HP P*sses off China
- From: JF Mezei
- Re: OT: HP P*sses off China
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: HP P*sses off China
- Next by Date: Re: EDT like Editor for Mac OS X
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: HP P*sses off China
- Next by thread: Re: OT: HP P*sses off China
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|