Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA03874 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Sun, 12 May 2002 09:52:15 +0100 Message-ID: <000f01c1f992$f5101d60$bbadeb3e@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: <F151iGuHGRsoIQOJXWW00012172@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Fw: future language Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 10:56:08 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Chase <email@example.com>
In ways I think Sharon as military guy or field general is easier to
tolerate than Sharon the politician or prime minister. Generals make good
generals, but when they enter the political arena...
<< I surely can agree on that though, it is necessary to hit back once you
were attacked, keeping the present situation in mind. If you go back in
history and you see what happened what led up to this you get a complete
different story, but that is not the point here.
Like you said, warfare and politics are two different things which in a
Sharon combines. He conducts politics on a military bias; strategic aspects
are of some importance and in a sense he is conducting a war, but OTOH
he has to govern a nation. And in that respect he lacks the ability, IMO.
If fighting all Israeli's ennemies is his agenda for his country, well I don
know, it does seem a little bit slim, doesn 't it !?
How can you built a nation, forsee some prospect for you people, how can
you develop economical/ technological/... aspects/ elements if everything
has to benefit the national security !?
I also am strongly compelled to agree with him, as he was one of the players
in support of the operation apparently, that Israel's attack on the Iraqi
nuclear reactor was important. In retrospect it was probably beneficial not
only to Israel, but to the U.S. to take that reactor out.
<< Agreed, but than again, why is Israel building A- bombs !?
To protect itself !? Ok, I can live with that, but lets turn the things
down for a while. Why can/ may not Iraq built a nuclear reactor, and in
the end make A- bombs for attacking Israel !?
Why, in a sense, may you possess bombs for massive destruction only
for defense and not for the attack !? Didn 't someone said, attacking is
the best defense !?
Of course, this is just an exercise and I understand Hussein and an A- bomb
doesn 't quite go well together, but will Israel ever use the bomb !?
I doubt that. So we are back to square one.
I suppose it is necessary for Israel to enforce its military means to defend
itself but don 't you think that the presence of that armery along its
bouring borders has a reverse effect_ that in fact Israel neighbours are
thinking those weapons doesn 't act for the defense but for the attack !?
And with Sharon acting as head of state....
It's good to see the peace process between Israel and Egypt (ie-Sadat/Begin)
trough Sharon's eyes.
<< Yeah, the latest news on that is that Egypt, Saudi- Arabia and Syria
try to make a deal, settling for peace if Israel hands over pieces of land
the Palestinians. Probably Sharon will spoil it down the drain....
My feathers start getting ruffled when it comes to Sharon's discussion of
the settlement policies.
=============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 12 2002 - 10:03:57 BST