On 4 Aug 2002 at 14:22, Blunderov wrote:
> [joedees2]
> Actually, finding such solutions is good for both world stability and
> one's reelection chances, although by no means assuring same (not to
> mention one's historical legacy). The US has been engaged in the
> Mideast, at the demand of all parties involved and uninvolved, for
> thirty years in search of a sustainable solution; the president who
> pulls it off, if and when it happens, will have assured a greater
> place in the annals of history. [joedees2]
>
> [Blunderov3]
> A consummation devoutly to be wished.
> [Blunderov3]
>
> [joedees3]
> By both of us.
> [joedees3]
>
>
> [Blunderov4]
> Common ground ahoy? It may be that I have allowed my hyperbole to run
> away with me here and there. It may be that you have too. Anyway, now
> that our fangs are nice and pointy again, I have a proposal. Shall we
> start a new thread in which we attempt a think-tank about achieving
> this in as non- military a fashion as may be possible?
>
> I have hopes that such an approach might be more edifying at this
> point.
>
> Warm regards
>
I would like a fair and comprehensive Middle East peace (and not just
with the Palestinians alone; Syria needs to get its Golan Heights back)
achieved with as little military involvement as possible, but am willing
for that peace to be achieved with whatever military support should
prove necessary to enforce the provisions of the pact - on both sides.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:17 MDT