In article ,
says...

On Sun, 22 May 2011 08:40:55 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 21 May 2011 18:55:59 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 21 May 2011 18:13:13 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:13:22 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:18:06 -0600,
wrote:

On 20/05/2011 1:58 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:49:41 -0600,
wrote:

It isn't about good will, it is about a sellout. Islam has declared
Israel an enemy of state. Reminds me of "peac in our time pre-WW II.

Maybe give Alaska back to the Russians while you are at it. And the US
Canadian border to the west should be a few degrees south.

Maybe give the Mexicans California and Texas back.

It doesn't end.
In this case it would be more like letting the Germans keep Poland but
the Texas California situation might be similar. We took that as the
spoils of war.
(We bought Alaska)
I really thought the idea of wars of conquest went out since the 40s
when we gave everything back that we took in WWII. In fact the US has
given back virtually everything it has taken in war since 1898. We
pretty much only have Puerto Rico and a small patch in Cuba today.

The only lasting peace in the middle east will have to start at the
1967 borders.
Fact is, go back far enough, Israel has claim. Islam fascism didn't get
brewing until 630AD....

So picking some arbitrary point in time between then and now...sort of
arrogant of Obama to say that. If I was Israel, I would open up talks
with the Russians and Chinese.... US is an UNRELIABLE ally.
Russia and China might want them to go back to the pre-1948 borders.
It should be noted that the Saudis are nuzzling up to the Chinese as
we speak and most of the Arab world was aligned with the Soviets until
fairly recently. The thing that changed that was Mubarak aligning
himself with the US and getting billions in US military aid about 30
years ago. Then a week into the protests we threw him under the bus.
It would not be surprising that they started looking East for a
friend.

I just *love* your "conservative" view of history. Egypt began getting
U.S. military aid *after* it came to terms with a peace treaty with
Israel. You know, the deal Jimmy Carter brokered.

I didn't say what prompted the cooperation but you are right.
It is amazing what you can get if you promise to upgrade a country's
obsolete Soviet hardware with first line US hardware and a billion
dollar's worth of training to use them.
It is also significant that the guy we cut that deal with is gone. We
are still not sure who will rise up from the shambles in Egypt but we
hope it turns out better than Iran.


The peace deal was signed with Sadat, who was assassinated. It was
always a tragedy that the aftermath threw up Mubarak who, after all, was
just another right-wing dictator, the kind we always seem to support.

Sadat got his ass handed to him in 1973 and knew that his Soviet
equipment was useless. As Greg said his deal with Israel got him new
equipment, training and billions of dollars. Mubarak could have been
seeing all of the money coming in and decided that he wanted to line his
pockets rather than let Sadat pad his families pockets.


It also ushered in a lasting peace between two countries at each
other's throats.

Peace is usually what happens after you get your ass kicked by another
country.

So, that's your method maintaining peace... beat up on everyone else?
Sheesh.

Peace does not come from mutual respect it comes from fear of getting
your ass kicked or from recently having your ass kicked.

Maybe in your tiny world, but mutual respect is the key to lasting
peace.


I have no idea what point you're trying to make about Mubarak. He
didn't take over in a coup d'état.

Who lead the coup?


There was no coup. Do you have the ability to Google?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosni_Mubarak

Mubarak took power after a failed coup.

Huh? There was no failed coup that involved Mubarak's ascendancy to
the office. He was already there.

All of the Routers are capable of running IPv6 now. All of your recent
Ethernet interfaces are capable of running IPv6. All of the OSes are
capable of running IPv6. The problem is that the internal network
infrastructure, meaning policies and procedures is are not capable of
running IPv6.