Letters to the Editor
cestmoi123
Published Letters: 235 Editor's Choice: 8
-
Glenn...
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt's foreign policy "principles"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So if the Colombian government found out there were FARC members or supporters in the U.S., would you defend their right to send their military to invade or to send aircraft to drop missiles?
If the US government were unwilling to help stop these attacks, after repeated efforts to get it to do so? Absolutely.
There are definitely people inside the U.S. who have worked to stage a coup in Venezuela, who are doing so now with Iran, and who have committed acts of violence against Cuba.
Do you think Venezuela, Iran and Cuba all have the right to invade the U.S., or drop bombs on the U.S., in order to target those people?
Certainly. It's their call. Their governments may decide that it's not worth the blowback, but it's their right.
Or is the Right to Invade all one-sided?
Nope. The right to invade is there for all countries - the question is always whether it's a good idea to invade.
Again, I put the question to you: what should Colombia do in a situation where another country is, at very least, unable not to harbor forces that are attacking Colombia? The same is true for Israel - if Lebanon can't or won't stop its territory from being used by groups that are attacking Israel, what's Israel to do? Just put up with it? What about Israel's territorial sovereignty?
It seems to me that either (a) Ecuador is in control of its territory, in which case its responsible for keeping those in it from making war on a neighboring country, or (b) it's not in control, in which case the territory can't appropriately be regarding as belonging to Ecuador, so it can't in any real sense be invaded.
-
ramoncreager
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt's foreign policy "principles"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The Palestinians have long accepted this solution."
Many of them probably do. A majority of those in Gaza, on the other hand, voted for a Hamas government whose official proposed "solution" to the conflict is the elimination of Israel entirely.
If Hamas were to stand up and say "we will recognize Israel's right to exist within its UN-mandated 1948 borders if Israel withdraws from the West Bank back to those borders," I'd be the first to tell the Israelis to take the deal. There's no sign, however, that the Palestinians are willing to take that step.
If you're in a dispute with your neighbor about where the fence between your yards should go, it's a bit hard to negotiate when your neighbor's official position is "I shoot you in the head and take your entire house."
-
Wishful thinking Mike
[Read the article: Twilight of the hedge funds]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If the rationale for outsourcing exists, it'll be done, PE shop or no.
-
Why is this necessary?
[Read the article: The great homeowner equity depression]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A mortgage is a contract between a lender and a borrower. If the lender decides it's in the lender's best interest to renegotiate rather than foreclose, the lender should do so, but I don't see why we should be _forcing_ the lender to renegotiate. If the lender would prefer to get the house back (and then sell it off), rather than a reduced payment stream, shouldn't that be the lender's call? It might be a dumb call, but it's their call.
-
ramon and CO
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt's foreign policy "principles"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]242 has been on the books for 40 years. It's still the basis of what needs to happen, ON BOTH SIDES. Why is it incumbent on Israel to make the first move? Why can't Syria come out and say "if Israel withdraws to the 1948 borders, we will recognize Israel?" Why can't Hamas do the same?
It's also a bit ahistorical to argue that things were fine in 1967, and Israel has made them worse since. If you recall, the Arab world wasn't exactly enamored with Israel in 67, after:
1. their efforts to keep Israel from being created in the first place were blocked
2. their plans to invade in 67 were stifled by the preemptive Israeli attack (and yes, it's possible that Egypt wasn't ACTUALLY planning to attack, but if you pull a gun and start yelling "I'm going to shoot you," and the other person draws his gun and shoots you, it doesn't help much to say "I didn't mean it, why did you shoot me?").
The 73 war wasn't exactly a love note either.
-
@Alkaline
[Read the article: The great homeowner equity depression]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I fully agree that lenders should take a fair share of the loss, and they certainly will, if the homes on which they foreclose can't be sold for enough to cover the mortgage (which is clearly the case for all these homes where the equity is less than zero). I think the lender should have the CHOICE, however, whether to cut a deal with the borrower or take its chances reselling the house.
-
@walter_map
[Read the article: The great homeowner equity depression]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So, what you're saying to lenders is "this better for you, and we're going to make you do it, even if YOU don't think it's better for you."
It may well be better for a lender to get "something rather than nothing," but shouldn't that be for the lender to decide?
As for being a conservative, well, compared to you I probably am. Given your posts, so is Hugo Chavez.