Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: long-gone who wrote (57839)	9/3/2000 1:35:09 AM
From: d:oug	Respond to of 116782

Richard, I have Good News & Very Bad News for: Will water precipitate next Mideast war? Last year I wrote an off topic post that gave my prediction of what the final outcome to the conflicts in this area will be. If I am really able to describe a so called final outcome to the longer than long conflicts in this area, then all I have to do is write it up and submit it to the U.N. and next year be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Looks my final outcome situation is not something where all sides in the conflict agree to let be, but a situation where there is no reason to continue the conflict. Not because one side erased the other thru massive weapons of destruction since each side has enough firepower to pollute the other side whereby the land called the Middle East will be chemical, biological and radiation contaiminated for 1,000 years. Its a no win even if a side of this conflict erases 99.99% of the population of the other side since their land mass will not allow them to continue to live there, and "there" represents as all already know not just land to live on, but land of a location that respresents a history of great significants. All I have said so far is knowned by all. Will this conflict be resolved? Is a question with an answer of "no" as both sides lay claim that they hold rightful ownership, and as such only they can decide the manner in which occupation happens. My speculation is that if the governing structures on both sides agree to a condition that allows..... -stop- Actually Richard I perfer not to go on any further with this speculation of mine since it brings into play the fact knowed by all persons of the ability of persons outside the accepted U.N. recognized sides to "take matters in their own hands" and stop or undo a solution agreeded upon to let both sides live together and shares land and resources enough so that the side that can not exercise what they feel they have a right to do on the land they are denied from their history, but accept to agree to the terms allowing a cease of military conflict while they have no choice but to hold in thoughts that the other side through superior military force has what belongs to them. Not sure if my above English grammer matches my thoughts. Bottom line, chemical, biological and radiation means allow those outside any future settlement described above to have the ability to undo the above under the awareness that such is not allowed by their beliefs and rather than let it happen they are required to "remove" the land so that the side counter to theirs can not remain there. This is what I call Very Bad News, that a resolution to this conflict will lead to an end result that once each side agrees to certain terms of a "give & take", that those who understand that this is not allowed, letting the other side remain in control while their side accepts the solution as better than conflict, with the understanding that their struggle without a military activity will let the other side to never lose what "is not theirs." Guess I'm saying that if it becomes true "Peace in the Middle East", to me it will be followed with what I talked about. Not sure if this post is on topic. Not sure if I said what I tried to say. Since I have no religion and derive no insight or direction from such, I am totally without qualification or ability to understand and judge or decide the agruments of each side in this conflict. This reminds me of an issue I have with Ayn Rand, as she once justified as correct the settlement of the USA by persons from Europe that required the native American Indians to be denied their birthright and ownership of land they occupied. The USA then created laws to protect its citizens from "outsiders" using force to take over "their space." Once again, I am 100% Polish, whatever that means. enough doug