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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (44982)	2/27/2002 4:46:59 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

The main thing is that they don't want to cede territory........ Not a surprising response -- land for peace isn't a popular concept these days. <g> Just a point of clarification, am I not right that Bangladesh didn't secede from India, but that it was originally part of Pakistan (I seem to recall drawing maps in school of West Pakistan and East Pakistan) and that got so cumbersome that they went their own way? I haven't studied the history of that region, so though I'm of course familiar with the fight for independence from Britain, I didn't follow all the partition stuff. In generic terms, the idea of nationhood seems to be no less fluid today than it was in the time of the Germanic empires and the French, Spanish, and British conquests of the "primarive" peoples of Africa, South America, et. al. Russia breaks apart, while Europe draws closer together. Various peoples battle for statehood -- Palestinians, Kurds, Kashmiri, and many others -- colonial empires continue to crumble (how long can Britain really retain ownership of the Faulklands, and will Argentina start the war up again to take the attention of the people off its economic troubles and give the military something to occupy themselves other than trying a junta)?