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 : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (18265)	5/12/2003 9:23:29 PM
From: mcg404	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81438

Searle: Sorry, but I continue to miss you point. I disagree with nothing you've written but don't see how you are getting from 'the UN has to determine [solutions]' to 'the UN is unable to enforce these resolutions' and 'that the UN is effectively defunct' to 'the UN has to put its "money (or whatever) where its mouth is' Seems (to me) you are arguing the UN is now meaningless (or at least as a mechanism for resolving international disputes) but they are still the means by which this must be resolved...what am i missing? But regardless, my real question was (and still is) a little broader: is it reasonable for a 3rd party to think its attempts to ‘force’ peace on two parties will result in a positive outcome? And this is why I pointed to the ‘diversity myth’ article. You unfairly (imo) criticize schwartz when you say he considers the only workable solution to an ethnically divided society is "ethnic cleansing”. He cites examples of such ‘cleansed’ societies and points to them as ‘more stable’ but I don’t see this as advocacy of cleansing but societies that might work better than an ethnically diverse one, and therefore we might not want to put a lot of effort into preserving such societies? But his primary point (imo) is to question the wisdom of a 3rd party involving itself in someone elses dispute when that solution involves having enemies ‘live together in peace’. And it makes me think that attempts for a 3rd party to force a solution, like ‘peace’ on others is very likely doomed to eventual failure. Very often the long term solution is to remove one of the parties involved. Not a great solution, but one that people have unfortunately used a lot in the past, and one more fitting of the label ’pragmatic’ than the one you suggested. And like schwartz, I’m not advocating anything here, of course. Just looking at how these things frequently resolved versus how we’d like them to resolve.