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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (175213)	9/17/2003 5:07:00 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584306

They were stopped because they lived in refugee camps in the middle of those countries. Not all of them where in camps, esp. in Jordan where they make up a large percentage of the population. (and where they were not "shipped back to Palestine"). But the Palestinians knew that they would be slaughtered if that was what it took to preserve the ruling regime. <font color=blue>According to the Jordan Times, 1.3 refugees were still living in 13 camps. That's been since the 1950s. As the article suggests, I doubt there are many Palestinians living among the Jordanians. The Arabs look down on the Palestinians almost as much as the Israelis. And yes, some Palestinian refugees were shipped back to Palestine after the war with Israel.<font color=black> jordanembassyus.org Jordan Times Tuesday, August 10, 1999 No plans to settle Palestinian refugees in Jordan — premier By Saad G. Hattar AMMAN — Prime Minister Abdur Ra'uf S. Rawabdeh on Monday dismissed reports that Jordan had any plans to settle Palestinian refugees in the Kingdom and stressed that it was premature to form any concept over any future unity between Jordan and a Palestinian state. Speaking at his first press conference with local and foreign reporters yesterday, Rawabdeh said Jordan had vested interests in final status talks between Israel and the Palestinians, but stressed that the Kingdom would not be a “signatory” to any agreements resulting from the much-delayed negotiations. “We never deal with floating ideas, we rather deal with reality. We are not talking about settling Palestinian refugees but about their unwavering rights,” Rawabdeh told reporters. “Our duty in the final status talks is to protect Jordan's rights and those of Jordanians,” said Rawabdeh. “Some Jordanians have outstanding rights in Palestine.” “We have rights there, but we will not be signatories to any agreement,” he noted. He pointed out that pertinent United Nations resolutions underline “the right of refugees to return or to compensation.” “The settlement of refugees in the diaspora has not been a point of discussion on the negotiating table,” added Rawabdeh. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak during his talks with U.S. President Bill Clinton in Washington last month proposed that refugees be settled in the host country and compensated through an international effort. Jordan is home to roughly 1.3 million refugees living in 13 camps across the country, nearly one-third of all refugees in host countries.

To: TimF who wrote (175213)	9/17/2003 5:23:20 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584306

I see.....you think that if Israel kills more people, the violence will stop. If it weren't for the fact that a lot of innocent people will die, I would love Israel to do just that.....in order to show you that you are wrong. People will fight to their death when they are fighting for their freedom. Most people won't fight to the death. If Israel was actually brutal enough to say kill 10% of the Palestinians, most of the rest would flee and resistance from the few that remain would be pretty much broken. Its not going to happen and its a good thing that its not going to happen, but if you do get that level of power and brutality most or all of those who would otherwise oppose you die, flee, or give up. This has happened time and time again in history, including putting down religious fanatics. See the Roman and Mongol conquests for some examples. One good specific example is the Roman's putting down Israeli resistance. At Masada and elsewhere the Israelis fought to the death but that just meant that they died. After that the remainder of the population fell in line. And what was left of the population was decimated. People who want their freedom will fight to the death and sometimes it will come to that but most times, they want their freedom more than their overlords are willing or can afford to pay to withhold it. Afghanistan and Russia is a classic example of the latter. Its been going on for almost 50 years and you don't think there is a message to be had from the lack of progress If the IRA was not resisted there would be even less progress. There could not be less progress. N. Ireland is essentially moribund. In the past ten years, Ireland has prospered and surpassed N.Ireland in per capita income when it used to be that N.Ireland was the more properous. If the terrorist group thinks there will be no opposition and no price to pay for its violence then there is no incentive to negotiate unless the other side is prepared to give up on just about everything. There is opposition to the IRA and that opposition finally has decided to negotiated. Yet, after years of fighting, neither side was willing to budge from their position. Once again, negotiations have broken down. I think your thesis is incorrect and you underestimate the passion involved in these feuds. We gave up because we were losing. The underdog won. We had less at stake. We didn't give up, we left. The South still existed after we left until it was crushed by tanks from the north. As for having less at stake Israel doesn't have less at stake. They are also fighting for their homes. Regarding the former, if you want to say we left that's fine but the rest of the world says we gave up. As for Israel, its not fighting for its homeland; I believe its fighting for water. "In Afghanistan the terrorists behavior has been reduced by massive application of force." They have? You haven't heard about the resurgent Taliban? "Has been reduced" does not equal "has been eliminated". And "resurgent" does not mean "has been reduced". The goal was to topple Iraq and put the country firmly on the road to democracy. The first part is "wining the war", the second part is "winning the peace". They are one and the same to me. For the US military, its the worst possible scenario: fighting a war against guerilla terrorists, instead of a standing army, on enemy territory in a horrific climate! Its the worst of all worlds. Hardly the worst of all possible worlds. The US military has been in worse situation on many occasions. There may be worse situations.......I am not about to try and figure that one out. However, that does not change the fact that Iraq is the worst of all worlds. There can be several worst of all worlds. ted