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 (176612)	10/14/2003 7:53:09 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571682

If there is no negotiation either the conflict goes on with the weaker side suffering more, or the conflict ends on the terms of the stronger side. If there is a negotiation more often then not the stronger side will get things a bit closer to what it wants then to what the weaker side wants. Certainly the stronger side will have to give up something (unless it is so much stronger that it could impose the terms at gunpoint if the weaker side doesn't give it what it wants through negotiation) but normally the stronger side will not meet the weaker side half way. Stronger vs weaker......apparently this is the new mantra of conservatives; I am hearing in several different quarters now. However, in terms of Israel vs the Palestinians, the Israelis have always been stronger, first with the help of Europeans who felt guilty over the atrocities committed by Hitler, and then with the help of the US. How can the Palestinians be anything but weak by comparison? That's like starving the hell out of one dog and feeding the other regularly in order to prove the point that the first dog is too weak to live. You make your point with overt intervention. Once again, we are faced with niggardly thinking. ted