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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (25775)	8/2/2006 11:31:51 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542050

If there were two rival gangs shooting it out in a neighborhood and there was collateral damage, with whom would Baker negotiate? Gang A and gang B? Or Gang A and the little girl who was shot sleeping in her apartment? You want to do the latter. That makes no sense. If things were reversed - a gang of nasty Israeli teenagers sneaked across the border to kill Lebanese families and a powerful Lebanese armed forces leveled Haifa killing innocent Israelis - how do we negotiate a peace so that the conflict does not become WWIII. Do we bring the teenagers to the peacetable? In my scenario, Baker would negotiate with the Lebanese government to stop further bloodshed. He would ensure that the Israeli government keep their teenagers in check. He would bring in an International peace keeping force to ensure both side live up to the agreement. Is that too simple? I'm trying to communicate Cease Fire 101 to you--the people doing the shooting are the ones that have to do the ceasing. How do you negotiate a cease fire, if you think that the ones that are doing the firing have to be eradicated ? My premise coming into this was that negotiation was not useful in this case because there was nothing that could be offered that would deter the principals. You insist on negotiation and I challenged you to come up with something that could be offered that would deter the shooters. Not only have you come up with nothing, you seem to have lost track of the question. No solution is not a solution. That is taught in Solutions 101. I offered everyone incentives to stop the violence. I did not include Hezbollah because to exclude them there is much more likely chance to succeed. What you say makes no sense. You are saying that they must be included (for whatever reasons), but if you include them there is no chance to succeed. That makes no sense.