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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (200246)	8/30/2006 1:32:52 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

f you currently have two states (or one state and one quasi-state) and the people of each don't like each other, and the people of one have an active campaign of terrorism against the other, its probably best to not try to combine the two societies in to one unified state. What about one state with two groups of people, were one group currently controls power and runs state security, while the other group is running an active campaign of terrorism against the state? Would you turn power and state security over to the latter group? That was Rhodesia and South Africa.

To: TimF who wrote (200246)	8/31/2006 2:59:41 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If you currently have two states (or one state and one quasi-state) and the people of each don't like each other, and the people of one have an active campaign of terrorism against the other, its probably best to not try to combine the two societies in to one unified state. If your sentence ended with the words "in one day" I would agree. However, rather than your conclusion I would right from "it's probably best to" change the situation such that the two groups stop fighting each other and are able to live together in peace, harmony and equality. That's what my 20-50 year reunification plan is designed to achieve.