> Sam wrote: > Your analogy is all wrong. Then you don't understand it. Here are the salient points:
1.) A contract is only as good as the parties that sign it. 2.) In the case of an ownership dispute, possession is 9/10ths of the law. 3.) The biggest gun wins. In this case you've got disputed land being fought over by equally matched, militarized parties. Both call the other's military forces terrorists and any discussion quickly devolves into justifying murder based on "self" defense. The correct answer is that there is no one right moral answer except for these 2 parties to arrange a peaceful settlement. From an American point of view we should be a neutral party seeking to accomplish that, but for years we haven't been. So, we should take an honest position. Either: 1.) Declare and ACT neutrally, or 2.) Take a side and fight to win. Currently the US position is officially neutral and unofficially with Israel. That 's stupid. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:169387 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
