Israeli cease fire

[jshuberg]

So, apparently Israel and Hamas have worked out a cease fire agreement. Personally, I think this is *not* a good thing for long term peace.

Warfare is the most documented and studied activity in human history. As I understand it, there has *never* in the history of human civilization been a diplomatically negotiated cease fire that has resulted in peace except in the very short term. The only way the peace has ever been achieved once a situation has escalated to war is for one side to win, and one side to lose. Germany and Japan have long been allies of the US, and there are almost no hard feelings that are left over culturally from the war. By way of comparison Korea is still a very hostile situation, with both sides poking and provoking the other to this day. Without China holding N Korea back, that situation would have already escalated to war, and it still may.

Israel has nuclear weapons, and most other actors in the region have chemical weapons. Iran is on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon. We are very quickly running out of time before someone escalates the hostilities to CBRN warfare. Using history as a guide, the only way that this can be prevented is to *not* declare a cease fire. Let the dogs off the leash, and let this fight go until one of them wins, and one of them loses.

There are probably very few opportunities left for the conflict to be settled with conventional weapons. If they continue to kick the can down the road there will absolutely become a point where the conflict with go nuclear. While war is an absolutely terrible thing, history shows the the best (if not the only) way to achieve real peace is to fight the war to conclusion. Putting it on hold just buys time until the next time it heats up.

I know this is a highly controversial point of view, but I find it shocking that no one else really brings it up. Everyone seems to be obsessed with short term solutions to the hostilities, while at the same time there appears to be absolutely no plan to prevent the long term proposition of nuclear war. I don't get it.

[Heffay]

I take it you don't care who wins, as long as there is a winner? So we can have peace?

[John S.]

It's always about religion..............................................or a women

[jshuberg]

:o

I take it you don't care who wins, as long as there is a winner? So we can have peace?

it's hard to take a side since this has been going on for a very long time, but personally I lean toward the side of Israel. However, if what it takes is Israel getting its butt spanked in order to prevent a nuclear holocaust, I think the choice is obvious.

I'm just surprised that no one else advocates letting the take the gloves off and end this damn thing already before it goes nuclear. I would think at some point someone would bring up the fact that the only way a war truly ends is for there to be a winner. It doesn't make sense to me.

[Heffay]

:o

I take it you don't care who wins, as long as there is a winner? So we can have peace?

it's hard to take a side since this has been going on for a very long time, but personally I lean toward the side of Israel. However, if what it takes is Israel getting its butt spanked in order to prevent a nuclear holocaust, I think the choice is obvious.

I'm just surprised that no one else advocates letting the take the gloves off and end this damn thing already before it goes nuclear. I would think at some point someone would bring up the fact that the only way a war truly ends is for there to be a winner. It doesn't make sense to me.

American Revolution/War of 1812?

One side just gave up. And now we're besties.

Vietnam too. Spanish-American war.

Your premise is wrong.

[Heffay]

:o

I take it you don't care who wins, as long as there is a winner? So we can have peace?

it's hard to take a side since this has been going on for a very long time, but personally I lean toward the side of Israel. However, if what it takes is Israel getting its butt spanked in order to prevent a nuclear holocaust, I think the choice is obvious.

I'm just surprised that no one else advocates letting the take the gloves off and end this damn thing already before it goes nuclear. I would think at some point someone would bring up the fact that the only way a war truly ends is for there to be a winner. It doesn't make sense to me.

As I understand it, there has *never* in the history of human civilization been a diplomatically negotiated cease fire that has resulted in peace except in the very short term.

American Revolution/War of 1812?

One side just gave up. And now we're besties.

Vietnam too. Spanish-American war.

Your premise is wrong.

[jshuberg]

Ummm, giving up *is* the same thing as losing.... And is how the majority of wars end. I don't think there is any question the the British lost the revolutionary war, since America is no longer a British territory.

[Heffay]

Ummm, giving up *is* the same thing as losing....

All the ones I listed above were diplomatically negotiated cease fires. England didn't surrender to us.

Like I said, your premise is wrong.

[jshuberg]

They may not have stated the words 'we surrender', but they did in fact surrender all of their territories in the Americas to the colonists with whom they were fighting. When one side surrenders the cause for which they are fighting to the enemy, and gives up, they have in fact surrendered. You seem to be confusing words on a piece of paper with reality.

Japan's surrender was also diplomatically negotiated. But there is no question that we won. There should also be no question that we lost Vietnam. The North took over the South, and roughly 2.5 million S Vietnamese died after we withdrew. We may have never officially stated that we surrendered when we left, but we did surrender the territory and government of S Vietnam to the enemy when we left. The fact that there is no longer a S Vietnam indicates that there was a winner and a loser, and we were on the side that lost. Contrast this with Korea, where there was no winner, and is still very hostile to this day.

The difference between all the wars you've listed and the conflict in the middle east is that there was a definitive winner on the ground *prior* to the diplomats hammering out the terms for peace. Every time things heat up with Israel, external parties get involved and produce a temporary solution on paper without a clear winner existing on the battlefield. This is a failing effort that can never succeed. This war with Israel is being fought over territory and sovereignty, and until one side surrenders what they are fighting for, meaning that they have lost, no diplomatically negotiated cease fire can result in long term peace.

Are you of the belief that these most recent negotiations will actually result in long term peace? If not, what do you believe will?

[sgruenhagen44]

Ummm, giving up *is* the same thing as losing....

All the ones I listed above were diplomatically negotiated cease fires. England didn't surrender to us.

Like I said, your premise is wrong.

All wars end with negotiation. It just is a matter of how much money and how many people you have left to fight. When you run out of both, then you negotiate! With jshuberg on this one. I lean toward Israel as well but it is hard not to sympathize with Palestine. You have to come up with something better than just saying god gave you the land. I watched a documentary on this ongoing conflict awhile back and something stuck with. Basically the gist of what an israel said was this... It's only a matter of when and how Israel is blown off the map. It's a scary reality, but when one nation is surrounded by predominantly Islamic nations it does make things tense and you really have no allies. Don't get me wrong I hope this NEVER happens to any country. To say it can't happen is naive. It is about time to let them figure it out. Ron Paul is right, cut their aid. We have enough issues to worry about.

[goalie]

One way to look at it that kind of clears things up for you is this:

If the Palestinians laid down their arms, the conflict would cease to exist. If Israel laid down it's arms, Israel would cease to exist.

IMO, Israel screwed up by not treating the Palestinians in the EXACT same manner that Jews were treated when the state of Israel was created. The Jews were booted out of most middle-eastern countries and their land taken. Taking the high-ground and trying to co-exist hasn't worked out too well for them ever since.

The Palestinians, FWIW, are apparently not the best guests either. Their neighbors don't seem to want them around, and have had big problems with them as well.

[JoeH]

If the Palestinians laid down their arms, the conflict would cease to exist. If Israel laid down it's arms, Israel would cease to exist.

Well said.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[minnesotatv]

If the Palestinians laid down their arms, the conflict would cease to exist.

bull

[goalie]

If the Palestinians laid down their arms, the conflict would cease to exist.

bull

Actually, you are correct. There is still disputed territory that Israel never should have allowed Palestinians back into after they won it in a war. Again, the high road got them nowhere.

And, do you dispute what would happen if Israel laid down their arms? Would it be significantly different than what would happen if the roles were reversed?

[One Man Wolf Pack]

Don't know where I heard it but made perfect sense.
The Palestinians live off of the aid they receive, so in order to refill their coffers they get in a conflict the mediate a ease fire with foreign aid a condition of peace. Whenever the funds run low they start launching more rockets and pke the bear until a response is received. Then they get another decade of free monies.

They are like Obama voters, just further along in their de-evolution and inability to produce anything.