[phobiaphobe]

Ok try this analogy:

Mexico (friendly) elects a few extremist anti-USA representatives and its northern border becomes overrun with armed zealots. A couple US border guards are kidnapped and killed, and the government of Mexico is afraid (or incapable) of doing anything about it.

How does America respond?

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by Baketech

But we know (and history shows) that this method would have had the same "futile" results....

I am not sure this is true at all...Refusal to kill has never really been tried at this level of state/regional involvement. And I suppose it depends what results you are looking for...If you want muslim or jewish hegemony, it sure won't work. But, if you want the killing to stop, if that is your objective, live that objective. Stop killing first.

Originally Posted by Baketech

Your original post went a long way to voice the frustration we all share at the futility of the situation, but in order for your criticisms of Israel to hold water it is necessary that you propose a real solution...

Again, I don't think so. Don't we all have issues or individuals about which we voice frustration without having, immediately on hand, a reasonable, real, or complete solution? Although I don't feel it is necessary, my foundation for the argument is the solution...Peace.

[Baketech]

That puts us about 180 degrees out...but fair enough...

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

Ok try this analogy:

Mexico (friendly) elects a few extremist anti-USA representatives and its northern border becomes overrun with armed zealots. A couple US border guards are kidnapped and killed, and the government of Mexico is afraid (or incapable) of doing anything about it.

How does America respond?

Sexy, but not a good analogy. Mexico and the US have not been involved in a blood fued for 1500 years or so. That said, I doubt that launching cruise missles into Juarez and TJ is the right response. I might suggest that the serious threat of invasion and occupation, leading to annexation and protectorate status, would dissuade all but the most fringe (read: not posessed of deep popular support) zealots. In order for an analogy here to be appropriate it must have similar stressors. The existence of the US is only a good thing for mexico.

[Baketech]

Originally Posted by analogbear

To ensure I don't dodge your question with pushing my argument, I will answer it first: they should have asked for the return of the soldiers. When not returned, they should have told Hez that the peace process has sacrifices, and that if it took the sacrifice of those soldiers to show the region that real peace was better than constant conflict and killing, so be it. This one sacrifice would certainly not end the killing on its own, but several might, or at least show the region that peace is a serious objective. And, I still think fewer people would be killed with this non-violent approach. Look, isn't it one of the pop-definitions of insane doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results? The killing has been going on in that region over the same bullshit for centuries...Wake up and smell the futility.

One or two more quick questions...

In asking for the return of the hostages, you didn't address the soldiers that were killed during the kidnapping. How should Israel have handled that?

Also, assuming you've asked these teddy-bears for your hostages back and they say no, what do you do then?

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by Baketech

One or two more quick questions...

In asking for the return of the hostages, you didn't address the soldiers that were killed during the kidnapping. How should Israel have handled that?

Also, assuming you've asked these teddy-bears for your hostages back and they say no, what do you do then?

No need to get snide, they are obviously NOT teddy-bears. Again, allow them to be sacrificed (they are, after all, already dead...Killing more people is a good thing?) while suing for peace.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by Baketech

That puts us about 180 degrees out...but fair enough...

180 degrees regarding what? Perspective on the meta-issue, or with the "futility of peace" position I criticised as having no real historical basis and my pointing out the difference between mere criticism and criticism with a solution?

[Baketech]

Originally Posted by analogbear

No need to get snide, they are obviously NOT teddy-bears. Again, allow them to be sacrificed (they are, after all, already dead...Killing more people is a good thing?) while suing for peace.

Not being snide...it was a serious question.

I totally disagree that this is a workable solution, I' guess we'll just have to leave it at that...

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by Baketech

Not being snide...it was a serious question.

I totally disagree that this is a workable solution, I' guess we'll just have to leave it at that...

I dealt with the Q seriously, the snide thing was about the teddy-bear moniker...

[Baketech]

No worries...

[analogbear]

So, the way I see it, there are really two choices. Keep killing, or stop killing. If the ultimate goal is a cessation of all the killing in the region, an advocate for continued killing has to be really, really pursuasive to convince me. So far, I am unconvinced. All the additional killing I see is retaliatory and self-indulgent.

[Baketech]

Why would one engage in the futility of wishing for a cessation of killing in the region when there is no history to support that is even possible?

Pragmatists would say there aren't two choices as you suggest...just one...

[nedro]

Here's one. When do you think the UN will realise that this is not retaliation for a terrorist act? That this is an actual war?

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by analogbear

So, the way I see it, there are really two choices. Keep killing, or stop killing. If the ultimate goal is a cessation of all the killing in the region, an advocate for continued killing has to be really, really pursuasive to convince me. So far, I am unconvinced. All the additional killing I see is retaliatory and self-indulgent.

You sound like a pacifist. The biggest problem with your arguments is the assumption that Hillozohah (or Hamas) wants peace, they don't. These are groups that thrive on carnage and war. They have declared the total destruction of Isreal as a purpose of their existance. If Isreal were to abandon their soldiers Hezbollah would be back for more of them. Remember Isreal already pulled back once and the result is increased attacks.

In some cases your idea works. Egypt and Jordan live in peace largely with Isreal. However despite concessions Hezbollah and Hamas keep attacking Isreal. Sad is it is sometimes the answer is kill or be killed.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by Baketech

Why would one engage in the futility of wishing for a cessation of killing in the region when there is no history to support that is even possible?

Pragmatists would say there aren't two choices as you suggest...just one...

There is equally no history to suggest that it wouldn't be possible...It has never been tried.

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

You sound like a pacifist. The biggest problem with your arguments is the assumption that Hillozohah (or Hamas) wants peace, they don't. These are groups that thrive on carnage and war. They have declared the total destruction of Isreal as a purpose of their existance. If Isreal were to abandon their soldiers Hezbollah would be back for more of them. Remember Isreal already pulled back once and the result is increased attacks.

In some cases your idea works. Egypt and Jordan live in peace largely with Isreal. However despite concessions Hezbollah and Hamas keep attacking Isreal. Sad is it is sometimes the answer is kill or be killed.

Sheep, I am one of the handfull of folks on the .org that has actually killed people in war. As such, feel free to label me a pacifist, because the ultimate aim of modern war is to at sometime: stop. That is also why I listed the hegemony objectives in an earlier post. That is what the two sides (oversimplified sides, of course) are looking for now: domination/survival...To each side here they are synonymous...But, they are not really. You are right as rain that they do not want true peace, but that ought to be what they should want, and it ought to be what WE should want for them. The problem is, with the kill or be killed thing, they are already being killed, without the killing. Unfortunately, the only thing more killing is producing is even more killing. When and how will the insanity end? I don't know, but it sure seems that KILLING has, so far, NOt been very effective for any interests in the area.

[Custom900]

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

Ok try this analogy:

Mexico (friendly) elects a few extremist anti-USA representatives and its northern border becomes overrun with armed zealots. A couple US border guards are kidnapped and killed, and the government of Mexico is afraid (or incapable) of doing anything about it.

How does America respond?

If Mexico was supporting the terrorists then we would disarm them. Plain and simple. If you support terrorists then you are basically a terroist nation.

[ND4SPD]

Originally Posted by analogbear

To ensure I don't dodge your question with pushing my argument, I will answer it first: they should have asked for the return of the soldiers. When not returned, they should have told Hez that the peace process has sacrifices, and that if it took the sacrifice of those soldiers to show the region that real peace was better than constant conflict and killing, so be it. This one sacrifice would certainly not end the killing on its own, but several might, or at least show the region that peace is a serious objective. And, I still think fewer people would be killed with this non-violent approach. Look, isn't it one of the pop-definitions of insane doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results? The killing has been going on in that region over the same bullshit for centuries...Wake up and smell the futility.

No offense, but that sounds too much like the UN. We all know how effective they are...

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by analogbear

Sheep, I am one of the handfull of folks on the .org that has actually killed people in war. As such, feel free to label me a pacifist, because the ultimate aim of modern war is to at sometime: stop. That is also why I listed the hegemony objectives in an earlier post. That is what the two sides (oversimplified sides, of course) are looking for now: domination/survival...To each side here they are synonymous...But, they are not really. You are right as rain that they do not want true peace, but that ought to be what they should want, and it ought to be what WE should want for them. The problem is, with the kill or be killed thing, they are already being killed, without the killing. Unfortunately, the only thing more killing is producing is even more killing. When and how will the insanity end? I don't know, but it sure seems that KILLING has, so far, NOt been very effective for any interests in the area.

Actually as I pointed out both Jordan and Egypt responded by changing when they lost in a war. The result was a decent peace between the three countries.

The real problem(s) with current situation is that those getting killed are not the force behind things (Syria and/or Iran) Also the folks in palestine are being propped up in their ignorance and violence by the UN and up until now the US and Europe. If the subsidation stopped they may have to deal with the reality of their choices.

I agree the goal is to stop but stopping early can lead to more and worse violence later. A cease fire is not a end of violence merely a cessation. IF BOTH sides take advantage of the cessation to talk peace rather than rearm it sis worthwhile thing. Hezzbollah would use it to rearm. Europe is calling for Isreal to show restraint but I ask you if Hezbollah had a nuke would they use it now? Isreal has at least one and has not, I think they HAVE shown restraint.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

Actually as I pointed out both Jordan and Egypt responded by changing when they lost in a war. The result was a decent peace between the three countries.


I agree the goal is to stop but stopping early can lead to more and worse violence later. A cease fire is not a end of violence merely a cessation. IF BOTH sides take advantage of the cessation to talk peace rather than rearm it sis worthwhile thing. Hezzbollah would use it to rearm. Europe is calling for Isreal to show restraint but I ask you if Hezbollah had a nuke would they use it now? Isreal has at least one and has not, I think they HAVE shown restraint.

I may be unclear. I am not advocating a declared "cease-fire" but am instead saying that the more mature nation, the one who is committed to real peace, would declare that it would stop the killing first, and then do just that. I am not so naiive as to believe that war has not had some beneficial results over our human history...It certainly has. Unfortunately, any real reason sufficient for such a war (on the scale this current conflict seems bent on achieving and in the region in question) has been lost through posturing, massive cultural-ego bruising, and the asshole-itis of allowing "faith" of any kind to enter the political and interpersonal public realm. The mere fact that cessation of killing now won't immediately stop the conflict doesn't mean it is a bad idea. I think the worse idea might be continued senseless killing. I am all for sensible killing, but this perpetual conflict over marginally at best fertile desert soil that only has significance in the modern world because of some popular mythologies seems ludicrous!

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by Custom900

If Mexico was supporting the terrorists then we would disarm them. Plain and simple. If you support terrorists then you are basically a terroist nation.

Then America was a terrorist nation to Great Britain. Twice. But, I don't think that support for the "terrorists" was the essence of the comment you referenced.

Terrorism is guerrilla warfare by a losing or weaker side. If the perspective of marginalized populations around the world were afforded some respect by their local majorities, before things went too far there would be no "terrorists." Osama himself has even said if America had stayed out of middle-eastern affairs after helping bounce the Russians he would never have declared war on us...It is far too late to unring that bell of course, and perhaps this conflict will not end until there is an attempted extermination of either Muslims or Jews or Secular Humanists.