Subject:
|
Re: Conflict in the Middle East
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:40:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1039 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Trobaugh writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Trobaugh writes:
> > > > > The only way for a true peace to become a reality in the Middle East is for
> > > > > one side or the other to achieve a complete military victory. Appeasement
> > > > > got us where we are … victory can bring peace.
> > > >
> > > > People that prize peace do not express themselves in terms of "complete
> > > > military victory." And you think I make scarey comments?
> > >
> > > I was tempted to reply to James with "this is one of the scariest, most
> > > disturbing posts I've ever read on LUGNET."... but I thought I had better
> > > not! ;)
> >
> >
> > First let it be said that I don't enjoy the idea of war, I have never
> > personally fought in one and hope I never do, nor do I hope my son has to.
> > (I did spend 5 years with the Sheriff's but that's a whole different kind of
> > battle). What I am stating is that based on man's history we will never (at
> > least not in our lifetime) see a world that is with out conflict. There are
> > just too many egos at stake here. I too would like to live in a perfect
> > world where there were no conflicts, but I don't see that happening. It goes
> > back as far as Cain and Able. So my point was that unless one side or the
> > other completely over powers the other, this conflict in the Middle East
> > will continue for a long long time.
> >
> > So realize I'm just stating an observation of how I believe and end to the
> > fighting will come to the Mid East. It's not something that I'm endorsing,
> > nor is it something that I wish to happen.
>
> Sorry, I may have misunderstood your tone a little(!).
>
> > But we've all see what happens
> > every time the two sides "make peace", it just doesn’t' seem to stick. I'm
> > sure that more attempts at peace will be made here in the future and they
> > might stop the attacks for a while, but someday it will flare up again and
> > will continue to until one side "achieves a complete military victory"
>
>
> Scotland & England worked it out in the end...
>
> Scott A
>
> > jt
As did the British Empire and the United States. Why? There was no 'clear
victory' of either side in that war ('cause like, Canada's still here :) )
but, bottom line, imho,-- education. First it was war. Then realizing that
neither party was getting anywhere with it, they grew up, sucked it up, put
aside their differences (sure it took decades), got to a point where they
could say 'we agree to disagree'. Look at the countries now.
I might not agree on the war that's taking place now. But Britain and the
United States are fighting side by side.
Education. Growing up. Putting the hurts and the issues in the past.
These wars are like 2 6 year olds fighting over a truck 'It's mine!' 'No,
it's mine!' 6 year olds can go on like that all day. It's when they grow
up and come to realize that fighting is childish and stupid and doesn't get
them anywhere that they will eventually put fighting aside and try to
resolve their differences in an adult manner.
Just saying...
Dave
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Conflict in the Middle East
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) Huh? I'm pretty sure that there was a clear victor in the American Revolution, otherwise our money would still have a picture of the Queen on it. (no real comment on why Canada is here (...) (23 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
