Help with Rush Limbaugh yadda yadda: Has there ever been a conflict like this one...

Factual Questions
1

The Better Half listens to Rush while he’s casing mail every day, and this statement, repeated daily for the past week, is starting to drive him nuts. Goes something like this:

In other words, Rush is saying that there’s no way anybody can ever negotiate a settlement for this, because nobody has ever been able to negotiate a settlement for something like this, that a shootin’ war must be fought, and that there will have to be a winner and a loser.

So, the B.H. ran it past me, and I couldn’t really think of anything. I asked him, “Well, how are you defining ‘conflict’ and ‘resolved’?” He didn’t know, he’s just tired of hearing Rush and other commentators repeat it.

He was aggravated enough that he was puttering around on Google in frustration, trying to look up wars and things. So I finally told him, “Allow me to submit it to the Teeming Millions, and by suppertime tomorrow you will know whether Rush is F.O.S. or not.”

Because it’s Rush, I feel certain that it’s probably a sweeping generalization, but still, I thought I’d ask.

So, historically speaking, has anybody ever negotiated their way out of a mess like this?

2

I first heard this today, and I’ve been puzzling over it all day. I wasn’t listening closely enough to get Rush’s definition of terms, so here’s my interpretation. conflict: two groups, not necessarily nations, actively engaged in armed combat. resolved: a lasting and peaceful solution that is mutually satisfactory to the majority of both parties. I believe we’re talking about modern conflicts, post 1500.

I have three possible answers.

IRA vs. Great Britain - the Good Friday Peace Accord in 1998. It hasn’t been perfect, but it has drastically reduced the level of violence and shows real promise of ending this thing once and for all. Here’s an assessment

US vs. Soviet Union - the Cold War. Although there was little direct military confrontation, battles were waged through proxies and puppets. The war was won with economics rather than soldiers, i.e. no clear military victory. Treaties and cooperation agreements helped lessen the tension.

Reunification of North and South Yemen. Ideologically divided Yemen peacefully reunited after years of bloodshed. Although Yemen is still a hellhole, the differences that tore the country apart have been mostly resolved. Here’s a brief history.

There are arguments against each of these examples, of course, but they’re the best I can find.

3

One other thought … North and South Korea are moving slowly, but steadily towards a peaceful resolution of their decades-old conflict to reunification. Despite the rhetoric, it seems unlikely that the two nations will ever return to combat to finish their “war”.

4

The conflict between North Korea and South Korea has come a long way towards a negotiated settlement since the early 1950’s. Of course since N Korea’s inclusion in the “Axis of Evil”, that conflict probably doesn’t meet Rush’s criteria for “resolved.”
South Africa seems to have mostly survived its transition from apartheid to majority rule. This probably is not considered a “conflict” by Rush.

I’d guess that Rush has defined conflict resolution narrowly enough to be useless for anything except serving his own bellicose purposes. He pulls that sort of stunt a lot. Besides, if he wishes to paint the world with such a broad brush, the burden of proof is on him, not the poor befuddled listener.

5

The problem is the use of the condition “of this size.” How are we measuring size? Is that number of people kileld already? Time? Regional importance? Very ambiguous and typical of that FOS…person I don’t like. His positions are defensible because they are just vague enough to get away with, but filled with enough rhetoric to annoy. I stopped listening to him in high school whenI got tired of listening to his show and getting angry at his smugness.
makes me wanna puke

6

Has there ever been any bloviating fat turd as full of crap as Rush Limbaugh? Now that’s a question!

Herman Goering. Evil, fat, bombastic. Known for saying whatever was on his evil mind. Made wild boasts about what he was going to do, but granted his enemies a measure of respect. (“After the war, I’m going to buy and English radio set”.) Probably a bit more evil than Rush, but not as full of crap. Edge on crap, Rush.

Idi Amin. Lying genocidal maniac. (Still alive?) Yep, more evil than Rush. Not more full of crap. Edge on crap, Rush.

John Sununu. Not terribly evil, but really full of crap. Has habit of mixing real facts in on a much higher percentage than Rush. Edge Rush.

Orson Welles. Made up wild lies to promote is own ego, only known object in universe more massive than his outsized ass. On other hand, was greatest film director who has yet lived. Edge still Rush.

Jerry Falwell. Evil, lying, hate mongering bastard still hawking videotapes about Clinton based on fantasy. Besmirches name of almight several times an hour by pretending to be a Christian in his quest to accumulate wealth and poison the minds of others. Edge Jerry.

7

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose *
**The Better Half listens to Rush while he’s casing mail every day, and this statement, repeated daily for the past week, is starting to drive him nuts. Goes something like this:
quote Rush:
There has never [or “has there ever?”] been a conflict the size of this one [meaning Israel/Palestine] that was resolved without one side winning a clear [military] victory, and the other side definitely losing…

Well, the US and China were involved in a real shooting war in Korea. That conflict was probably bigger than the present Israel-Palestine thing. I don’t believe either side won a clear military victory, and it seems to have been resolved. I don’t think a resolution was ever “negotiated.” It seems to be the case that both sides just sort of let it drop.

Most big business men, many of whom would probably support Rush’s viewpoint, would like even closer relations with China than we have now.

This is a different question. I’m not sure that there has been a mess exactly like this before. I have no idea, and it looks like GW and his crew don’t have one either, even with that magnificent 80% approval rating.

Rush’s view does seem a little pessimistic not to mention unrealistic. Since this conflict is of a rare type, if not unique, the fact that it hasn’t been solved before isn’t surprising. Not even Rush knows what can be done in advance of its having been tried.

A clear victory for one side or the other just doesn’t look possible. To “defeat” the Palestinians probably means killing every last present terrorist and all who might become terrorists in the future. And can you imagine that the “defeat” of Israel would be tolerated in view of the fact that would probably mean the end of that nation?

8

(Not that I have much hope for a resolution, but)
It should be remembered that this is the first era in history in which either side would have felt compelled to restrain themselves.

Had this happened in 1850, It is likely that the Israelis would have simply sent their army through the Occupied Territory demanding immediate cessation of opposition, followed by really brutal suppression. (Before anyone chimes in that they are already brutal, please read the reactions of the British to the Sepoy Mutiny or to the Boxer Rebellion or any general history of the “settling” of the U.S. West. By contrast, the Israeli brutality is almost amateurish.)

Limbaugh’s claim may prove (generally) true (with the possible exceptions already noted), but so what? In 1944, it could be fairly claimed that no nation (or allied group) was so “foolish” as to provide the capital for a vanquished enemy to rebuild. Does that mean that the Marshall Plan never happened?

History does tend to be cyclic and repetitious, however, noting that is different than claiming that the cycles of history are deterministic.

9

Since this is a forum for facts and not opinions I must call you on this. Stanley Kubrick was in fact the greatest film director who ever lived.

10

The IRA example is of no real relevance here.

Why not? Because even he most militant factions in Ireland have NEVER wanted to destroy England. All they ever wanted was to drive the British out of Ireland. Indeed, once the British were out of what’s now the Republic of Ireland, the Irish bore very little malice toward England.

I don’t see how anyone can seriously caim that the Palestinians want anything less than the annihilation of Israel. THAT desire, along with their willingness to do ANYTHING (including blowing themselves up) to bring about tht destrucion, makes this situation pretty unique.

11

[hijack for old joke]

What’s the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenberg?

One’s a flaming Nazi gasbag and the other’s a dirigible.

[/hijack for old joke]

12

How about the Franco-Algerian war? That one had a negotiated settlement in 1962 after 250,000 Algerians and 25,000 French had been killed.

I would like to claim that this information springs from my brilliant mind. But the credit must go to this opinion piece in today’s paper.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48585-2002Apr1.html

13

The Bosnian Civil War would probably qualify, but of course like other conflicts it depends on how you define “settled” and “clear victory.”

The Salvadoran and Nicaraguan Civil Wars were also at the end “settled” relatively peacefully without a clear military victory over the opposition forces.

Likewise the struggle in South Africa. Maybe that wasn’t big enough, by Rush’s definition, although it involved much larger populations.

14

Isn’t relying on Rush Limbaugh for factual information sorta like using Jack Chick tracts for religious guidance?

15

It’s too bad that some people delight in spoiling an interesting question with ad hominem attacks. It’s all too easy to slam Rush, but the place for that is the Pit. Can we stick to the topic at hand, please?

16

Two other similar conflicts, both of which even included suicide bombings, were the Lebanese civil war and Sri Lanka.

17

DDG said

I can tell you right now. He’s full of shit.

18

The millenium-long struggle between the Austro-Hungarians and the Turks comes to mind. It is one of the most tragic, brutal, intractable and longest conflicts I can recall.

They fought each other to an inconclusive standstill. Then suddenly, without either side compromising their religious beliefs they discovered that they had enough common interest to ally with each other in World War I. (Whereupon they both got their asses kicked.)

If the conflict is viewed as a Christian-European/Muslim-Asia Minor struggle, it’s also worth noting that Turkey has now been allied with Christian Europe for half a century via NATO.

19

The Franco-Algerian war is of no relevance here, either. It didn’t ened in a negotiated compromise, it ended with France giving up and leaving Algeria completely.

That is, one side achieved a military victory or the other.

Scoff at Rush Limbaugh all you want to in Great Debates or the Pit, but in THIS thread, you have to refute him FACTUALLY. He’s defying his critics to name a situation comparable to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in which a peaceful settlement was reached by compromise and negotiation. And so far, NOBODY heres given an example from history that refutes him.

Oh sure, there are LOADS of examplesof nations that used to be enemies, but later formed alliances (England and France, for instance), and there are many cases in which a former colonial powers enjoys generally friendly relations with nations that had kicked them out in violent revolutions (England/the USA, France/Algeria, Colombia/Panama). But if you can think of a single case in which two peoples with absolute claims to a piece of land have ever come to a peaceful resolution throug negotiation… well, you’re a better man than I am.

Unlike other “imperialist” powers, Israel doesn’t have a safe, secure home base to retreat to. The Englishmen who were kicked out of Ireland could always o bak to England. The Frenchmen uprooted from Algeria could always go back to France. But if te Palestinians have their way, Israel will cease to exist. There ISN’T any land they acknowledge to be “Jewish.” As far as the Palestinian Arabs are concerned, ALL of Palestine is theirs. In my opinion, they won’t be content until the Jews are dead or gone.

But my opinion is moot, of course, since we’re in General Questions. So, my answer to the OP is that Limbaugh is, sadly, right. There’s no precedent for a peaceful settlement to a conflict similar to this one. And from what I’ve seen in this thread, nobody else has (yet) come up with an example to rebut Limbaugh. In every example I’ve seen so far, one side or the other has achieved a clear military victory, and the oher side as retreated in shame.

I actually do HOPE a negotiated settlement is feasible. But if it happens, it will be unprecedented.

20

I suppose it will depend somewhat on definitions, but the **First World War **comes to mind. The immediate hostilities were settled by first a truce and then negotiations and finally a flawed treaty. Granted it only lasted about 25 years before things started getting out of hand again. But it was addressed without one side clearly losing. That was actually part of the problem.

I would also point to the **War of 1812 ** and as has been mentioned, the Korean Conflict. I vaguely would suggest the Revolutionary War. While we see the battle of Yorktown as a definitive win, was it in a wider perspective? Or was it that the English had bigger fish to fry nearer home?