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

Factual Questions
21

astorian, like Rush you are simply trying to define your way out of the issue.

Tell me, in what way does the Bosnian Civil War not answer the criterion? It ended in a negotiated compromise in which none of the three ethnic groups involved won an absolute victory and none achieved their more ambitious war aims. Or perhaps this is not yet “settled?” Or perhaps it wasn’t “large enough” to qualify?

In what way does the South African conflict not answer the criterion? A negotiated settlement was reached in which neither of the most extreme elements of the two sides gained their ultimate goals (continued apartheid for the Afrikaaners, appropriation of white property or perhaps expulsion for the more extreme black factions.) Neither side won a decisive victory.

And if you don’t like the Nicaraguan or Salvadoran Civil Wars (because they didn’t involve two distinct ethnic groups), how about the Guatemalan Civil War, which was largely between acculturated latinos and less acculturated indigenous groups.

Rush’s statement is pure B.S.

[Stand by for some fancy footwork on the part of astorian ]

22

Ah, baloney.

  1. Since when are opinions verboten in GQ? Opinions are not the focus, perhaps, but on an internet message board, informed opinion is really about as good as it gets. Other message boards wish they had it so good.

  2. As soon as the word “comparable” appears in the challenge, the floor is pretty much cleared for opinions anyhow, isn’t it? It’s a subjective test. If one of us comes up with a counter-example, you can just say that it’s not that comparable - and that would be just your opinion, by the way.

  3. There are - in my opinion - NO comparable historical situations, rendering what Mr. Limbaugh said, and most of the debate about it, moot. (Sure, there have been conflicts based on old hatreds resolved peacefully and not-so-peacefully, but they haven’t had the degree of superpower meddling that’s happened in the Middle East.)

Anyhow, in spite of Mr. Limbaugh’s many years of service in international affairs, close ties to the diplomatic corps, and his globally unsullied reputation as a top-shelf journalist :rolleyes:, I think he’d be wiser to steer clear of making such flat, blanket assertions.

23

This isn’t the place to debate, but if we can take astorian’s characterization as the voice of Rush, then we open the door to still more examples. For example:

The Maori peoples of New Zealand fought many battles with arriving colonists, and were long considered to be “defeated,” as well as trapped in one of the most remote places on the globe.

However, in the 1970s it was successfully argued that the Treaty of Waitangi had guaranteed certain sovereingty and property rights of the Maori tribes, rights which had not been honored by the colonists, and there are land settlements and reparations being negotiated as we speak, with minimal bloodshed. The end result is the two peoples coexist peacefully and somewhat more equitably than they had.

There are countless similar examples within the United States and Canada. A great many tribes never fought the non-Indians, peaceably negotiated deals to move or reduce their land base for profit, were ripped off, and have since peacefully regained some of it. Most of the United States was purchased from tribes through peaceful negotiation.

You want an example of a place where the country is divided, tensions are high, foreign powers are continually meddling, and yet nobody’s blowing themselves up in shopping malls? Look no farther than Cyprus, a neigbor in the region. No, the place isn’t peaceful or content or unified, but it ain’t a blood-gushing war zone, either, and negotiations are well underway. Perhaps it’s no wonder that the Cypriot government has offered to help in the current mess in Israel.

And I feel compelled to point out the classic defense of the analogy challenged here. You’re damned right the Arab-Israeli dispute is unique, just as is every other event in history. Asking for similar examples and then trying to shoo offered examples away because they aren’t similar enough is emblematic of The Man Who Has Two Buttholes Yet Still Can’t Tell The Difference Between His Ass and a Hole In the Ground, Mr. Limbaugh. It is intellectually dishonest.

24

Interesting spin. Deceptive, bordering on false, but interesting.

In fact, the French negotiated a ceasefire and subsequent withdrawal after a referendum. (Evian Accords finished things up) The withdrawal included terms on the removal of “French citizens” as well as terms in regards to the same who remained and various factors of treatment for French entities which remained operative in Algeria after the settlement until well into the 1970s. The French had simply gotten tired of fighting, but more importantly came to the political realization that it was not useful and political settlement in that context.

In any case, the Israeli-Palestinian situation contains many deep parallels – as well as some serious differences.

I don’t have time to address the remainder of the message.

25

Sofa King, I have a perverse urge to make that my username.

26

The birth of modern India/Pakistan.

Watching ‘Gandhi’ again the other day reminded me of this. It is agruable that India’s winning of independence from Britain itself is enough to satisfy the particulars, even though it was inevitable, Gandhi or not.

I’m not going to suggest anything between I and P because that’s still droning on today.

Slightly related, I think South Africa is another contender.

Mike Duncan
http://www.weeklylowdown.com

27

Wait, how can the French-Algerian war be viewed as anything but a dead loss for the French. Sure, there might have been a negotiated cease-fire, a treaty, etc., but at the end of it all the French soldiers left, the French colonists either left or were killed, and Algeria became completely independent.

The question of whether Algeria would remain a French colony or become an independent country was decided when the French had had enough of the war. The French weren’t brought to the negotiating table (where they agreed to withdraw completely) until after a military campaign of startling brutality.

28

Jeez, I didn’t need to say that here. Please excuse my incivility in the midst of an interesting question.

29

Advice, don’t get your Algeria history from films.

(a) The French began serious negotiations in 58 - they clearly still had a military upper hand.
(b) Negotiated settlements included
(i) Terms of a referendum -which the FLN won
(ii) Terms for the exit of French settlers
(iii) Terms for French citizens who remained – who were not massacred. The poor Algerians who worked with the French were treated badly, but hey the agreements didn’t cover the harkis.
(iv) Terms for the regular continuation of French entities in Algeria, which included the continued operation of French state and parastatal companies who retained their ownership interests until the 1970s when nationalization occcured – with compensation as I recall.
(v) Terms for French ‘aid’ in re repairs - the start of the subterranean relations between ‘Le pouvoir’ in Algeria and the French State.

In short, a bloody conflict that did have a negotiated exit, and with the exception of the rural settlers who themselves had engaged in war crimes, fairly regular settlement of interests and provisions for the continued operation of the same in many important instances.

If that is not the negotiated end to a bloody war, with some leverage being excercised by both sides, then I don’t know what is.

Keep in my this is my area of expertise. Now, I have to work.

30

The split of Czechoslovakia into the Czech republic and Slovakia in 1993 was such a peaceful affair that no one seems to mention it much anymore. That scission could probably be thrown out as yet another special case that does not meet the criteria of Rush’s generalization. However, the repeated use of that escape route is beginning to leave little scope for the functioning of the generalization. If every situation is too different from what he meant for the generalization to be applicable, then what possible good was served by the original generalization ?

31

What about the US involvement in Vietnam? That didn’t end with either side being totally wiped out by the other side. It had superpower meddling, larger numbers of troops and casualties, and suicide bombers. This is just another example of Rush’s bombastic nature. Why anyone still listens to him is beyond me.

32

The issue is not whether Mr. Limbaugh is generally right or wrong. The issue is whether he is right or wrong in this instance. Calling him a Nazi, or a turd, or anything else isn’t helping us get the answer. We have a forum for that kind of thing, and it isn’t GQ. Keep it in the BBQ Pit.

bibliophage
moderator GQ

33

Okay, thanks, guys, this is all perfectly fascinating. The B.H. read his way through this and says yeah, he thought of Korea, but that he thought the way it ended was that the U.S. & Co. pursued the Communists all the way up to the border of China, and that they then chose to retreat back to where the DMZ was delineated, and divided up the country into North and South, so he says that wouldn’t really be the same thing as what’s going on in Palestine.

Me, I have no opinions either way, but it’s still fascinating to listen to the rest of y’all talk.

He also noted, “Those Straight Dope people, they’re real–edgy–aren’t they?”

He hangs out at a few tech/geek MBs, where nobody EVER uses the word “bloviating”. I said yeah, edgy’s a good word for it. :smiley:

34

Well, he thought wrong. Thank god he did not say this to my dear father who fought there and whose unit was twice destroyed by Chinese armies.

US forces drove towards the Chinese border, unclear where McArthur was thinking of stopping. Chinese after conveying warnings, xferred several armies into Northern North Korea to secure their security zone along the Yalu river. American forces ran into them, poor intelligence and over-optimism being key factors in the route which followed.

If I recall correctly the frontline American Army units were utterly overrun and largely destroyed, other units managed pullbacks in better order, but certainly not “by choice.” Pullback was towards defensible positions --in fact we badly outran the Chinese capacity to follow us. Present DMZ proved to be most holdable line for both sides over the next year --two actually. Desultory negotiations finally ended in a cease fire. Neither side was defeated, but neither side really won.

Bah.

BTW, I incorrectly imply in re Algeria there were no massacres of French citizens – there were, but they largely pre-Accords as I recall and of restricted scope as compared to massacres of Algerians. The most bloody incident which comes to mind actually was by Franco-Algerian forces firing on a European mob in Algiers, which was heading towards the Arab quarter if I recall correctly, so I don’t think that counts as massacres by FLN.

Detials in any event, the Fat Boy was wrong in every sense. But then we wouldn’t want him to change his ways.

35

I’m surprised nobody has mentioned the Iran/Iraq War yet. I have an uncle who was caught in the middle of it and from his accounts, I can’t see how such a massive conflict that achieved so little could be overlooked as a counter-example.

36

Wasn’t it Al Franken who wrote Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Jerk which was loaded with examples of misrepresentations, mistakes and other instances of faulty fact-relaying by Rush?

37

You can close this thread anytime. We found out what we wanted to know–sort of (the answer is, “there are no easy answers when it comes to Palestine”)–and it’s just turning into a “Slam the Fat Boy” thread, which was not my intention. :rolleyes:

I’ll leave it to someone else to start a “Is Rush an Idiot?” GD thread.

Thanks to all who replied. :slight_smile:

38

Nonsense Count, anyone can see by the emotional distance between Kubrick and his films that he never lived. But I’ll admit that he was one of the greats.

39

Consider 4 separate hypothetical situations.

  1. Country A and Country B borderon each other. They’ve been fighting major wars off and on for centuries. Sometimes it’s been over teritory, sometimes it’s been over ideology. Regardless, war always seems to bein the air.

  2. Country C & Country D each claims that territory X belongs to it. They’ve waged wars over this territory constantly, over the centuris. Sometimes C conquers it, sometimes D conquers it back, but it’s always a bone of contention, and war over X is always a possibility.

  3. Country E conquered F centuries ago, and held it as a colony. The people of F finally stage ablody revolution against E, and kick them out.

  4. People G claim “Territory Z is our homeland. It belongs to us, this is where we’r going to live forever, and we’ll fight to the death to keep it.” People H counter, “No! Territory Z is OUR homeland, and you G folk are trespassers and interlopers. Get out of our land ow, or we’ll kill you.”

Now, on a PURELY factual, historical level…

Is there ANY hope, based on historic precedent, that the countries in scenario 1 will eventual become friendly? Sure!
MANY countries that used to wage war with each other all the time have become friendly (Britain/France, France/Germany). So, IF Rush Limbaugh had said, "There’s NO hope CHina and Viet Nam will ever become friendly, he’d be wrong. There IS historical precedent for such a thing.

How about scenario 2? Well, the French and the Germans used to fight over Alsace-Lorraine all the time. Today, its a moot point. So, IF Rush Limbaugh had said there’s no hope India and Pakistan will ever stop warring over Kashmir, there’d be precedents to indicate he’d be wrong.

How about scenario 3? Can former colonies and their former colonizers get along? Sure! England gets along with almost all its former possessions, Spain gets along with most South American Nations. So, if Rush had said, "There’s no chance Russia will ever have good relations with Belarus or the Baltic states, he’d be wrong.

But Rush didn’t say ANY of those things.

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is NOT like scenario 1. The Arabs and the Israelis are not “neighboring countries,” but people claiming the SAME homeland.

Nor is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict likescenario 2. They’re not neighbors squabbling over a small territory. They’re squabbling over the whole enchilada.

Nor does scenario 3 apply here. Israel is NOT a traditional imperial power- the Jews have noplace else to retreat to if the intifada succeeds. Algerian Arabs had no designs on France- they just wanted the French to go back to France. The IRA had no designs on England- they just wanted the Brits back in Britain. Lech Walesa didn’t want to destroy Russia- he just wanted the Russians out of Poland. In ALL those cases, the colonizers had the option of ceasing fighting, pulling out, an going back to their homeland.

But it OUGHT to be obvious that Israeli Jews DON’T have that option. They HAVE no homeland that Palestinian Arabs recognze or respect. Only the most naive of people believe that suicide bombers are blowing themelves up in order to win autonomy for a small piece of the West Bank. As far as the Palesiians are concerned, ALL of Palestine is theirs, and the Jews are interlopers.

No… the Israeli Jews and the Arabs face scenario 4. They BOTH view the land of Israel as THEIRS. 100% theirs.

If you can cite a case in which any country has willingly carved up its homeland, it integral territory, and shared it peacefully with an enemy, I’ll be impressed.

40

As far as I know, the Hugonauts are not still persecuted in France.