Quote:
Originally Posted by StylinRed
You're assuming the other side would act the same way, a hypothetical with no merit... we've seen what it was like when the power was reversed, before the state of Israel was created, and everyone was living in peace after the prospect of statehood was conceivable was when we saw israeli terror groups created to attack the Brits and drive out Christians and Muslims....
So your hypothetical is inconceivable
You note that this is what war is but so what? That doesn't make it right and as people we should be arguing for an end rather than taking sides and hoping they increase their kill ratio... you're so bizarre
(I know you'll likely say people are warring by nature but I disagree)
|
ummm before the state of israel there was peace?
dude... you're looking at just a tiny slice of a slice of the picture... how about we look at that area... for the past 2500 years?
i think your "living in peace" is overshadowed by all the war there. there has always been more war than peace there.
I was not saying it would be better to reverse the roles. I'm saying if the roles were reversed, you'd just be rooting for the side that was taking more casualties.
i was trying to make a point that it doesn't matter. you picking sides is completely biased and ... it makes no difference.
no matter how many times you play back time. no matter how many times you change anything. one side in that area will always be getting its ass beat hard.
you either pick A or B. one of those sides will suffer massive casualties. There is NO DOUBT about it.
throughout all of history (for simplicity sake we'll only go back 2000 years)... name a period there where peace dominated for more than 1 life time. LOL never.
there IS no END. thats what i am saying. your concept of END is delusional.
what are they all gonna do? put their weapons down, pump some hardwell and drop some MDMA together?
like i said before, this is THE best scenario for everyone. it LITERALLY is the best. not theoretical best (my hardwell scenario is a pretty good theoretical best). but a realistic best. encompassing both sides, and acknowledging what both sides encompass and all their values and needs and wants and desires....
this is the best situation for both sides. they both get what they want. any other way, and one side will be taken out completely.
if there was a better way, a better scenario that both parties could agree on, THEY WOULD ALREADY BE DOING IT!!! as soon as a better plan/idea emerges that satisfies both parties... they would both immediately adapt this new better scenario... but there just ISNT one that satisfies both sides...
they both want that land. at almost any cost. so... this is what they're doing. fighting for it. and israel is winning. it's as simple as that.
they dont care about lives as much as the land. they don't care about lives as much as their culture. they ONLY CARE ABOUT control of that land.
so understand that. side A, and side B, both want that land for their own. side A and B will never merge and never share it. the best option, and a win win for both sides, is the current result: war with each other.
they both get a shot at what they want. and the risk they take to attain that goal is annihilation.
it's very simple.
BOTH SIDES...don't care about lives. they care about their goal. attaining control of that area. the cost of that goal is lives. and they're willing to expend lives to do it.
you tell me what you're gonna do? you (party C) go in between them and tell them they're not allowed to fight for the land? they're not allowed to expend lives? they must talk instead? lol... talk about what? how they're NOT gonna share? how they all want it FOR THEMSELVES? how no matter what as long as they're alive they're gonna try to take it back from the other side?
the only way is to go in with your own superior military and take it all over yourself and dominate it the way you want and FORCE peace.
it's the same reason the americans dropped a nuke on japan. japan wouldnt of given up until that happened. we (westerners) would do it again, but we're not the only one with nukes anymore. so that option isn't too viable.
the BEST scenario is another korean war. a stalemate. a border put up and a endless ceasefire/stalemate. but you just know both sides entire existence will be to plan around taking the land back... waiting for that day where the other side is weak, and they'll launch another attack... they have mini stalemates, ceasefires lol. so really it makes no diff. we all know one day north korea is gonna get crushed or try to do something stupid. why delay it. just let it happen. its INEVITABLE. 30 year ceasefire, 5 hour ceasefire. whatever, same shit. get it over with... maybe they'll come to realisation when they hit rock bottom... or they'll just embrace martyrdom.
and yes, people are warring by nature. let's replace the word warring with hunting and domination of territory. like almost any other animal.
lions spray piss and hunt food in their territory. humans do the same. instead of piss we put up walls and signs, and our hunting involves using technological advanced weapons.
as long as there is the thought of "me" and "i" and "mine", people will always treat each other like shit.