Permanent v. Temporary Cease Fire - They are insane.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

What a way to waste lives, while providing a fake bit of cover for Israel's death march.

First, let's see through this silly game of semantics being pursued by Condi and other Bush tribesmen.
A ceasefire is just that - a ceasefire. Wikipedia defines ceasefire as

"A ceasefire is a temporary stoppage of a war, or any armed conflict, where each side of the conflict agrees with the other to suspend aggressive actions."

By definition, there is NO SUCH THING as a temporary or permanent ceasefire. A ceasefire is what it is. If the fighting parties are mature and trusting enough to settle their disputes during a ceasefire, and sign appropriate documents of peace, that temporary stoppage of war becomes an Armistice.
Wikipedia defines "armistice thusly:
"An armistice is the effective end of a war, when the warring parties agree to stop fighting. It is derived from the Latin arma, meaning weapons and stitium, meaning a stopping.
"A truce or "ceasefire" usually refers to a temporary cessation of hostilities for an agreed limited time or within a limited area. A truce may be needed in order to negotiate an armistice. An armistice is a modus vivendi and is not the same as a peace treaty, which may take months or even years to agree on. The 1953 Korean War armistice is a major example of an armistice which has not yet been followed by a peace treaty."


So why the word games by Condi Rice? Well, other than confirming once again that her mental acquity is vastly overrated and that she is actually dimwitted and dense, it means that the Bush administration ACTIVELY SEEKS a third front, hopefully one that leads to Teheran and other temporarily peaceful areas. As if the failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan weren't enough already.

It also means that the year long planning by Israel was no fluke, that we (The US) knew far in advance of this invasion, and that there was absolutely no intent by Condi to reach any sort of agreement during her dog and pony trip to Tel Aviv, Beirut or Rome. To the contrary, she was there solely to take the heat off the administration and to provide cover for the growing war.

It also proves that Israel has been taking war-planning lessons from Don Rumsfeld, much to its chagrin. Even Israeli generals are expressing shock at how ineffectual their air & shell, shock & awe campaign has gone. The H'zbullah are more resolute, angrier and more popular now than ever before. I feel sorry for the Israelis for their loss of civilian life. I feel sorry that they followed Rummie's questionable tactics and poor planning. I feel sorry that Israelis have made themselves - and us - pariah nations among more than 2,000,0000,000 across this globe. Their leaders would have never done this without our approval, permission and military support.

This administration has embarked on yet another disasterous trek, with obvious goals (Regional war with Iran and Syria). It creates semantic issues that do not exist by claiming that they want a "permanent ceasefire" versus a temporary one. It's all horseshit, it is all a lie, it is war planning to the max by the neocons.

Which raises three issues.
1) Condi is "under attack" by the neoconmen of this administration. Perle and others claim that she is not strong enough and that they want her out. Bullshit. They LOVE how she performed in Lebanon and Italy, because they know that no peace or treaty or ceasefire will come until we are good and ready. This is a faux war on Condi - by attacking her, they make her and her policies seem more rational, at least more rational than the insane plans they actually follow.
2) Does anyone really think that if we truly wanted to stop this invasion and humanitarian disaster, that we could with one phone call?
"Yo, Olmert-baby, It's George. Stop now. We are cutting off all military fuel, all missiles, all bombs and all support unless you do."
3) Condi has a new speachifying oratory trainer and writer. The words she uses sound so contrived, so difficult to use properly and so shallow and empty of content, that it pains me to listen to her talk. At least, more than before.
One example - "status quo ante". What a bullshit impotant sounding specious way of talking. It is the perfect example of trying to sound more mature, more intelligent and more professional. It also fails. Yes, status quo ante refers to the recent situtation, but in the context that she uses that term, it sounds ignorant and forced.
Look, you stupid little twit, it is "STATUS QUO" - that is the common, accepted and appropriate usage, even among diplomats. Modern usage has caused the 'ante' to be dropped, unless you are playing cards.

[gratuitous]

1. I posted this yesterday

The Bush administration sets up the Perfect as the mortal enemy of the Good. "Nope," they intone, "this ceasefire agreement is not sustainable; let the slaughter continue." All the while, any metrics that would enable the combatants to find that elusive (illusive) sustainability are flatly refused to be defined, because there is no bright line that makes a ceasefire sustainable or not sustainable. There are always reasons a ceasefire agreement might not hold; and the Bush administration is famous for its one percent solutions. If there's even a 1% chance that a ceasefire agreement might not hold, then it's not sustainable, and the slaughter not only can continue, it must continue. For otherwise, how can we achieve a sustainable ceasefire if the parties are not properly motivated? Mere self-preservation is not enough.

Far be it from me (but not others) to suggest that this cynical ploy is merely being used as cover to allow Israel to inflict the maximum casualties and then for the U.S. to step in once the killing begins to equalize on both sides.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. ah, the infamous 1% solution. Darth, wasn't it?

Was not that his rationale for invading Iraq?

[zbdent]

3. Didn't Republicans say that Clinton "shot for the moon"

(meaning, asked for too much) when it came to the peace process in the Middle East?

I would think that a "sustainable" cease fire is shooting for a much harder target to hit ... essentially, they are endorsing the killings, instead of trying to stop even one death ...

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. precisely the point.

they WANT these deaths to continue. Ethnic cleansing, in effect.