Middle East - Balanced discussion

MWS417 · May 17, 2003

Quote from hapaboy:

Love it! RS, you are hereby annointed Diplomat of the Year.

Too Funny!!!

But Diplomat of the Year seems like a slap in the face. Nobel Peace Prize would be more appropriate.

Michelle

Rearden Metal · May 17, 2003

Quote from MWS417:

Too Funny!!!

But Diplomat of the Year seems like a slap in the face. Nobel Peace Prize would be more appropriate.

Michelle

Nah.....they give those to terrorists these days.

Error 404 · May 17, 2003

Quote from Rearden Metal:

Nah.....they give those to terrorists these days.

True...I would decline taking any "prize" that had been given to Arafat. Just the thought of linking the term "Peace Prize" to the name "Arafat" makes the whole thing a worthless vehicle for recognition of anything worthwhile.

And the truth is, the whole France to the Palestinians was not truly my original idea. My cousin mentioned it to me. I will take credit for "Frankenstine" though.

Peace,

RS

KymarFye · May 17, 2003

Here's an article that may be too reasonable and Administration-supportive for those who believe, for instance, that acts of terrorism in Saudi Arabia and Morocco indicate failure, or, conversely, that the absence (to this date) of 9/11-scale "megaterror" events means that the threat is overblown and the terror war itself just a pretext for nefarious, Bush-Chaney schemes.

(There are people, including many Democrat politicians, who seem to believe both things - either at the same time or, when convenient, sequentially. They're at least as intellectually dishonest as those who would try to use the absence of terror events as proof that the policy is working and must be supported, but the occurrence of such events as proof that the policy is necessary and must be supported. Any meaningful policy position - something more than a slogan attached to whatever self-righteous and self-interested ventilation of prejudices - must be grounded in the larger historical and strategic context.)

Here's the article link:

http://www.reason.com/rauch/051203.shtml

Here's an excerpt:

In short, the United States has been on the wrong side of Arab history for almost five decades, and it is not doing much better than the Soviets. The old policy had no future, only a past. It was a dead policy walking. September 11 was merely the death certificate.

Bush is no sophisticate, but he has the great virtueâ not shared by most sophisticatesâof knowing a dead policy when he sees one. So he gathered up the world's goodwill and his own political capital, spent the whole bundle on dynamite, and blew the old policy to bits. However things come out in Iraq, the war's larger importance is to leave little choice, going forward, but to put America on the side of Arab reform.

Much of Europe is alarmed by the change, but then, it would be. American troops in Saudi Arabia guaranteed the flow of oil while turning the United States (along with Israel) into the scapegoat of choice for millions of angry Muslims, some of whom live in Europe. From Paris's or Amsterdam's or Bremen's point of view, what's not to like about that deal? Why must Washington go and stir everything up?

***

Spending the world's goodwill on reform in the Arab world is the most dangerous course the Bush administration could have set, except for all the others.

hapaboy · May 17, 2003

Quote from Error 404:

And the truth is, the whole France to the Palestinians was not truly my original idea. My cousin mentioned it to me. I will take credit for "Frankenstine" though.

Peace,
RS

Heh-heh!

Say, why stop with the Palestinians?

Didn't Beirut used to be called the Paris of the Middle East?

Error 404 · May 17, 2003

Quote from hapaboy:

Heh-heh!

Say, why stop with the Palestinians?

Didn't Beirut used to be called the Paris of the Middle East?

Wasn't even that long ago either.

Amazing what hatred can accomplish so quickly.

RS

traderJ · May 18, 2003

After todays bus bombing, and weekend killing of the couple in Hebron The Israelis should simply do to the arabs what the US Marines did in Bagdad. Go in kick some serious butt, starting with the leaders, until the common man on the street sees that bombings will accomplish nothing. The US people would not tolerate terrosit attacks once a week in Manhatten, so why should the Israelis tolerate it?

marcD · May 18, 2003

Quote from traderJ:

After todays bus bombing, and weekend killing of the couple in Hebron The Israelis should simply do to the arabs what the US Marines did in Bagdad. Go in kick some serious butt, starting with the leaders, until the common man on the street sees that bombings will accomplish nothing. The US people would not tolerate terrosit attacks once a week in Manhatten, so why should the Israelis tolerate it?

I thought that was pretty much what they have been doing. Hard to "kick butt, starting with the leaders" when the leaders hide among innocent civiilains, including women and children.

When the Israelis do get the leaders in their sights, they do go after them.

Rough situation.

MarcD

freealways · May 18, 2003

>>The US people would not tolerate terrorist attacks once a week in Manhatten, so why should the Israelis tolerate it?<<

TraderJ, I agree, it just doesn't make sense.

The only explanation which makes sense is that the Jews are so stupid that they think that public opinion (how people think about them) is more important than stopping the carnage.

In other words they are tooo soft, tooo civilised.

freealways