Newt Gingrich declares: This is WWIII

[russ_watters]

Well then we're done. It really is that easy.

What is that easy? Explain your objection to that statement!

Are you saying you do not think Lebanon should make an effort to secure its own territory?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As I said, tell the Iraqis to stop it and we're done.

The world really is that simple.

 

[Office_Shredder]

As I said, tell the Iraqis to stop it and we're done.

The world really is that simple.

The world may be simple, but apparently not as simple as you are

We're talking about Hezbollah and Syria, nowhere does Iraq come into play here. Specifically, the discussion was about need to convince Syria and Iran to get Hezbollah to back off, because they're the major contributors to the organization

 

[russ_watters]

As I said, tell the Iraqis to stop it and we're done.

The world really is that simple.

The quote wasn't talking about Iraq. Are you just saying your objection is that it is simplistic? Are you saying it is unreasonable for an unrehearsed conversation with a friend to contain simplistic comments?

Seriously, Ivan, it seems like you just want to be upset about this. I don't see - and you aren't explaining - what is really wrong with it. Not providing a coherent, logical explanation for you opinion makes your opinion seem unreasonable - like it is a thoughtless knee-jerk over nothing.

Yeah, Bush got caught cursing in a conversation that wasn't meant for public consumption and that's embarassing. But so what?

 

[SOS2008]

The point I feel Ivan is making is that our president has a simplistic world view (and lack of sincere interest in it), and I agree, and so do many others, for example:

"Caught on Candid Camera

What Bush's overheard remarks tell us about his views on Mideast diplomacy—and why he should be engaging Syria rather than criticizing it."
-- http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13904410/site/newsweek/

For example, Bush makes the remark that Annan (the UN) should do something about the conflict. But anyone with deeper understanding knows the UN does not have enforcement capabilities. The U.S. and allies like Blair do, and it is Bush who should show leadership in these matters. So Bush's views are not just simplistic but show incompetence.

As for reference to Iraq, once again those with deeper understanding can see that Ivan is applying the same reasoning to Iraq to show how simplistic and stupid it is. This is one major problem with Bush and neocon philosophy in general. The world is complex and cannot be explained in sound bytes even though many fellow Americans can only understand simplicity as well.

In regard to vulgarity, or flipping the bird or what ever inappropriate behavior Bush usually can hide within his secretive administration, sure I swear too. But not in the capacity of my professional life, and I'm not even representing the friggin free world! He and Rumsfeld have no clue about professionalism, diplomacy, etc. and the right time and place for things--which at least Nixon understood. They are embarrassments to our country. It's not that Bush got caught and that it was not intended for public consumption. He was at a G8 meeting with other major leaders of the world representing the United States! Bush is not presidential material and never possessed the proper qualifications for the job, which he proves every day.

 

[BobG]

As usual, such remarks reflect the real Bush. Anyone who voted for Bush who does not now admit he is an embarrassment to our country is in major denial. And I'd like to know how the religious-right can continue to view Bush as a good, God-fearing man. Because he vetoed stem-cell research? He is an ignorant jerk, and unfortunately a very powerful one thanks to his supporters. Newt is right about one thing. If there is WWIII, it will be because of BushCo stupidity.

Saying the problems with Israel/Lebanon et al are Bush's fault might be a little strong. I'd agree Iraq and it's affect on the US ability to respond might have made Syria and Iran a little less fearful in how they react to the situation, but the most important factors are Hezbollah and Hamas.

A more accurate perspective is that the situation in Israel and Lebanon is more like it was before 9/11. After 9/11, targeting groups like Hezbollah and Hamas and any state governments that supported or protected them was supposed to be the US's main priority in terms of National Security. I don't think Syria would have offered any support or protection to Hezbollah in the first couple years after 9/11 when they were very worried there was a realistic chance they could be invaded the same way Afganistan was invaded. Now they feel more confident in handling things the same way they did before 9/11.

 

[SOS2008]

I don't think Syria would have offered any support or protection to Hezbollah in the first couple years after 9/11 when they were very worried there was a realistic chance they could be invaded the same way Afganistan was invaded. Now they feel more confident in handling things the same way they did before 9/11.

I agree. And while I also agree that Bush is not completely responsible for current conflict in the Mideast (rather in addition to U.S. mistakes in the past, etc.), the more brazen behavior (including N. Korea) is a result of Bush's mistake of invading Iraq, no? Certainly, as I pointed out, it has caused groups like Hezbollah to gain power.

I critisize U.S. foreign policy in general. However, aside from the mistake of invading Iraq, Bush tends to label countries like Iran and Syria as the "axis of evil" or evil-doers thus ignoring them completely instead of engaging them. This is ignorant and even immature. I feel it is fair to hold Bush responsible for deterioration of relations in the world due to his failed policies during his administration. And so do an increasing number of conservatives like Newt and George Will.

 

[Mickey]

SOS2008, I'm waiting to see how much blame you'll leave for Middle East countries for Middle East conflict. If any.

 

[brutus47]

I haven't kept up with everything lately, but I do believe this is the start of WWIII. Does anyone else see a nuclear atack on Israel coming? My mind is made up that Iran is just instigating something much bigger. I hope I'm wrong, but there is definitely something brewing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The quote wasn't talking about Iraq. Are you just saying your objection is that it is simplistic? Are you saying it is unreasonable for an unrehearsed conversation with a friend to contain simplistic comments?

Seriously, Ivan, it seems like you just want to be upset about this. I don't see - and you aren't explaining - what is really wrong with it. Not providing a coherent, logical explanation for you opinion makes your opinion seem unreasonable - like it is a thoughtless knee-jerk over nothing.

Yeah, Bush got caught cursing in a conversation that wasn't meant for public consumption and that's embarassing. But so what?

The last time I checked, you were defending his statement as foreign policy.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The point I feel Ivan is making is that our president has a simplistic world view (and lack of sincere interest in it), and I agree, and so do many others, for example:

I knew that you could keep up SOS.

 

[kyleb]

That simplistic world view strikes me more as an insincere interest.

 

[BobG]

I haven't kept up with everything lately, but I do believe this is the start of WWIII. Does anyone else see a nuclear atack on Israel coming? My mind is made up that Iran is just instigating something much bigger. I hope I'm wrong, but there is definitely something brewing.

It's kind of hard to put the current situation into perspective. In terms of the level of violence, it's been worse in the past (1948, 1967, 1973, early 80's, for example).

It does feel different than past Israel-Lebanon-Syria fights, though. There's been a lot of change in the Middle East and that makes things a lot more unpredictable. How the spread of democracy turned out in Lebanon and with the Palestinians make things look more pessimistic, as well. Westerners look at that and wonder why an election failed to change the entire culture.

I don't know about Iran, either. Their president doesn't wield the real power. The quieter ayatollahs behind him really run the country. I don't think Iran could put nukes on a missile this year, anyway. A lot of what the Iranian president says is rhetoric. They can still help heat things up just with rhetoric, money, and weapons.

I'd say chances of the Middle East turning into WWIII are a lot better than they were a few years ago, but still pretty slim.

 

[kyleb]

How the spread of democracy turned out in Lebanon and with the Palestinians make things look more pessimistic, as well. Westerners look at that and wonder why an election failed to change the entire culture.

Just in America, in Europe their media reports openly on Israel's nearly 40 year occupation and contentious expansion onto Palestinian land which is holding back their culture.

And you are right that Iran could not put nukes on a missile this year, they are many years away from that.

 

[SOS2008]

SOS2008, I'm waiting to see how much blame you'll leave for Middle East countries for Middle East conflict. If any.

The root of the Israeli-Arab conflict is the creation of Israel as a nation state, which could not have happened without U.S. leadership. Since that time the U.S. has shown biased support for Israel, which has further fueled Arab hatred for both Israel and the U.S. Of course it takes two to fight, but the U.S. should be a leader along with the international community to find a solution that is fair for all. Israel wants it's existence accepted, but this won't happen until both governments are mutually recognized. And if Israel wants a buffer zone, they need to make the zone inside their own border (and such zones usually work best if the area is not developed ).

In regard to Syria and/or Iran, both countries have been in fear of U.S. invasion. Causing conflict elsewhere that keeps the U.S. stretched thin is a good defensive measure. We say Israel has a right to self defense, so can we blame Syria or Iran for doing the same? Once again, if the U.S. would engage these countries rather than threaten them, this would not be the case.

The UN is valuable for providing a global position, and most of all international peace-keeping efforts. Why not get to work on a permanent solution to the Israeli/Arab conflict? Then terrorist groups like Hezbollah won't have as much a reason to be. Further, if the U.S. did nothing more than help fund education in these areas, who knows what improvement could be seen.

 

[Mickey]

SOS2008, if you can point me to a resource that shows US leadership in the creation of Israel, I would be thankful.

Also, I would like to know your view on Arab-Israeli conflict in the 20th century before 1948. How does that conflict relate to what you say is the "root" of Arab-Israeli conflict?

The UN is valuable for providing a global position, and most of all international peace-keeping efforts. Why not get to work on a permanent solution to the Israeli/Arab conflict?

What was the UN working on in 1947?

 

[Hans de Vries]

Also, I would like to know your view on Arab-Israeli conflict in the 20th century before 1948. How does that conflict relate to what you say is the "root" of Arab-Israeli conflict?

What was the UN working on in 1947?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan


Regards, Hans.

 

[Mickey]

Hans, I think most people are familiar with the existence of Wikipedia articles by now. On any subject. :)

 

[SOS2008]

SOS2008, if you can point me to a resource that shows US leadership in the creation of Israel, I would be thankful.

Also, I would like to know your view on Arab-Israeli conflict in the 20th century before 1948. How does that conflict relate to what you say is the "root" of Arab-Israeli conflict?

What was the UN working on in 1947?

Research on Truman (e.g., "Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel"
By Michael T Benson) who held a literal belief in the Bible (think Rapture) shows he was a factor in the U.S. role toward the creation of Israel as a nation state at the time Israel was formed (which had further been fueled by the unfortunate occurrence of the Holocaust and sympathy therefore). Though Wiki usually is considered a reliable and certainly the most up-to-date source, here are other sources:

U.S. support for Israel began when President Harry S. Truman extended U.S. recognition to the Jewish state immediately after its 1948 declaration of independence. Continued U.S. support for Israel has varied in form and intensity over time, but this support has remained a pillar of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. U.S. support for Israel is based on several factors: a commitment to one of the few democratic states in the region, a need for stable allies, a sense of a shared Judeo-Christian religious tradition, and as a market for the products of the American defense industry.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/mideast/questions/uspolicy/

Sure efforts initiated by Zionists were originally championed by the British...until violence ensued, and sure a UN partition plan followed in hopes of alleviating the violence, but it was the U.S. that announced its recognition of Israel as a new nation--to be precise 11 minutes after Israel proclaimed statehood. And it has been the U.S. who has championed Israel ever since:

The US & Israel

Since the founding of a Jewish homeland in 1948, America's unique friendship with Israel has weathered war and crises. It is now drawing more public scrutiny than it has in a generation.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1026/p1s1-uspo.html

Ultimately, however, something like the creation of a new nation state could not take place without support of the current world leader, hegemony, superpower (or whatever term preferred) and U.S. hegemony began during WWII.

Further on the issue of Arab-Israeli conflict before 1948 (e.g.,
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761588322/Arab-Israeli_Conflict.html
), as I've stated (maybe in another thread on the topic) historical movement of peoples in the region only show that the land belongs to no one people, so I prefer to discuss the present and possible solutions going forward. IMO the Palestinians must have their own country, which needs to be recognized just as Israel has been recognized.

For this to happen, the U.S. needs to understand Mideast culture and give up the notion that democracy, particularly modeled on the U.S. and western culture, is not the only acceptable form of government (among other things). But back to the topic of the thread, governments that are engaged usually become more moderate because they develop "skin in the game" and don't want to jeopardize that. Invasions such as that in 1982 tend to produce leaders like Nasrallah.

 

[Mickey]

Thank you very much! I think I see what you mean now.

--- Edit: I deleted some text here. I thought I knew what you meant. See, I was reading one Wiki page that made it seem like Israel was defying the UN Partition Plan, but another said that it declared a state in accordance with the plan, and that appears to be correct. The plan was developed under no US leadership whatsoever in a special committee of smaller nations. The whole point was to exclude larger countries so that they would not have influence... why aren't you blaming those smaller countries for developing a plan that all the Arabs hated? ----

Ultimately, however, something like the creation of a new nation state could not take place without support of the current world leader, hegemony, superpower (or whatever term preferred) and U.S. hegemony began during WWII.

--- The creation of a new nation state immediately following WWII was what the UN was designed to handle, wasn't it? Why do you put responsibility on the US when it was the UN's? ---

However, I still don't think US support is at the root of the conflict. The start of the Arab-Israeli war in 1948 was not affected by US decisions. It would have happened whether the US supported Israel or not. You place far too much responsibility on the US, and not enough on other nations, and especially not enough on Israel or the Arabs.

For this to happen, the U.S. needs to understand Mideast culture and give up the notion that democracy, particularly modeled on the U.S. and western culture, is not the only acceptable form of government.

It sounds like you're saying that we should give up the notion that *any* sort of democracy is necessary in the ME. If so, I don't understand how you can say that, frankly. I am convinced that either I read this wrong or that you worded it poorly. You know that Arabs in the ME don't talk about real democracy because they're afraid of the secret police, right?

Please help me understand what you meant a little better.Also,

... and sure a UN partition plan followed in hopes of alleviating the violence

I'm pretty sure it was meant as work towards a permanent solution! You think the UN has the power to work on a permanent solution today, when it started work on one 60 years ago. You can't get out of this one.

 

[Tsu]

I swear to God!1 I NEVER thought I'd actually miss NIXON!

 

[Office_Shredder]

Just in America, in Europe their media reports openly on Israel's nearly 40 year occupation and contentious expansion onto Palestinian land which is holding back their culture.

You clearly aren't familiar with American reporting on the subject.

 

[AlexHertz]

Middle East Conflict

What do you think of Obadiah Shoher's views on the Middle East conflict? One can argue, of course, that Shoher is ultra-right, but his followers are far from being a marginal group. Also, he rejects Jewish moralistic reasoning - that's alone is highly unusual for the Israeli right. And he is very influential here in Israel. So what do you think?

 

[slugcountry]

lolllllllllll