Israel, Lebanon, and Gaza

[scaeagles]

I'm curious....apparently John Kerry has said that if he were President, what's happening in the Middle East (specifically Israel and Labanon) wouldn't be happening.

"If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," said Kerry.

While I think he is completely full of himself, I wonder what everyone else thinks about this.

What I found to be most interesting is how he said that we should have been focusing on Hezbollah. Does this mean that if we had invaded Lebanon he would have been supportive? I sincerely doubt it. Or better yet, if we had invaded Iran, the chief financiers of Helbollah, he would have been supportive? Not a chance.

However, I am open to the possibility that should Kerry be President, this would not be happening, but certainly not because Kerry would be doing anything to prevent it. I personally believe that Iran is giving orders to Hezbollah to up the violence into full scale war to distract the attention of the international community away from Iran trying to continue with their nuclear programs.

I don't think with Kerry in office Iran would feel a need to distract the international community.

[wendybeth]

If Iran were a pit-bull, Kerry would probably try and make nice with it or simply ignore it. Bush takes a big stick and repeatedly pokes it- which is more likely to piss it off? Never mind that the pit-bull is an asshole and everyone is afraid of it, the point is which method is more likely to result in a less tragic outcome?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

If Iran were a pit-bull, Kerry would probably try and make nice with it or simply ignore it. Bush takes a big stick and repeatedly pokes it- which is more likely to piss it off? Never mind that the pit-bull is an asshole and everyone is afraid of it, the point is which method is more likely to result in a less tragic outcome?

How do you define less tragic. I think one produces tragic (not that I really lay what is happening in Israel-Lebanon at the feet of Bush) now and the other produces tragic next year.

This year you say why didn't you leave the dog alone? Next year you say why did you get the dog get so out of control.

[wendybeth]

It makes much more sense to at least ensure a fence is betwixt you and the dog before you poke it, Alex.

[Alex]

Depends on what you poke it with. I'm not sure who you are saying should have a fence but Israel was trying to build one to general international condemnation when they were attacked by the dog.

And no it doesn't.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Depends on what you poke it with. I'm not sure who you are saying should have a fence but Israel was trying to build one to general international condemnation when they were attacked by the dog.

And no it doesn't.

You don't think a country should be prepared to fight before picking a fight? We're good, but not three or four fronts good. Don't get me wrong- I think Iran is incredibly dangerous and the Chamberlain approach would be a mistake, but I was originally comparing (very simplistically) the differences between Bush and Kerry. They are polar opposites, and sometimes the answer lies somewhere in the middle: try every diplomatic tactic, enlist as much aid as possible and try real hard to remember that we live in a global community and if we keep pissing off everyone else we will be standing alone.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

You don't think a country should be prepared to fight before picking a fight? We're good, but not three or four fronts good. Don't get me wrong- I think Iran is incredibly dangerous and the Chamberlain approach would be a mistake, but I was originally comparing (very simplistically) the differences between Bush and Kerry. They are polar opposites, and sometimes the answer lies somewhere in the middle: try every diplomatic tactic, enlist as much aid as possible and try real hard to remember that we live in a global community and if we keep pissing off everyone else we will be standing alone.

If that is what you mean by wall, then I suppose. But what you suggest is what Bush has mostly been doing with Iran.

And we are more than capable of taking on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, Brazil and The Netherlands simultaneously if we really wanted to. The only reason it looks difficult is that we're doing our best to fight without killing.

Other than attacking their historic enemy and rhetorically telling the truth about them, what have we done to provoke violence from Iran? What position in relation to Iran have we taken that has been condemned by the international commnity? What action has Bush taken that obviously provoked Iran into giving missiles to Hezbollah for use against Israel?

try every diplomatic tactic, enlist as much aid as possible and try real hard to remember that we live in a global community and if we keep pissing off everyone else we will be standing alone.

That isn't necessarily something in the middle. There is always another diplomatic tactic that could be tried.

For the record, I believe that Iran should be able to develop nuclear weapons if it wants that the the "diplomacy of non-proliferation" is stupid and a time waster in that it is doomed to complete failure. So I'm not in support of what the diplomatic community is trying to do with Iran. I'm just reacting to your violent dog analogy. You don't put off dealing with a violent dog, you muzzle it as soon as possible.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

This year you say why didn't you leave the dog alone? Next year you say why did you get the dog get so out of control.

And thus it is with the world of international relations and domestic politics.

Political opponents will do their best to downplay the threat that was posed by those who, though our actions, no longer pose a threat at all, even when those same political opponents trumpeted the danger looming on the hoizon by said threat.

Any new threat will be said to be out of control because the proper attention was not paid to it.

What was a threat doesn't matter. What is a threat doesn't matter. What matters is that they can be the ones in power to ignore or deal with the threat as they see fit. And often times, sadly, those threats are aided in the name of reaching out or understanding or compromise, making the elimination of the threat that much more complicated and difficult.