CingularDuality

I was going to reply with a great big scathing post, but others have already pointed out the silliness of your desire for "objectivity" with regards to terrorism. Instead, I'll leave you with this:

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

AMosely

In thinking about this, I actually don't think there's a big issue here. I think it's good to see how open Bush is when talking to Blair. It's an obvious testament to their relationship - you wouldn't make a comment like that to someone you didn't know very well.

On the other hand, it doesn't really paint Bush in a good light as a President. Sitting there, gluttonously scarfing down lunch while denouncing an enemy's actions as 'sh*t' comes off as quite arrogant and disrepsectful, even given the sh*tty nature of this conflict and the obvious fact that Syria and Iran are rekindling a fruitless and nasty proxy war through Lebanon and Hezbollah. Bush didn't know the microphone was on, though, so we can't really blame him too much other than for not being more careful in such an obviously public place - and for his bad table manners (in my opinon).

I actually agree with him though. They (in this case Hesbollah, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran), need to stop this sh*t. These countries and organizations need to wake up and realize that Israel is not going to go away, and fights when provoked. As long as they are fighting that fight, they are going to lose - without reservation or hope of negotiation. Especially in the case of Lebanon - Israel is not occupying any part of that border - so why fight? It's obnoxious and reckless.

TheFatKidDeath

How is the Arab world's objectivity relevant? Or for that matter Israel's? What's important is OUR objectivity. If we are to be a broker of power in the Middle East than we must be taking all parties griveances into account.

leejo

Why is it important that we are objective? Where is that written? "We" are seeking to further our own self-interest, whoever "we" be. We are under no obligation to play the role of Solomon here.

I think it's a tad arrogant to even presume that position. Shall we impose a time out on all sides? All the players on this stage are big boys.

TheFatKidDeath

The word "terrorism" has various different meanings throughout history. The British considered the American colonists terrorists. During the founding of the state of Israel, many Jews joined terrorist organzations and committed acts of terrorism against the British. The Nazis considered the French resistance to be terrorists. World history is full of many more examples. The word terrorism is thrown around today by people who have historical amnesia.

Yeah, Ok, Hezbollah particpates in acts of terrorism. And the Israelis don't commit acts of state terror? There are many historical examples of Hezbollah creating terror and equally as many of the Israeli's.

Mateo

Agreed.

In fact, I even doubt that even if we did try on Solomon's robes, noone on the Arab side would believe or credit our objectivity. Too many years on Israel's side of the conflict makes it difficult for us to appear objective.

Wolfowitz was right:

We can't be the objective player, we just need to protect our interests, and keep this thing contained.

I am actually agreeing with Bush's policies?

leejo

You're becoming a pod person! Welcome!

TheFatKidDeath

If you think objectivity is a worth while trait for a state and a virtue that makes the world a better place to live than you would care. It's in the United States ("we") self-interest to have an objective foreign policy. Rational decisions are made based on objectivity and that is taught in any freshmen high school political science course.

Yes, we should call a timeout, because it's both in our long term self interests and the regions.

leejo

Bingo. You hit the nail on the head. I think the Church of Objectivity is going to murder millions before its work is done.

leejo

Good book to read

TheFatKidDeath

I'm still struggling here. Objectivity is going to kill millions before it's work is done? How does one come to that conclusion?

leejo

By paying close attention for 30 years? I dunno. Watch how many lives are spared by the sort of intervention you're recommending, and notice how many disputes are ultimately settled that way.

IMO the fashion of rendering equal the act of terror and the act that "provoked" it is evil, not objective. I don't mean evil in a judao christian sense. I just mean evil.

xTYBALTx

Yeah, what fatkiddeath is talking about isn't really objectivity.

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

leejo

PotAto Potahto. I'm suggesting that often the humane and effective course of action is to pick a side and work to bring the affair to a successful ending quickly. IMO Sherman was right.

TheFatKidDeath

How so?